Doug Mc Kay investigates himself and responds to Councillors

I have received  the  copy of the report which Doug Mc Kay CEO   of  council   sent through  on the issue of diversion of emails it  is  located here Ms G Haden case management response

I  have responded   as follows

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

To the Mayor and all Councillors

Please find my response to Mr Mc Kays unsigned  report re case management below

First I find it ironic that he has investigated himself, which is far from transparent   or acceptable.

Secondly Mr Mckay  is factually  incorrect and I rather suspect that the whole thing has been written by Wendy Brandon general counsel  for council whose actions I sought to   complaint to councillors about . Due to her diversion you would not have received that email it is located on line  at this link  Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon.  I believe that it is significant when such an email is diverted  away from those it was addressed to .

There appears to have been a lack of consideration for the fact that the councillors are not employees of the council, they are the governing body.  We have to wonder just who is making the decisions and who is calling the shots. It may be that we can dispense with councillors and just put the general counsel in charge, she does not appear not be accountable to anyone.

It is unfortunate that  I stumbled upon serious corruption in Waitakere city council ,A life changing  event . I was approached by a council officer Lyn Mc Donald QSM   who wondered why she was  “ volunteering her council paid time  to what she believed to be  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand( AWINZ )

I am a licenced private investigator, ex-police Prosecuting sergeant; it is my place to ask questions.  Lyn was dismissed for having spoken to me at least two others were similarly disposed of.

It is significant that I was approached recently by a council employee who agreed about what I had said about corruption but   I was told that they dared not speak up due to the fear of losing their jobs.

Anyone who hears my story will take it as a strong message to keep quiet about the goings on in council.

Being a former police officer and foolishly thinking that council would act responsibly I checked AWINZ out and  discovered

  1. That although the Animal welfare  institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )had law enforcement powers equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA , it did not exist in   any independent form  as a legal entity.
  2. The only identifiable person associated with  was Mr Neil Wells , the council manager dog control, who had written and advised on the legislation which had enabled the fictional AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority .
  3. Prior to taking on his position as manager he had  entered into a contract for  the use of council facilities and staff with  his accomplice ,the previous manager tom Didovich  and when  he  left  council Mr Wells took over the   job without declaring the fact that he was  entering into a situation of gross conflict of interest
  4. Wells  re branded  the council complex and the  vehicles   to Animal Welfare  and used  the same Logo   with the words “institute of New Zealand”  written below it  , this ensured that no one really knew if the  council premises were those of AWINZ or of council Please note the lack of  colour in the  AWINZ  logo  is due to it not having  being printed  in colour

animal welfare waitakereawinz logo

  1. He had told   the minister that AWINZ was going to take over the  council facilities  but council was never consulted and approval  for the venture  was  given only by  the division manager Mr Didovich and not the governance body. ( Didovich later became a trustee in the trust which was used to cover up the matter )
  2. Council officers using council vehicles spent as much as 40% of their time doing animal welfare work,   offences  under the animal welfare act were prosecuted By Wells as barrister  and the money earned was banked into an account which only he administered. ( section 171 of the Animal welfare  act allows fines to be returned to  the  “ approved organisation “ fines could be up to $350,000)
  3. Internationally this is known as form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain.

The reality is that AWINZ did not exist.  When a person claims a degree or qualification they do not have we all decry it. Here we had a law enforcement authority which was in reality only the man who wrote and advised on the legislation making an application in a pseudonym and later constructing a trust to disguise this. Yet this is OK ?

I foolishly expected Waitakere city council to investigate the use of its premises for  other than council business  and I  even more foolishly expected MAF  to admit that they had been deceived as to the existence and structure of AWINZ and had given coercive law enforcement powers to an undefined trading name.

Instead both MAF and council have gone to great lengths to conceal this corruption.

I have not breached  any injunctions and I have not defamed any one in making these statements  I make them  knowing that I have a truck load of evidence to support what I say . I am happy to present the evidence to any of you who are interested. Any issue of injunction is an issue for me  not for council.

I am  further concerned that the interpretation of events  which have been  conveyed to you  by the CEO  are so inaccurate  that  it means that he has no concept of the seriousness of my complaint  and  to that end I ask that   I can work with councillors  and appointed staff   and step you through the evidence so that   there  are no misconceptions about what I am on about, that way the  fraud can be exposed going forward  it will not come back to haunt anyone who  has from this point on turned a blind eye to it .

Mr Mc Kay States “There is also significant history relating to Ms. Haden and her correspondence with both the previous Waitakere City Council and the Auckland Council. “

 Just after the amalgamation into the super city, the fictitious AWINZ lost its law enforcement authority and Mr Wells left the council. I was aware of Mr Wells’ relationship with Bob Harvey and hoped that a new council would ensure transparency and independence.

 “This mainly relates to legal issues and the volume of correspondence received from Ms. Haden. Given the legal risk involved, it was decided that Ms. Haden would be case managed by Wendy Brandon General Counsel and this has been in place since last year.”

