Archive for August 2013
OIA request to charities commission
August 23, 2013 | 
Author 
I am extremely concerned with the standards that the Charities commission adopts when it comes to trusts, it appears that the notion that all you need is a trust deed is correct. even to the extent that you can lose your deed or claim to have lost your deed and make up a different deed years later and back date it. this to me creates a legal fiction where are the standards. ? When you park for 5 minutes in excess of your time these standards are very real but for charities near enough is apparently good enough.
The following is my latest OIA to the charities commission with regards to the fictional trust which operated in Waitakere city using rate payers money.
I have in the past made a number of complaints with regards to the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
The charity commission somehow condones what this charity gets up to base on documents which are years old and without considering the facts.
I am therefore making this an official information act request to seek the information on which the charities commission relies upon to give credibility to the actions of this charity I will give you the evidence then I will ask for the information throughout the document.
Please note that this document has hyperlinks which open the evidence on which I rely .
I will also be posting this on Transparency .net .nz for transparency purposes.
The Animal welfare Institute charity trust deed 1.3.2000 . Allegedly revoked by trust deed 5/12/2006became a charity in 2007 and has used its charitable funds to pay for litigation which this trust was not part of.
Reliance of the existence of the charity CC11235 has been on the foundation document of the animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand trust which was allegedly revoked by a trust deed 5/12/2006
Documents sent to the law society by Neil Wells on 25/5/2011 are the governance documents which he calls the “ the relevant supporting documents” being
- minutes 10/5/2006
- Resignation of Giltrap
- Resignation of Grove
- Email to Wyn Hoadley
- 13 July 2006 telephone meeting
- Minutes 14/8/2006
An audit report received by me early September 2011 dated 20/7/2009 did much to unravel the truth behind AWINZ due to the information it contained..
This audit report had been made in the course of an official government enquiry into the activities of this alleged trust
1. The audit report under point 4.1.2 states:
“We found that despite being set up in 2000, AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004. Since its inception (and at time of the audit), AWINZ has held 4 Trust Board meetings. The deed of trust and Revocation required 24 meetings between the financial years of 2001/02-2007/08. There were no meetings for three of the 7 financial years of operation.”
2. There were therefore no other meetings of the alleged trust other than the four occasions mentioned up until August 2008 when the audit was conducted .
3. The documents from the law society accounted for all four meetings as follows.
- 2004 referred to in the minutes 10/5/2006
- The meeting 10/5/2006
- 13 July 2006 telephone meeting
- 14/8/2006 meeting
5. Section 7 of the trust deed 1.3.2000 – Term of Office and Vacancies (a) The term of appointment of each Trustee shall be 3 years provided that upon the expiry of any term of any term of appointment each Trustee, unless a person to whom any of the provisions of clause 7.3 (b) {i), (iii), (iv), (v} or (vi) applies, shall be eligible for reappointment.
a. The deed was signed 1.3.2000 when Tom Didovich drove to each trustee and witnessed their signatures.
i. It is significant that Didovich is now a trustee according to the trust deed 5/12/2006
b. By the terms of the trust deed 1.3.2000 “ term of office “ the trustees term expired 1.3.2003
- There were no meetings there were therefore no reappointments.
- This means that from 1.3.2003 the trust which had no assets, had no trustees and therefore ceased to exist.
Why the deed 5/12/2006 is not a deed of Revocation
- The deed dated 5/12/ 2006 is therefore not a deed of revocation because
- there was no continuity of trust- there was nothing to revoke
- there was no meeting to alter the deed
- there was no resolution to change the deed.
- If anything it is the deed of an entirely new trust.
- This trust became a charity and used the charitable funds to fund litigation which commenced before this trust was formed.- see statement of claim
OIA question 1 If there is an argument for the trust continuing to exist after t1.3.2003 could you please advise what evidence you considered being case law . legislation or any other evidence ( other than an assumption) which gives the trust established 1.3.2000 any legal continuity after 1.3.2003.
OIA question 2 If the trust ceased to exist on 1.3.2003 because by its own trust deed the trustees were not re appointed how can the trust deed 5/12/2006have any legal standing since it is revoking a non-existent trust. Please provide all evidence which you considered which would give a legal foundation to the deed 5/12/2006 being a deed of revocation or any deed which gives continuity of trust. ( please refer to the minutes of the meetings it appears that there was no meeting when this deed was signed and no resolutions to change the deed.)
