If there was ever any doubt as to who is really running council affairs, the recent highly unusual appointment of Mayor Stuart Crosby as a director in the company now running Baypark on behalf of council must dispel such doubts entirely.

The appointment was unusual because thus far council has not appointed any of its elected officers to the board of a Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).

As to who is running council affairs: on the evidence, councillors appear to have passed a resolution on September 30 appointing the mayor to the position in spite of the fact City Hall had already done the deed on August 22, according to Companies Office records.

The appointment by councillors was therefore nothing but an afterthought rubber-stamping with blindfolds attached.

Also, it appears City Hall failed to follow official council policy procedures as established by councillor resolution. The agenda item put before councillors on September 30 assured them the resolution was '. . .consistent with the policy on the Appointment of Directors to Council controlled organisations.'

Legislation requires council to establish a policy, and, of course, to then follow that policy.

Among other things, the policy requires that appointees present no conflict of interest. I would have thought that an actively participating speedway driver would have a conflict of interest as a board member representing ratepayers on the Baypark Speedway board.

Further, did anyone spot the public notice advising that council intended to make the appointment without publicly seeking expressions of interest from parties interested in filling the apparent vacancy? In fact, did the CEO and/or Mayor bother to appoint a selection panel, as the official council policy required them to do? Both setting up a selection panel and publicly notifying a decision not to invite applicants for the position is a non-negotiable requirement. It is in fact an extension of an Act of Parliament. It is in effect, as far as the Tauranga City Council is concerned, a Law of the Land.

Mayor Crosby was obviously well aware of the sequence of events. He signed the Consent of Director form on August 22, the same day on which, according to the official record, an unnamed person or persons appointed him - in direct contravention of the requirements under the official policy. Councillors voted to approve the appointment on 30 September.

There is a clearly laid out procedure for this situation and councillors should have made sure City Hall followed that procedure. Why? Because democracy is still the best system around and because in this instance ratepayers are underwriting that $12,000,000 Baypark Stadium experiment.

There is already far too much smoke and mirrors distorting the much-touted transparency of local government without councillors becoming mesmerised by City Hall's manipulations via City Hall directed CCOs.

Let us hope that at least some of our elected representatives have the courage to shed some light on what on this occasion appears to be a blatant disregard of the democratic process - and of the council's own rules.

Or are they all just puppets on a string dancing to City Hall's tune - with or without the mayor's agreement?

PS. Readers of the policy document will probably notice that while councillors are eligible for appointment to a CCO, no such eligibility applies to the mayor. The policy may well exclude the mayor because the mayor, or someone specifically nominated by the mayor, must chair the selection panel. It is also a requirement of the policy that the mayor, acting jointly with the CEO, will appoint public members to the selection panel. It would have been a touch tricky for Mayor Crosby, or his personal surrogate, to preside over a selection process in which the mayor was a candidate. That is, if City Hall had taken the trouble to comply with its own official rules!