 Mr Mc Kay  doesn’t make it clear   who decided  that I should be case managed   and he does not  state where he gets  his powers from to make decisions for councillors  and affecting  Governance. We appear to have lost sight of the structure of council Governance sits at the top.  Governance that is the councillors hire a CEO who then employ the solicitor and the rest of the staff.

It is particularly   serious when one of the emails diverted was one in which I made a formal complaint to governance with regards to Wendy Brandon.  This email has apparently gone only to her, this is a wonderful way for employees to   prevent accountability for their actions, this alone is a serious matter which should be looked at.

The” legal risk” is  the risk which Wendy Brandon has identified as  potential  liability for the manner in which council have  treated me a whistle blower on an issue of serious public corruption. In any real scenario   and in a perfect world  I would be eligible for compensation for the neglect of council to deal with corruption.

On the other hand   I just want the 7 year nightmare to be over and have my name cleared. I am however not prepared to give council a waiver for liability as  their actions or lack of actions has  cost me an obscene amount.

I note that what I have said over the years has not fallen on deaf ears, the latest example being the rebranding of the Concourse facility from Animal Welfare to Animal management.

animal welfare 1animal management 1animal welfare 2animal management 2

 

 

Because Council  has failed to  do the proper thing  and investigate  and stop a further  four years of  fraud I have had to  endure 7 years of litigation  , my family has been torn  apart and  a 23 year marriage came to an end due to the stress forced on me due to council apparently  condoning corruption. If council can do this then there is   a serious issue .

 

Had council acted in a responsible manner they would have investigated this and dealt with it as diligently as they do with swimming pool fencing and parking tickets. The evidence was there I know because I have it.  It just takes someone to act but to do so would prove liability on the council and that is why I am a risk.

 

One has to ask if it is the   job for counsel for council to   conceal corruption when it is in reality her responsibility to ensure that   the rule of law is followed.  By allowing council to   act in a corrupt manner she is acting according to law. The more that  Ms Brandon  has acted to  conceal corruption the more she has to do  to   influence Councillors  because by her  own actions she is becoming an accessory after  the fact  and  is acting in the concealment of crime.

 

Ms Brandon is therefore in a serious situation of conflict of interest.  If you accept that corruption has occurred then she will lose her job, it is better to dump on me than for her lose her job she is does appear to  be  pulling all the strings.

 

The fact that the corruption has been allowed to be concealed  since amalgamation proves that corruption is on-going  as the  same mentality   persists.

 “Since approximately 2006, Ms Haden has sought information from Waitakere City Council and subsequently the Auckland Council  in relation to a Trust Animal Welfare of New Zealand (AWINZ), and its Trustees.”

 This statement is incorrect   .  The questions I asked  was  with regards  to the manager of dog and stock control running his own business  from council premises,   the two ran  parallel so much so that  MAF stated that they could not see where council  ended and the private  enterprise began.

Put simply Mr Wells was running an RNZSPCA equivalent  from council premises,  but  unlike the RNZSPA which   pays  outgoings and receives income  Mr wells  did  away with the  outgoings  by   being a parasite off council resources using  plant staff , infrastructure , the profit  was  for personal gain only he operated the bank account which was in the trading name of AWINZ, no trust deed was associated with  it.

He concocted a trust   which he claimed was AWINZ but  there is no  evidence that this trust was the law enforcement authority or even ran  AWINZ , significantly there were two trusts, the first trust  Tom Didovich collected the trustees signatures whilst manager of dog control  and he  became a trustee of the second trust  when the holes in the argument  for the first trust became too large to patch.

Mr Wells and the former Manager Tom Didovich are   entwined in this project and deceived the minister and council alike. I have evidence that council funds were used to set up Mr Wells’s private business venture .

“ Ms Haden alleges ‘corruption’ on the part of the Trust, and its trustees.”

No the trust did not exist, hence there were no trustees involved with the running   of the operation of the council   premises the trust is   a diversionary tactic a identify fraud used to confuse and deceive. The only persons involved in the actual corruption in council were the two managers of animal control   Mr Didovich and Mr Wells.  No one has ever bothered to interview the staff about what was going on. No one  has ever quantified how much  it cost the rate payers  to run the Animal welfare  institute of New Zealand from council premises.

No ordinary company would allow a  manager to run  his own business  from the premises   using the companies infrastructure staff an  time.. so why is it Ok  in council ?

 Her allegations have been tested in both the District Court and the High Court and found to be baseless. Her campaign against the trustees persists in the face of an injunction prohibiting her from persisting with her ‘denigration’ of the trustees.

 No my allegations have never been tested in the court.  Mr Wells took me to court on defamation claims; he used false claims to drive up the costs, and then used these costs to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion.    The matter went straight to sentencing and no evidence alleging that I made any statement or in which context I made the statement was ever produced and these were never tested against the truth.

The case is now back before the court as I have extensive evidence that the judgement was obtained by fraud and misleading the court.