Appointment of HOADLEY
- With regards to the appointment of Wyn Hoadley if the trust had existed legally (by acting according to its deed ) or by any evidence which you may rely on , then her appointment should have been made in accordance with Section 4 of the Charitable trust act 1957 which provides for the appointment of trustees ,
4 Evidence of appointment of trustees
· (1) For the purpose of preserving evidence of every appointment of new trustees to which section 3 applies and of the persons in whom any estate or interest in property from time to time becomes legally vested, every such appointment shall be made to appear by a memorandum under the hand of the chairman for the time being of the meeting at which the appointment was made, and shall be executed either in the presence of that meeting or at any time after that meeting, and attested by 2 or more witnesses.
(2) Any such memorandum may be in the form or to the effect of Schedule 1, or as near thereto as circumstances will allow, and may be given and shall be received as evidence in all courts and proceedings in the same manner and on the like proof as deeds, and shall be evidence of the truth of the several matters therein stated.
- The only record of Hoadley appointment are the minutes 10/5/2006 , these minutes were missing in 2008 according to the audit report recorded as follows
“Neil Wells was unwilling to allow MAF’s auditors to sight all AWINZ papers and records on the basis that some papers and records were either confidential or unrelated to AWINZ role as an approved organisation. This limited the evidence available to us to for our opinion. We were advised that AWINZ does not own any computers or other assets and that Neil Wells uses his own personal laptop for AWINZ business. Neil told us that ,a recent computer problem with his personal laptop meant that many of AWlNZ governance and business activity records (e.g , emails concerning agreements and discussions-between Trustees) had been lost.“
4.1.3 “During our audit visit, we were unable to review all records of commitments and decisions made by the organisation. Neil Wells told us that many of the electronic copies of these records had been lost in a computer hardware accident.”
- The minutes which allegedly confirm Hoadley’s appointment were created in 2011 (right click on the open document and select properties ) .minutes 10/5/2006
- The Deed however sets out criteria for legal minutes and these minutes are not legally acceptable minutes according to the trust deed as they have not been signed according to the provisions of the trust deed
11.11 Minutes of Meetings:
Minutes of all resolutions and proceedings of all meetings of the Trustees shall be prepared by the Secretary and. if confirmed at a subsequent meeting of the Trustees, shall be signed by the chairperson of the meeting as a true and correct record of those proceedings
- Additionally the deed ( singular ) was missing and she was appointed under a section number ( 7a) which does not appear in the only deed relied upon as being a copy of the true deed
OIA question 3 Please provide all evidence on which you rely for the valid appointment of Wyn Hoadley as a trustee in 2006 which enabled her to use charitable funds to pay for litigation ..
Decision to obtain charitable status
- If there were only four meetings prior to August 2008, how was the decision made to become a charity in September 2007? Who made that decision, how was it a resolution of the trust?
OIA question 4 Please provide copies of evidence which you rely upon which show that the trustees consented to the application for charitable status and that this decision as not just made by one person.
OIA question 5 Please provide the evidence on which you rely that would enable the charitable trust which formed by way of trust deed 5/12/2006 to pay for litigation for a group of people who pre-existed the formation of that trust .
OIA question 6 Please provide copies of he legislation or case law which you rely on which allows trusts to exist in circumstances where by they do not comply with their deeds in any manner or form and stilt be considered a valid trust. .
OIA question 7 Please provide the minimum standards of compliance to a trust deed which the charity commission considers necessary for a trust to exist.e.g. if I say I lost a trust deed and re-sign a deed to replace it & the trustees don’t meet at all is that trust still considered valid ?
OIA question 8 Please look at the invoice which has been made out to AWINZ June and July 2006 these total $9099 then look at the chronology below which incorporates the details on those invoices .. Please provide the evidence which the charities commission relies upon to validate the expenditure to Brookfields ( which shows in the financial statements as well ) as being consented to by the trustees in a lawful manner when the minutes show that there was never such a consensus.
OIA question 9 Please provide the guidelines which the charities commission refers to for determining if there is any misappropriation of charitable funds.
