Whanganui District Council has admitted it made a mistake in setting up its first citizens’ assembly, conceding members were not told they would be thrust into the public spotlight.
The admission follows an Ombudsman investigation into the council’s refusal to name 39 people appointed to the citizens’ assembly on outdoor pools in mid-2025.
The council has acknowledged shortcomings and apologised for a procedural error after failing to tell participants their involvement would be public.
Former chief executive David Langford told Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) the assembly was a new initiative and that while care was taken to support participants, “not all aspects were covered”.
“With the benefit of hindsight participants were not sufficiently advised of the ‘public arena’ in which they were operating, and being remunerated for, and the impact that had on their ability to remain anonymous,” Langford said.
He said participants were not told about the council’s obligations under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), or that transparency under the Act extended to their identities.
“Only once the process was underway was the issue of participants remaining anonymous raised, and as council had not advised the participants otherwise, we felt it was in their best interests to protect their privacy.”
The assembly was formed to give input on the future of the Whanganui East Pool and outdoor swimming in the district. Participants were randomly selected from 367 volunteers and paid $500 each. The group met five times in sessions guided by independent facilitators.
In July, seven representatives introduced by first name only presented two recommendations to the mayor and councillors on behalf of the assembly.
LDR sought the full list of participants, arguing they were appointed by the council in a publicly funded process intended to represent ratepayers and inform decision-making.
The members were volunteers who were randomly selected by the council, not publicly elected, and received payment for their participation.
Transparency and public accountability are among the principles of the LGOIMA – including sections 4(a) and 5, which emphasise the availability of official information and the promotion of open and participatory local government.
The assembly’s meetings were closed to the public and not livestreamed.
An informal LDR request for the names in May was treated as an official LGOIMA request and refused. A second request in July following the conclusion of the assembly’s work was also refused.
The council argued anonymity allowed participants to “engage fully”, particularly on sensitive topics, and said publication could discourage future participation.
It withheld the names to protect privacy and to “maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such members, officers, employees, and persons from improper pressure or harassment”. It said no overriding public interest justified release.
LDR complained to the Ombudsman in July. An investigation began in September, and on October 8 the council apologised, saying its oversight during the process meant it could not release the names.
“A number of participants expressly asked that their names be withheld, and some had concerns about the impact on their employment. Other participants were minors (under the age of 18),” Langford said.
Seven members chose to appear publicly when the assembly’s report was tabled.
“Given that this group place[d] themselves in the public arena we felt there would be little public interest in the identities of the remaining participants.”
Langford said the complaint’s concerns would be “a key focus” of a review aimed at improving future citizen-based processes.
“However, the council has committed to protecting the privacy of those participants that chose to remain anonymous, and we feel that we must honour that commitment,” he said.
The Whanganui Ratepayers & Residents Association said it had concerns about the process, scope and cost of the assembly.
“The association’s concerns lie primarily with the unbudgeted expenditure of $20,000 for the assembly,” chairperson Rachael Woodhead said.
She questioned the selection process and why representation extended beyond the immediate Whanganui East community.
“For a local facility such as the Whanganui East Pool, it would have been more appropriate to engage residents who have a direct link or interest in the asset.
“Communities are often deeply invested in the future of these types of facilities and they may have been willing to participate in a voluntary capacity, rather than through a stipend model that increased costs for ratepayers.”
Woodhead said the association was not seeking the names of participants but wanted clarity on who defined the assembly’s brief, boundaries and budget.
“The Whanganui East Pool complex holds significant importance for residents in that area and that local connection should have guided the process from the outset.
“We trust that the council has taken lessons from this experience and will apply them to ensure future public engagement processes are more transparent, targeted and fiscally responsible.”
– LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
