Less than a year beforehand Bob Parker was being hailed as a hero, earning international plaudits for the way he rallied a shaken city: "there in front of the news cameras almost from the moment the deadly earthquake struck".

“He’s shown his mettle in a crisis, worked his butt off to get on top of complicated issues”, somebody from the Christchurch Development Agency told the Los Angeles Times.

A crisis volunteer said Parker had the right mix of taskmaster and cheerleader. “There’s no political spin. He’s just there, like your dad, reminding you of the things you need to do when times are bad.”

So what has happened in the last twelve months, for a city to turn on its mayor so vehemently?  Only the protesters or those within the inner circle of council’s governance and management can truly answer that question.

To observers from outside the city the increase in Tony Marryatt’s salary appears to be the culprit. Those forced to still pay rates on properties they cannot occupy would obviously find it difficult to stomach this pay rise. Similarly those volunteers who rolled their sleeves and took to the shovel may have reason to feel aggrieved to discover how much the city’s manager earns every week. But there has to be more than that – something that has evidently been simmering for some time.

In his public statements, Mayor Parker has made reference to A and B teams, to ‘trust’, to ‘leaks’ and other reasons that the council has come across as dysfunctional.

Fair comment.

In a crisis, people like to think that those elected to represent them will operate as a well-oiled machine, working in harmony with each other for the good of the city.  In a crisis, most people would prefer a council to get on with it, rather than waste time on pointless debate that does little to alleviate their own inconveniences.

As a councillor, albeit far removed from the issues Christchurch faces, I’d like to think that even in a crisis there is a glimmer of hope for democracy. Because it is only when council debates matters openly and honestly, that councillors warrant their own remuneration. It's all too easy to sit back and rubber stamp any resolution that management recommends. It's all too easy for a mayor to gather around those who are likely to be supportive of what he wants, and exclude those who are likely to be a nuisance.

When decisions are made by a select few without the transparency that is supposed to be the cornerstone of local government legislation then citizens have every reason to take to the streets and demand the reinstatement of their democratic rights.

I must confess that as a councillor the first I knew of our own CEO’s pay rise in 2011 was when I read about it on the front page of the Dominion Post last week. I’ve checked through the list of council meetings last year and can see no reference to any meeting of the Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Agreement Review Special Committee. Nor have I seen any minutes of that committee come up for adoption.  If anybody asks me to justify our CEO’s pay rise, I’m completely in the dark. I can’t even say who authorised the pay rise.

Christchurch ratepayers may have reason to feel disgruntled about the information now coming out into the open, but at least Mayor Parker is still prepared to front up to the media, and that has got to be a plus.