Super city
Proposed Air Quality Bylaw- Information received from Auckland Council
January 29, 2015 | 
Author 
Last year Auckland council announced a Proposed Air Quality Bylaw, this drew an editorial from the Herald and concerns from us and others as to where the facts and figures came from. Bernard Orsman also did a article entitled “City plan spells end for old flames” and “Plan to ban open fireplaces affects thousands of homes”
the committee is due to meet in February on their web site the council provides the governing body report and an article about managing Auckland’s air quality .
the questions we asked were
1) All research which has been conducted into this matter – showing location and time frames over which this has been monitored.
Their response :The Herald article mentions the number of households that would be affected by any proposed ban of older wood burners and open fires.The information on total number of households using wood for home heating was taken from the 2013 census. The proportion of wood burners using old wood burners (pre 2005) and open fires was then calculated using information from the 2012 Auckland Council Heating Survey (attached).1. 2012 Auckland Council Home heating survey result
Our response :in the report the word assume features 14 times and “estimate” 64 times , they conducted the survey based on responses and not actual emission readings . the data was obtained from
In terms of % this is what they surveyed
this is the area they surveyed 
Now just by applying logic you will find more people in the rural areas using open fires than in the central city .
In total just over half a percent was surveyed of which 50% lived outside the isthmus area.
The isthmus area has the greatest population and has greater pollution from other sources eg. vehicles
It is of note that there appear to be actual measurements and pollution readings.
2) Evidence that the domestic fire places are to blame for deaths in Auckland as implied by Councillor Darby.
Their response :The Herald article also mentioned the number of people affected in Auckland by discharges of fine particulate (or PM10) from domestic home heating information. The number of people affected by PM10 from domestic home heating was taken from the evidence of the health effects of indoor fires as well as all other sources of PM10 emissions can be found in the following the independent report: “Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study 2012 ” this report will also answer questions 6 and 7.
HAPINZ_Update_Vol_1_Summary_Report
Our response : The word assume appears 31 times in this document and Estimate 141 times.
“The authors estimated that air pollution from all sources in New Zealand was responsible for approximately 1,400 premature deaths per year, of which 1,100 premature deaths were attributed to anthropogenic (human-caused) sources” this statement could easily cover deaths from smoking .There appears to be no evidence that wood fires are responsible for or contribute to these deaths 2.1 discusses these issues along with “sources such as burning coal, oil, wood, petrol and diesel in domestic fires, motor vehicles and industrial processes”
HAPINZ_Update_Vol_2_Technical_Report
Our response : The word assume appears 34 times in this document and Estimate 132 times It appears that this report relates to NZ generally and not to the specific issues of wood burning in Auckland . Health figures are also not available for Auckland. Christchurch and Auckland have vastly different demographics and the issues and problems there cannot be applied to Auckland.
3) Research which shows that fireplaces since 2005 emit less particles than those prior to 2005, please supply details of makes and models.
Their response :The New Zealand Government introduced the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (AQNES) in 2004. The regulation set national standards for air quality and introduced the new design standard for wood burners; they had to meet new emission and efficiency standards from 2005 (discharge less than 1.5gm/kg of particle for each kilogram of wood burnt and have a thermal efficiency of not less than 65 per cent). The AQNES required all models of wood burners sold to be tested to ensure they meet these standards, a list of wood burners that meeting the standards is kept on the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) website. (see attached National Environmental Standards for Air Quality)
Prior to the AQNES there was no national standards for the emission levels or thermal efficiency, however some testing has been carried out on older wood burners. (see attached Real Life Emissions Testing of Pre 1994 Woodburners in New Zealand)
Our response : So why the 2005 cut off when quite clearly some pre 2005 wood burners are complaint why not place a specification on types. 11 years passed between 1994 and 2005 and those who installed their wood burners in the early 2000’s may well have compliant burners.
4) Comparisons of fine particle pollution in Auckland to other cities, at what height does it occur, how long does it linger or disperse, is our isthmus location an attribute which makes air linger?
Their response :The council does not keep records of air quality monitoring undertaken in other areas of New Zealand. However a summary of all ambient air quality monitoring undertaken in New Zealand can be found on the Ministry for the Environment website.
