Sir, please find here with a most condescending reply from your general counsel Wendy Brandon
I originally requested speaking rights with regards to serious corruption which occurred within Waitakere city council, it involved public office for private pecuniary Gain and my assertion is backed with solid evidence. I followed this up with LGOIMA requests and second LGOIMA seeking the ability to discuss the matter with a councillor
Instead of solutions I receive a put down by Brandon who is severely neglectful of both her duties as an officer of the law and as a counsel to council
The fundamental obligations of a lawyer are to the rule of law and as such she is employed in a public capacity and is all that stands between the exposure and concealment of corruption.
AWINZ is an “organisation” run by the then dog and stock control manager and existed on council premises used the council staff and vehicles emblazoned with identical logos as used by AWINZ the “ organisation “ .
While council denied its existence MAF at a time of an audit recorded “it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC”
Effectively this independently proves my allegations of Public office for private pecuniary gain .
Counsel has responded to me and attacked me( if you can’t attack the issue it appears that you attack the person ) , she does not get the point that the issue I am raising has nothing to do with any court action but has everything to do with corruption within council.
Previous counsel for Waitakere Denis Sheard denied emphatically that AWINZ existed on the premises. The independent evidence which I have provided to council on the 21st October shows that this was the case.
Wendy Brandon should be asking questions with regards to the MOU attached and be asking
- Why was the council lawyer was not involved in the drafting and supervision of the signing of the MOU with AWINZ .
- Why was Animal welfare services able to enter into an agreement with a trading name( AWINZ does not exist as a legal person ) and be questioning the research if any which was done to establish who represented the name the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The document concerned is the MOU attached and available here
- Why was Mr Wells employed by council without consideration to the conflict of interest this posed ,which by the way was not declared on his application ,
- Further Counsel and Council should be aware that the manager whom Mr Wells signed this MOU with became a member of the so called trust which was set up as a cover up on 5 December 2006
- And was the council aware that Mr Didovich had used council funds to pay Mr Wells to set up the trust ( this is one of many invoices .
- And that Mr Didovich collected and witnessed the signatures of the alleged trustees of the 2000 AWINZ trust while he was on leave .
- 7. Mr Didovich also wrote to the minister approving of the use of staff, he did this on the letter heads of North shore and Waitakere city council . MAF were looking for assurances from council but only got these assurances from an accomplice a council manager without consultation through the proper avenues in council .” MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work).”
- It should be noted that Lesley Wear asked for an explanation, and questioned what the risks were for council it would be good to see if this was ever addressed
- Mr Didovich also sought a legal opinion, which circumvented the councils solicitors and obtained the Kensington swan opinion. When crown law opposed the involvement of council in the animal welfare work due to it being ultra vires a second legal opinion was sought. A draft was sent back to Didovich and then the final version came back which was a decision the minister relied upon… this final document had information which indicates significant input from Mr Wells with his personal knowledge of the event on the select committee.
- Council should be asking why was the council lawyer left out of the loop ?
- What was the costing estimate how much did the legal opinion cost? And how was it paid, who authorised it.
I sincerely believe that Council is keeping the lid on this matter because by exposing it – it would open a can of worms.
By Way of LGOIMA I request
- documents which show that council has investigated the use of the council facilities , staff and resources by AWINZ.
- Documents and policies which allow the managers of divisions such as dog and stock control to independently contract / sign agreements to third parties and the processes which need to be followed. E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to give these assurances on behalf of council?
- Mr Wells in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that AWINZ was going to take over the animal welfare services please provide any documentation discussion papers etc which would have given Mr Wells foundation for this statement. , see application
- Invoices for the payment of Kensington swan for all legal opinions requested by council or by Dog and stock control for the legal opinions in 2000 which persuaded the Minister to give approval to AWINZ as an approved Organisation links to the legal opinion are here initial opinion Draft final
- Why council continued to push for AWINZ to be approved when crown law said that it was ultra Vires and any minutes of any council meetings which gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this action.
- What was Lesley Wears position with council and was the question raised in the fax located here addressed please provide a copy of the response
- In an email Neil Wells states “while that could have been answered immediately by the council legal section , council decided to obtain independent legal opinion from Kensington Swann that opinion has now come to hand this week and confirms the previous legal opinion sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide all council documents which supports this statement and who in Waitakere city was waiting for directions as to where the Kensington swan letter should be sent to .
- All documents after 2000 relating to animal welfare were not made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.
I wish to add that the Ms Brandon is not employed to conceal corruption and she has an obligation to facilitate transparency and accountability , documents which I have obtained in the past show that as much as 40% of the work for animal welfare services in Waitakere was being Animal welfare work which according to the documents I have was ultra Vires for council .
Mr Wells appears to have been able to control and influence council and derive a personal income from animal welfare prosecutions undertaken as a result the involvement of council officers working in council vehicles paid by the public. the evidence is shown in the chronology this is Public office for private pecuniary income a recognised form of corruption .
He effectively ran an SPCA type organisation using council staff resources and vehicles. All income and no expense. And it appears that Wendy Brandon is condoning this .
No wonder our rates are sky high.
A full chronology is available at http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf
Truth is never defamatory I am not denigrating Mr wells I am stating fact supported by the 5000 or so documents on my chronology .
I have paid well over $300,000 because I did some pro bono work for a council officer who questioned why she was volunteering her council paid time to AWINZ. Council responded by sacking her and then taking her back to the ERA on allegations of breach of confidentiality. Others have been sacked and silenced as well , No wonder council staff do not speak up speak up and you lose your job.
Council should have investigated. It’s not too late they can still investigate I have done the hard work not just for free but at a personal cost which is far too high.
It is through the neglect of council that I have had to endure 6 ½ years of litigation .
Is Council so irresponsible that it cannot see corruption even when it is pointed out to them? Is placing gaging orders over staff who speak out in concern a responsible thing to do ?How does that fit in with transparency????
By doing nothing Auckland council is proving that it condones corruption, this is a well-researched matter which proves how corruption occurs in council .
Auckland council by ignoring this shows that it prefers to attack the messenger rather than look out for the interest of the public. we pay the rates we should have accountability .
I look forward to a civil response and the information I have requested supplied.
Because truth matters