OIA question 10 In view of the charities commission having found the activities of this trust to be legitimate could you please advise if the charities commission will have a need for trust deeds in the future as they appear to serve no useful function.
|
10/05/2006 |
Awinz board meeting Wyn Hoadley is allegedly appointed. |
|
22/05/2006 |
Sarah resigns when Brookfileds send the letter on behalf of AWINZ Sarah had already resigned yet an out of date deed was supplied Resignation of Giltrap |
|
2/06/2006 |
Vivienne Parre legal executive for Brookfields harasses me, how was she instructed, the trust had no mandate ! No meetings have occurred to allow her to be acting for the ” trust ” |
|
13/06/2006 |
Telephone to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
13/06/2006 |
Internal conferences invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
14/06/2006 |
Drafting letter to Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
15/06/2006 |
E-mail to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
16/06/2006 |
Internal conferences invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
21/06/2006 |
Registrars letter – advises of the procedure to challenge the registration of the legitimate incorporated trust and charity |
|
26/06/2006 |
E-mail to Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
27/06/2006 |
E-mail to and from Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
27/06/2006 |
Telephone to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
27/06/2006 |
Facsimile and email from Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
27/06/2006 |
LETTER_TRUSTEES.from Brookfield’s to Plaintiffs. |
|
27/06/2006 |
Emails from Wright continually refer to AWINZ as though it is a real person, in reality he had no mandate to act for or on behalf of the trust AWINZ formed by way of trust deed 1.3.2000 so who was he acting for ? |
|
28/06/2006 |
Telephone from Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
28/06/2006 |
E-mail to and from Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
28/06/2006 |
Research precedent invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
29/06/2006 |
E-mail to and from Grace Haden & Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
4/07/2006 |
Nuala resignation Resignations take effect 30 days after notification Grove was therefore still a trustee when litigation commenced, Hoadley was oversees and absence, How did they get a quorum to instruct the lawyers ? And there is no record of any meetings which allow for lawyers to be instructed. Resignation of Grove |
|
4/07/2006 |
amending the SOC invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities |
|
9/07/2006 |
Email to Wyn Hoadley this is a strange email, It doesn’t look like an email and it tells Wyn that she became a trustee, she was allegedly the chair person at that meeting.. This is very odd. She is also asked to approve lawyer’s fees for up to $10,000 how come this was not done at a meeting ? |
|
13/07/2006 |
|
|
18/07/2006 |
Statement of Claim Parties to the claim |
|
14/08/2006 |
awinz meeting• Minutes 14/8/2006 |
|
5/12/2006 |
deed 5/12/ 2006 |
|
1/05/2007 |
|
|
29/05/2007 |
|
|
30/06/2008 |
AWINZ Financials 2008 |
|
Aug-08 |
date of Audit by MAF by this time there had only been 4 meetings of AWINZ EVER |
I look forward to a response on these matters
Posted in 
Committee for Auckland
Few Aucklanders are aware of the role of the committee for Auckland in the formation of the super city .
It comes as no surprise that when the committee for Auckland is looked at a bit closer there are many things which do not stack up neatly and it is even more revealing to look at the members of the committee for Auckland and see what role they play in the city.
lets look at some facts.
The committee for Auckland is a charity , not just one charity , its three charities
CC43500 Committee For Auckland group
CC43499 Committee For Auckland Limited
CC43498 The Committee For Auckland Trust
There is a lack of transparency in its accounts as it only lists one set of books which is for the CC43499 Committee for Auckland Limited.
The company was registered as COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND LIMITED it changed its name 23 Dec 2002 to Committee For Auckland Limited . The shareholder is a group of people who may or may not be a trust there is no indication of this other than the fact that the shares are jointly held.
The beneficiary of the company / charity proceeds is COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND Trust this is not a charity it is not a trust registered under the charitable trust act 1957, no trust deed is visible.