The only matter which was appealed was the striking out of my defence.  I was placed at a disadvantage as Mr Wells used Charitable dollars to fuel the proceedings   I was going through a separation and had bank accounts frozen on me.  Anyone who has been through our legal system will know that this places you at a disadvantage.

New Evidence came to hand only after the judgement was issued.  Without funds I have been fighting teams of lawyer’s hell bent on keeping the lid on this corruption as   several highly regarded persons would find themselves behind bars.  It is better to destroy me than it is to make the true criminals accountable.

The court matter has nothing to do with the fact that council premises were being used for private pecuniary gain. The council has never gone  through its own records   to see how  its animal  control officers  became warranted under the fictional AWINZ and why so many lost their  jobs  in “ confidential “ circumstances .

“ She has made numerous requests for information and over the years every piece of information that both councils have that relates to that issue, has been provided to her or she has been advised that it does not exist.”

 Information was initially withheld from me, I had to get the ombudsman involved   and after that I was allowed to access files at both MAF at Waitakere council.  Interestingly enough large chunks of Waitakere’s documentation with regards to animal control were missing.

When I collated the two lots of information I found that there was much contradiction between what was being said to MAF and what appeared on the council files.   This required LGOIMA requests to clarify. The Lgoima requests would come back vague and this would require a further request.

As I drilled down   through the documents more and more discrepancies were revealed, I sent some documents to Wendy Brandon to evaluate and it was at about that time that I was told that I could not have any further information.

She no doubt saw how dangerous the information I was receiving was as it showed time and time again that MAF and council both had a different version of events.

Instead of using it for resolution she used this information of concealment   as she realised that what I was saying   was true.

I believe that her actions are those of concealing and condoning corruption.

  “It is the view of General Counsel that the orders made by the District Court and the High Court forbid Ms Haden from publishing any material that repeats the various allegations examined and dismissed by the Courts. Any further publication in breach of those orders constitutes a contempt of court.”

Wendy Brandon has not interpreted  the  judgement correctly , the judgement is dated  2008   I have   published  many articles   I  have   brought them to  Mr Wells attention  and not once  has  he  claimed that I am breaching the injunction  or claimed that I am denigrating him.

It is ultimately for no one else but the party who has the injunction, to enforce it, it is no concern to the council and if council is that concerned about past employees injunction then council should also be concerned with the actions of that employee and the corruption which surrounds his activities.  The injunction is not against council.

I have documentary evidence on which I base all my statements and everything I state is   truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

In court I had fewer rights than a criminal   and I have had a penalty of far greater proportion than any fraudster would receive.

You have to ask yourselves  why Is Wendy Brandon going to these lengths to conceal corruption , this should be a case study at the very least to prevent  further events of this nature an honest and diligent  lawyer would ensure   that council  runs  corruption  free, that  ultimately is  in the best inters of the   law which governs council.

Principles relating to local authorities

(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

(a) a local authority should—

(i)                 conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;…etc

Since November 1st 2010, Ms Haden has sent nearly 500 emails to Auckland Council, nearly all of which have been sent or copied to General Counsel. All of Ms Haden’s emails to council have been read, assessed for action, and retained in council’s records.

 Ordinary people and lawyers count differently, I send one email to 30 people I count it as 1 email.  Lawyers count it as 30.  I have not sent 500 emails and I believe that this is an attempt to vilify me.  I am guilty of one thing..  Questioning corruption  which appears to be the ultimate crime.

I did not include Wendy Brandon in my emails and the statement by Mr MC Kay therefore serves to prove that the management of my case was handed over from Waitakere city to Auckland council, it is therefore grounds for me to assume that  Auckland council through the  staff who were instructed  by Waitakere   have continued to conceal corruption.

 “ Ms Haden has been advised that no further correspondence will be entered into in relation to her campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. “

 I do not have a campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. AWINZ has never had any independent legal existence and there is  now more than one trust called  AWINZ plus several more groups who have used the trading name .

My issue with council at all times has been  the corrupt use of council facilities by staff and the concealment  and apparent condoning  of corruption by staff.

 “Ms Haden runs a number of websites and does communications and she publishes all correspondence on her websites.”

 This almost sounds sinister, I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Ltd, I operate the web site Transparency.net.nz   and anticorruption.co.nz   you will find the evidence supporting my claims on those sites. I believe that corruption cannot flourish in a truly transparent society and I also believe that corruption ruins lives- it  did to me and my  family  and  all I did was  question  something which  any rate payer should be able to  question.  In so doing I have become the villain in the piece.

I ask each and every one of you  – Are you going to allow council to continue to conceal corruption or are you going to ensure that  rate payer funds are used for a proper purpose .This is your opportunity as the governance body to draw a line in the sand and take a stand on corruption.

If you  do nothing then you do not deserve to represent us the rate payers .No one said it would be easy  but corruption should not be tolerated , our rates  are   too high and  there  has to be diligence  in how   council is governed.

In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on the transparency web site  so  that all rate payers can see how this is dealt with . I am happy to come and present on this matter to   you to show how it occurred.

Yours sincerely

 

Grace Haden

 

Leave a Reply