Whilst other cities in New Zealand such as Christchurch and Rotorua have more incidences of air pollution caused by fine particulates (PM10) the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 requires all regional councils to meet the limits on the number of exceedances of the PM10 standard as specified in the regulations. Areas such as Christchurch and Rotorua have a higher level of historical exceedances of the PM10 standard and have more time than Auckland to meet the requirements of the regulations.
The monitoring undertaken in Auckland is done using fixed monitoring sites that sample the air close to the ground; they measures the air that people are exposed to and breathe. Exceedances of the PM10 standards in Auckland and other areas occurs during periods of cold and calm weather during winter when the pollution from domestic fires collects under temperature inversions caused by the conditions.
Being particulate matter the time it takes for PM10 to settle out will depend on climatic conditions such as wind speed and direction. On very still evenings it is likely that PM10 will remain near the fires that produce the particulate. Exceedances of the PM10 standard in the last 5 years have been found at monitoring stations in Takapuna, Pakuranga and Khyber Pass.
9. Exceedences to Date Auckland Council 2005-2012.
Our response : the spread sheet actually mentions how long and why these limits were exceeded at the time – House fires etc, the exceedence is minimal considering the circumstances.
5) Consideration to existing usage rights, traditional .. going back to the year dot.
Their response :There are no existing use right for any fire if it causes a health nuisance because of large levels of particulate emissions. The AQNES allows councils to make bylaws that are more stringent than the regulations.
Our response : But why make by laws when they are not requires and will not have any impact on the problem you are trying to solve or a problem which does not exist.
6) The dangers of open fire/ firebox pollution as opposed to industrial, vehicle pollution and cigarette smoking.
Their response :The Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study (HAPINZ) (attached) looked at health effects and included a number of New Zealand and overseas studies on health effect from fine particulate. There are a number of studies that have looked at health effects from wood smoke compared to other combustion particles i.e. vehicles, cigarettes smoke etc.
(Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects, Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, first published in Inhalation Toxicology 2007)
Our response : But how does this relate to Auckland????
7) Who conducted the research, how was it verified, which standards were applied.
Their response :The HAPINZ report was undertaken on behalf of the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Ministry for the Environment, NZ Transport Agency and was based on Epidemiology studies similar to that used to determine the effects of cigarette smoke. If you have any question about this study please contact the authors of the HAPINZ report.
The following reports have been used as to support the proposed Air Quality Bylaw. These are also attached to this response for your reference.
• 2012 Home Heating Survey Results (TR 2013/011), April 2013as above
• Census output – wood use in Auckland 2001 to 2013 
• Statement of Proposal – Introduction to the Air Quality Bylaw 3. StatementofProposal introduction of the air qua
It would appear from this docuemtn that the cause of our pollution is not from domestic fires, but we guess its easier target the rate payers and residents that the industrial sector.
• Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study – March 2012, volumes 1 and 2.as discussed above
• National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (Update June 2011)4. National Environmental Standards for Air Qualit
this is the statute . there is no evidence that we do not comply with statute . ther is a design standard referd to in the statute at (23) , the statute states that these wood burners should not be installed after 1 September 2005 it does not say they need to be removed.
• Domestic Fire Emissions 2012: Options for Meeting the National Environmental Standard for PM10. (TR 2013/022)5. domesticfireemissions2012optionsformeetingnatio
this document states “Domestic fires are a major source of particulate in the Auckland region, contributing to 41 per cent of total annual PM10 emissions and 43 per cent of PM2.5 emissions in 2011 (Auckland Council, 2012a). Levels are even higher during winter, with domestic fires accounting for 70 per cent of daily PM10 and PM2.5 emissions on a typical winter’s day. The annual social cost of health effects associated with domestic fire pollution is estimated at $411 million for the Auckland region ($NZ as at June 2010, Kuschel et al., 2012).” What we are looking for is the evidence upon which that statement is made.
• Air Quality Domestic Options – Cost Benefit Analysis 2012 (TR 2013/0X29)6. airqualitydomesticoptionscostbenefitanalysis201 the word assumption appears 24 times in this 44 page document and Estimate 27 time. there is no REAL data. There is no analysis of what is in the air specific to Auckland
• Real Life Emissions Testing of Pre 1994 Woodburners in New Zealand this is pre 1994 there is no evidence that wood burners 1994-2005 are non compliant .