Documentation which relates to the competitive Auckland entity indicates that the purpose is not charitable and it has been created to inspire business growth. It is very much a commercial venture. the crucial documents are located at the following links
Transparency New Zealand has made a complaint to the charities commission with regards to these charities see the complaint here Complaint by Grace Haden with regards to the committee for Auckland
One of the earlier documents relating to Competitive Auckland is found on a council web site which is a page which had the origins on the Waitakere city council web site. Indeed many of the members of committee for Auckland and their associates appear to have common connections thorough the Portage trust and the Waitakere licensing trust
Early documents relating to the who is who and the intention behind the project can be found in the internet archives it speaks of Auckland being a ” one stop shop ” Investment attraction agency and it comes as no surprise that one of the key drivers of the project is Richard Didsbury of Kiwi Income Properties and another is Bryan Mogridge who is well connected with travel industry and liquor industry see the Proposed strategy document here and the Interim report dated 4 may 2001 here the opening remarks state
Competitive Auckland is a charitable trust that has been established
by a group of Auckland’s business leaders concerned about:
– The poor economic performance of the region;
– The loss of businesses;
– The loss of talent.
• They established Competitive Auckland in March 2001 to:
‘Deliver a well articulated competitive strategy to enhance Auckland
as an internationally competitive location to undertake business’.
Transparency New Zealand has noted that over the years the members of the committee for Auckland have done exceedingly well in comparison to the average person in Auckland. their focus has ensured the development and expansion of the casino .
Many of the members or their associates from other businesses which they are involved in have made it on to boards of CCO’s such as Auckland Transport , Auckland property etc.
Transparency New Zealand is concerned that some of these members seem to have a very close relationship with projects which the companies which these persons are involved with will also benefit from once the project gets the go ahead.e.g. Peter Wall , the harbour access trust and BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX
We are continually told that ” New Zealand is a small place ” it is not that small that those who lobby for a project should end up on the decision making authority which gives the go ahead to the project which is then contracted to the company which the lobbier owns or controls.
Conflicts of inertness appear to have no meaning and to declare a conflict of interest apparently makes it OK.
So we go over budget and over time who cares there is a bottomless pit of ratepayers out there, they can come up with more rates and if they cant afford to live in Auckland well they can move because the marketing that has been done by the committee for Auckland internationally ensures that there are plenty of buyers for your property people who can afford to live here.
Its time we put an end to this conduct we need more transparency and more accountability.
Strangely enough Businesses don’t get a vote , they are not who council is there for. Council appears to have lost sight on who put them in power and who they serve.
Another oddity is the CEO of council Doug MC Kay who with no previous experience in local government came straight into the hot seat from companies which the members of the committee for Auckland were involved with mainly the liquor industry . check him out here
We have to have people in Governance who represent the people and do what is best for Auckland as a whole not just the Auckland based business of multinationals.
see also
Council CEO Conflict of interest none of our business ??????
The Ranfurly Home for War veterans .. what does the furture hold?
Last week I went to the movies I saw “now you see me” excellent movie, it is about magicians and magic. The by line in the movie was “Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see”.
As a fraud Investigator I have found this to be true for fraud as well , I have narrowed it down to “ you will find fraud where the assumption is” I usually find that this is somewhere between the roles of lawyers and accountants.
Last week I watched Campbell Live “When your employer proposes a pay cut” by Rebecca Wright it go me looking at the Ranfurly Home. My question being how can a home historically intent for war veterans end up becoming flash residential ‘own your own homes“ retirement village for the general public?
The logical place to start is with the History
Ranfurly was founded under a deed of trust in 1903. The then Governor of the Colony of New Zealand the Earl of Ranfurly sponsored a National Patriotic Appeal to establish a National Memorial in Honour of the servicemen who laid down their lives in the South African War.
A Board of Trustees administered the home until 1915 when it was transferred to the Auckland Provincial Patriotic and War Relief Association. This situation continued until 1941 when a new constitution and rules were set up under the approval of the Minister of Internal Affairs. At the same time the name of the administering body was changed to the Auckland Veterans Home Board. In 1950 the capital interest in the property was transferred to the New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board of Wellington.
A name change took place in 1954 to Ranfurly War Veterans Home in memory of the Earl of Ranfurly and his foresight in founding the home.
Considerable expansion of services took place over the next 30years with the homes capacity being increased to its present situation of 82 bed Rest Home, 35 bed Hospital and a 24 bed Stage 3 Dementia Unit. The home now provides the highest quality of service for 141 veterans. Since March1995 Ranfurly has held accreditation by the New Zealand Council on Healthcare Standards. Source ranfurly.org.nz archives.
