Back in 1989 the government-decreed new-look councils came into being. On the one hand large councils gobbled up lots of small community-driven councils. On the other hand, legislation decreed that the operations of these new, larger councils would be isolated from councillor interference by restricting their influence over management.

Under the new legislation, councillors involvement in City Hall operations is now confined to that of appointing just one employee, that of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Their appointee then tells them, each year, how many millions he or she needs to hire and pay staff to run the show.

But that's it. Legislation discourages councillors from dropping in on a departmental manager - or even phoning in - and demanding answers for questions about this or that, even if the question has come from a constituent in the first place. Unless, of course, a favoured councillor is invited in by the departmental manager. Other than that, councillors must now channel questions through the mayor to the CEO (These lordly beings used to be referred to as the Town Clerk, with responsibility in the good/bad old days to the Engineer and elected officers). The CEO is now supreme commander of the city's bureaucracy. The CEO alone decides who gets to enjoy the privileges of City Hall employment. The CEO alone supervises and directs the entire operation. The CEO is the ultimate arbitrator of all the money that comes and goes.

Once councillors have signed off on a project, the CEO alone has the ultimate power of deciding what matters will be put before councillors during its progress. In fact, the chief boffin isn't required to say anything at all about a councillor-approved project until it is completed - witness the multi-million budget overrun of the Baywave Aquatic and Leisure Centre project which made know the public only after the project was finished.

Councillors do get to decide what among the projects placed before them by the CEO will proceed, or how much will be spent on each project, based, of course, on budgets presented by or on behalf of the CEO. As demonstrated by the temporary termination of the museum project, councillors are able to stop a project that has made its way into the Long Term Council Community Plan. In this particular case after City Hall had spent an incredible apparently unbudgeted $800,000 or so on the 'investigation' process. Guess who is now paying for that particular money munching exercise. The cheque-writing ratepayers of course.

However, a three-page report in the present Annual Plan (08/09 budget) presented and published by City Hall (read council middle management with the approval of their CEO boss) strongly reminds readers what a bad, bad decision councillors made. (More on this later.)

As to the fact that voters really made this decision by dumping most of the councillors promoting the museum: the CEO-appointed boffins are not actually answerable to the electorate. They are only answerable to their boss, the CEO. This, in their view, is just as well for the progress of the city. After all, City Hall knows what's best for us.

Which brings me to the discovery I made when on a miserable wet and windy winter day I took to reading the 2008/09 Annual Plan, as one does on a wet and miserable winter's day.

The very first thing I noticed, right their on the cover, was the words, "our Place our People". Now, just in case the reader misses it, these words again take pride of place on the inside cover. Then again on page 5: "Section 1. our city."

The Annual Plan is in large part a City Hall propaganda production. It is for the most part flimflam with a minimum of substance. It is a bureaucratic showpiece designed to confuse and discourage the reader from continuing past the mayor's introduction on page one. (More on that in a later blog.)

Councillors do have an input into the financial section through their vetting of the annual wish list presented to them by the CEO's minions. But, essentially, the Annual Plan is a staff publication.

Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that when the back office faceless ones decided on being upfront by referring to residents, and in particular, us cheque-writing ratepayers, as "our Place our People", they actually meant it.

Tauranga, it seems, belongs to the City Hall Mandarins, along with the people who live in it. Perhaps they see the entire city and its people as a Council Controlled Organisation under the direct supervision of the C.E.O. (The city's Godfather, no less.)

All we payers and voters can hope for is that there is a majority on council who will whenever possible rein in City Hall's empire-expanding excesses. Particularly in respect of their horrendously expensive City Hall Iconic Tower status symbol projects.