Transparency New Zealand

I have to  question  what Wendy Brandon  is  doing jumping to the deference of  former employees.  To me  it indicates  that she is actively concealing corruption .

I have wondered why we actually bother electing  our Councillors    why not just have  Wendy Brandon in  charge.  Today she pulled rank on the mayor andmisled him by alleging that I could not  give my  address to council because there was an injunction  out to prevent me from  speaking out.

Funny  but I don’t  recall an injunction with regards to AWINZ  and there  is certainly no injunction which stops me  from   referring to council documents and   pointing out  the  discrepancies between  them.

My address to council can be found here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013

As soon as I got the word AWINZ,  Brandon jumped up and started talking to the Mayor.  I was told  that I could not continue because there was  an injunction.  I pointed out that AWINZ does not exist, it never has existed  and there is no and  can not be an injunction against something which is not a real.

There appeared to be  considerable apathy with regards to corruption , the two ladies who gave  an earlier address  on the Mt Roskill   buildings drew far more questions than serious corruption.  Wendy had done her work well.

I later got an  email purporting to come from her  which  said  “HAHAHAHAHA Grace. I’ve told EVERYONE you are crazy and they believe me. In fact I’m getting you locked up HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…Tadpoles in small ponds get eaten up by big fish yum yum yum!”

This was  the second such email I have received from  what purports to be her the earlier one said “Crazy cow. Soon they will come to lock you up…”   very professional if this is her  . Guess to some people it is a crime to speak up about corruption.

I had sent Wendy the two documents  which  i later  attached to my presentation  , I had thought  that   if she was only half competent as a lawyer she  would have seen alarm bells ringing   lets look at the  Memorandum of understanding   and the  job application for Neil Wells and I will show you what I mean.

As you  will see  the MOU is  between  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   and the  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere ( “the linked organisation ” )

1.  The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  did not exist in any real or identifiable form  apart from being a trading name for Mr Wells  alone and later a trust which  he set up to cover up  but  got the dates all wrong.

2. The  so called Linked organisation  was  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere

The agreement was  for  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere  to provide inspectors and resources to AWINZ, this agreement had not been passed through Councillors or  the council solicitor.

Neil Wells signs  on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand,  no mention of a trust or of him  being a trustee. The council  lawyer never had a trust deed on file, but then aparently he was not in the loop.   Wells  signed in the  name of a fictitious organization a pseudonym for himself.

Lets look  at the job application  this  application was made when Tom Didovich( the signatory sor the so called Linked organisation) had to leave the services of Waitakere.

In his application Wells states  “ In animal welfare compliance, by successfully leading a pilot programme with MAF
and Waitakere City Council. This led to the formation in 1999 of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and established an alternative to the SPCA in animal welfare law enforcement, which is able to be extended nationally. The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

 Lets identify the   spin This led to the formation in 1999

1.  In court Wells claimed that  the  ” oral trust had formed in 1998, but  supplied a deed showing that  the trust  deed was signed in  2000 . I still have difficulty  getting  my head around the fact that the  people who  allegedly formed  a trust in 2000  made an application for approved status the year before the deed was signed.but then do such time frames matter?……apparently not
2. As to the argument of an oral trust   the  people came together in   late 1998  when Wells was paid  by Didovich with council funds,  to set up a trust   this is the concept he came up with:  note that  one of  the trustees was the city itself.
3. An email is  sent 23/12/98  stating “Waitakere City Animal Welfare is setting the standard and to assist its future progress as an approved organisation it is proposing the Council should create a trust with which it will work in harness. An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. The Council’s final decision on the Trust will be in May”… You wont  find any records of this in council minutes  its all done without Councillors approval. Bit like the truck that was bought a few weeks ago… makes you wonder who runs the show
4. Things change  quickly  and although we were told  in December98  that the trust existed  by  19 January 1999 Neil Wells tells MAF that “It has now been agreed that Waitakere will no longer be in the trust.”
5. Neil Wells who had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act  is  also employed as ” independent adviser to the select committee  to  advise on the animal bill at this time  and  it appears that at this stage he has not  declared his conflict of interest. Why should he he was after all writing and advising onlegislatin fro his business plan  .. apparenlty that is quite acceptable here in the least corrupt country see territorial animal welfare authority
6. While  MAF  lawyers  were confused by the entire set up  the council lawyers appear to have been completely oblivious to  what was going on  and the elected representatives even more so.
7. MAF request a legal opinion   on the  involvement of  Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
8. On 14/2/99 or there about Wells writes To MAF  stating that  AWINZ will be a charitable trust, this indicates to me that AWINZ has not  as yet been set up and therefore there is no oral trust.
9. MAF ‘s legal adviser  returns a negative  response   and the Maf staff  become uncomfortable with the entire venture, in the mean time  council has been left out of the loop entirely.
10. MAF produces a document  involvement of territorial authorities AWwith regards to  the involvement of  Territorial  authority staff  in animal welfare which if councillors had seen would have caused them to reject  any proposal from wells, hence  they were on my opinion left out of the loop.
    
11. Tom Didovich the manager of animal welfare then   seeks to have Wells  complete the  documents  for   animal welfare there by   taking the council lawyer out of the loop  and this  set teh scene for  Didovich to directly contract with Wells.
12. When a trust emerged in 2006 , although back dated to  2000 ,  not one of the persons   other than Wells had any involvement with the running of AWINZ, in fact they did not meetand significantly in the minutes of the  only recorded meeting since the trust  was allegedly set up , he explains to the trustees  what an approved organisatin is  .  Despite the fact that their deed  said they would meet 4 x per year they   had never had a recorded meeting and allegedly last met  two years earlier.

 Lets identify the   spin  The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

1.  we need to look back at the MOU   it clearly states that the linked organization is  Waitakere animal welfare.
2. No definition is provided  for AWINZ  and  AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
3. therefore this statement is entirely false Wendy  do you  tolerate lies  in   job application? Perhaps I am pedantic about this because I do  pre employment screening  and to me truth in an application  is essential, if an employee tells porkies in the application then he/she is not going to b honest with you further down the road
   

No where in  his job application  does Neil Wells refer to  the MOU  that he signed with the previous manager  whose job he is now seeking.     Wendy  is this not a conflict of interest that you  expect   prospective employees to declare ?

Do you not care either   Wendy  that  section 171 of the animal welfare act  which Wells wrote and advised on,   allows for the proceeds of prosecution to  be returned  to approved organizations?   Fines are up  to $350,000   Wells was using   your staff    to  locate offenders  which he then prosecuted himself and  banked the proceeds in to a bank account only he had  access to.

Wendy  does it not concern you   that  all the correspondence   for animal welfare  went missing from  2000 – on, do you know  what a red flag in  fraud is ? or are you there to protect  some council employees? I had rather hoped that you would be protecting  the rights of  the rate payers to open and transparent  governance.

Wendy   thsi is a perfect example of corruption in council , much can be learned from it,  if you  ignoe it  it only serves to prove that you  condone corruption  ?  If you  condone corruption of teh past you will also  condone corruption of the future.. as I said coruption is like cancer   you can thave just a little bit .. once you have it  it spreads.