The New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board was a body established under the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 1947. The function of the Board is to expend its monies to best advantage on the relief, assistance, and support of discharged servicemen of certain wars who may be in need, and their dependants, and the dependants of deceased servicemen, or any purpose approved by the Minister. See source
Until 2002, the Board’s main activity was the administration of 4 war veterans’ homes. In that year, the Board decided that each home stood a better chance of financial survival if its governance was localised and community support and responsibility encouraged. To this end, the Board agreed to devolve the administration of the homes to 4 separate trusts.
By the end of November 2002, the transfer of assets and liabilities to each of 3 trusts was completed, and 3 of the homes were operating under new administration. The trust arrangement for the Levin Home for War Veterans did not proceed and it was sold to Presbyterian Support Central, a charitable trust set up under the Charitable Trust Act 1957. The Board retained residual funds only to cover remaining administrative expenses. Source
These boards were repealed by legislation in 2005 by which time three of the four homes administered by the fund were transferred into ownerships of trusts set up to take over the care and administration of the properties.
- Ranfurly Home in Auckland, administered by the Ranfurly Trust;
- Rannerdale Home in Christchurch, administered by the Rannerdale Trust; and
- Montecillo Home in Dunedin, administered by the Montecillo Trust.
The Ranfurly trust was set up in 1999 by trust deed
The deed is of particular importance and it can be seen that the trust was set to include the following intention of the settlor.
“The Settlor considers it desirable that a Trust be established to achieve the continued existence of Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital, the continual provision of existing services, and the enhancement of these services, and the ancillary objects hereinafter set out in detail.”
The Objects referred to are listed as :
The Trustees shall stand possessed of the Trust Fund UPON TRUST to pay or apply so much of the capital and the income thereof as the Trustees think fit for or towards any one or more of the following exclusively charitable objects and purposes which are hereby declared to be the objects and purposes of the Trust, namely:
3.1.1 The benefit of discharged servicemen and servicewomen (as defined in the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 194 7) presently resident or at any time in the past resident in Ranfurly, and their dependants;
3 .1.2 the benefit of other persons in the community lawfully and properly admitted to Ranfurly;
3.1.3 The work of any public charity or any organisation dispensing charity or relieving or caring for discharged servicemen and servicewomen or persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly;
3.1.4 The promotion or support of and participation in medical research of benefit to those eligible for entry to Ranfurly as may be approved by the Trustees;
3.1.5 the furtherance by any means and in any manner as may be approved by the Trustees, of works for charitable purposes, which in accordance with the law in New Zealand for the time being, are charitable whether such purposes relate to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or any other matter beneficial to discharged servicemen and servicewomen their dependants and those persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly.
The property was transferred into the trusts control in 2002 Land title , this means that the property became part of the trust fund .
In 2007 the trust set up a company to employ the staff in the care facility this was called Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited.
Both the trust and Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited became charities in 2008. Their charity records can be seen on the charities web site Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited and The Ranfurly Trust.
I instinctively feel that there is something very wrong in what has happened at the Ranfurly home. I have no more interest in this than any concerned member of the public should have. It appears to me that this land which is now very valuable is being exploited by developers who do not care about the residents or the terms of the trust deed.
I know that houses in Epsom on lease hold land owned by the Cornwall park trust board are paying huge sums for proportionately smaller sections 1297sq m pay $70,000 . see Brian Rudman: Founder’s great gift may need rethink In this case the entire site has been leased for $203,125 for 2.7892 hectares being 27892 sq meters and 21 times the size of the Cornwall park property.
If the developers were leasing the land from Cornwall park trust board they would be paying $4,368,205 per year now I am not saying that Cornwall parks rates are fair , what I am saying is that there is a massive difference between lease hold rates on land which is some 5 kilometres apart.
It may be an idea for the residents and potential future users of the facility to test this matter in court as it appears to me that the trust has lost all control over the assets and by “ selling the business” to developers the trust board appears to me to have walked away from their responsibility as trustees.
A judicial review of their action may protect veterans of the future. Who says there are not going to be any more wars ?
If you have any more information which will assist with this chronology please provide it to me and I will include it.
Chronology
|
16/07/1999 |
|
|
17/8/1999 |
Trust incorporated charitable trust act |
|
2/10/1999 |
|
|
3/02/2001 |
|
|
4/03/2002 |
Property transferred from Patriotic and canteen fund to the trust for administration. title trust |
|
2003-2004 |
|
|
7/01/2004 |
|
|
30/03/2005 |
|
|
mid 2005 |
Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board ceased to exist |
|
22/04/2006 |
|
|
14/12/2006 |
EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED incorporated director Graham Ross WILKINSON shareholders Graham Ross WILKINSON & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint ) |
|
16/03/2007 |
RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED changes name to RETIREMENT ASSETS LIMITED |
|
27/08/2007 |
RANFURLY VETERAN CARE LIMITED formed directors |
|
24/12/2007 |
Ranfurly veteran care constitution filed with companies office |
|
9/01/2008 |
|
|
14/05/2008 |
The Ranfurly Trust became a charity officers listed as ………… David McGregor 01/04/2001 |
|
30/06/2008 |
Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited registers as charity lists officers as Graeme McKay 27/08/2007 |
|
23/01/2009 |
|
|
30/09/2009 |
|
|
21/10/2009 |
RANFURLY VILLAGE LIMITED created through name change of EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED |
|
30/09/2010 |
The The Ranfurly Trust 2010 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited ,to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the facility will be completed approximately 1 year after construction commences. The operational assets of the Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited will be sold to the developers at either assessed market value or book value upon completion of the new facility. The land will continue to be owned by the trust. An estimate of the financial effect on the carrying values of the assets cannot be made at this time. |
|
30/09/2011 |
TheThe Ranfurly Trust 2011 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited, to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the |
|
1/10/2011 |
date of commencement of lease to Ranfurly Village Limited |
|
22/08/2011 |
web capture Ranfurly trust web site |
|
16/03/2012 |
Big plans for vets’ home “A $100 million project to improve care at the Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital is under way. “ |
|
7/08/2012 |
|
|
9/08/2012 |
lease hold title 100 years for entire complex to Ranfurly Village Limited |
|
30/09/2012 |
Ranfurly trust accounts 20124. Ground Rental |
|
30/09/2012 |
Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited assets sold to Ranfurly Care Limited |
|
28/03/2013 |
RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED incorporated director Graham Ross WILKINSON shareholders Nathaniel Tolleth CRAIG & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint ) |
|
4/06/2013 |
RANFURLY VILLAGE registered as a retirement village |
|
3/08/2013 |
RANFURLY VILLAGE HOSPITAL LIMITED created through name change of RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED |
|
15/08/2013 |
I am calling for an independent commission agaisnt corruption we need a body which can monitor and look into public issues such as this.
We have to ask ourselves is it OK to effectively give away a veterans facility for 100 years to companies that do not have a constitution which priorities care of veterans ?
How is the Ranfurly trust going to be able to ensure that the current residents are going to be provided for ? Sure they will get an income of $203,125 per year but how are they going to ensure the continued care of the residents ? what has been put in place? what obligations do the new owners have and what stops them form liquidating and transferring assets as developers frequently do.. what then ?
It would be wonderful if the current trustees of the trust could be more transparent and provide a copy of the agreement between themselves and the developers. It appears to me that the trustees have given away all their rights and are left with obligations which they cannot fulfill.
Council CEO Conflict of interest none of our business ??????
Sent:Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40 p.m.
To: len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Cc: ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘dick.quax@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Councillor Wayne Walker’
Subject: Who governs Auckland
Open letter to Councillors and LGOIMA
I have just updated the blog site with an article Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?
It is very clear that you are the democratically elected members you are according to statute the Governing body, So how come the hired help is dictating to you
I see the plight of Sandra Coney and I also know of other Councillors who have had the same issue .
What is the point of voting for any of you if you cannot hold your proper place with the council employees.
I also have to wonder how effective your CEO is when he holds so many directorships including one for the BNZ and wonder if this is not a conflict of interest depending on who you are banking with.
Also by way of LGOIMA could you please advise if the directorship of Doug McKay as director of BNZ was disclosed to you . Please provide all documents which were provided as a back drop for you to consider any potential conflict of interest in his appointment.
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Response Response_council re McKay
It would appear that his right to privacy is greater than our right to democracy . How and Why is it a breach of privacy to advise us if the conflict was disclosed or not ?
Your request has been declined. We are withholding the information requested pursuant to
section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
7. Other reasons for withholding official information
(2) Subject to sections 6, 8, and 17 of this Act, this section applies if, and only if, the
withholding of the information is necessary to—
(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural
persons;