• Clean Healthy Air for All New Zealanders: The National Air Quality Compliance Strategy to Meet the PM10 Standard, MfE, 1 August 2011.Download PDF (945 KB) Ministerial document setting he limits for air pollution, we have so far not seen any evidence that Auckland exceeds these limits
• Exceedances to data: Auckland Council 2005 – 2012 as discussed above the excrescences are due to exception circumstances
• Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, first published in Inhalation Toxicology 2007 10. Wood Smoke Health Effects A review first publi this is a document wEstimate 28 times there si no REAL data hich speaks of the dangers of air pollution , we do not dispute that, we want to see factual evidence that there is air polution n Auckland caused by wood burners.
• Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects 11. Air pollution combustion emissions (health).pd this is a document which speaks of the dangers of air pollution , we do not dispute that, we want to see factual evidence that there is air polution n Auckland caused by wood burners.
• ARC – estimation of Domestic Fire Emissions in 2006.12. ARC Estimation_of domestic_woodburner_emission note the word estimate appears in this 59 page document 138 times. it even appears an additional time in the title . The word assume or derivatives there of appears 105 times – Our question How factual is a document based on estimates and assumptions ?
ARC_SA_Presentation_GNS_9_May_2008 If this report was an account it would be thrown out due to its data being over 7 years old , the cover photo loos suspiciously like morning fog as opposed to pollution.
Posted in 
Auckland Council Rates.. does the law apply to Council as it does to you ? part 2
Yesterday we discussed the ability for council to charge penalties on installments today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge penalties on GST which they are collecting for the government ? We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all below is how we come to that.
Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a GST content of $147
The rates notice states
Pay on time to avoid penalties
“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.
You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”
The operative words are any part of your rates. The Gst is the GST portion of your rates. The rates is what is set and what the GST is payable on .
The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10% therefore they can only charge a penalty of 10% on the rates being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980 being $98 .
By charging penalty of $112.70 they are charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case ) which is and $14.70 over charge per instalment and not made lawfully .
This is of course also subject to the ability for council to charge penalties on instalments as discussed previously
If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due being 30 June 2015 then by imposing penalties on rates which are inclusive of GST ,they will be collecting a further $58.80 per year ( presuming that you then pay just prior to the 30th June )*
Strangely enough this sum is more than the sum which they give you for early payment .
Where this really gets tricky is in compounding penalties on the Gst of previous payments/ years .
Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the penalty or is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?
We will put that to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this kind of thing does not happen ???
*based on instalments being 29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that even by instalments all rates due are paid a month early .
Auckland council rates – Are you being ripped off ? Part 1
On the one hand we have a sculpture of a hou
se now scaled down to cost a mere $1.5 million, a mere ornament which the council intends to buy
On the Other hand we have a real house , a home to at least three people and two cats worth less than $700,000.Which the council is going to forcibly sell .
Then there is a rates bill of some 13,000 which was not paid out of protest to a very one sided contract where by Council was not keeping up their end of the agreement where by they were to engage in open transparent and democratically accountable governance.
While the council are prepared to pay over the top for one they are willing to sell the other because a pittance is owed. Ironically this is exactly why Penny withheld her rates.
Penny Bright withheld her rates until the books were opened just as Auckland transport has managed to do see here
So the $13,000 in arrears rates have attracted over $20,000 in penalties. this prompted us to have a closer look at what is going on with our rates and it appears that Auckland rate payers are held accountable to rate penalties in a very strict manner , pay a day late on any instalment and you pay 10% more ,On the other hand Auckland council is manipulating the law and in other instances being totally non compliant.
In going through the law and the detail we have discovered a number of things which are worthy of question , especially when the houses which we once bought for tens of thousands are now worth hundreds of thousands and wages have remained static.
Let us you through it , this is the way we see it .
The applicable legislation is the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the ability to include penalties comes from a two step process by council .
- There needs to be a decision by council , this may be delegated but has to me made before the rates are set
- The decision made must comply with the law and
- Must not exceed 10% of the amount of unpaid rates on the date when the penalty is added
- may be of the types of penalties as set out in section 58 being
-
a) a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment (or after a later date if so specified):
-
(b) a further penalty on rates assessed in any financial year and that are unpaid on whichever day is the later of—
-
(i) the first day of the financial year for which the resolution is made; or
-
(ii) 5 working days after the date on which the resolution is made:
-
-
(c) a further penalty on rates to which a penalty has been added under paragraph (b), if the rates are unpaid 6 months after that penalty was added.
-
The way that we interpret this is that these options are available and are the only legal options available IF it is contained in the decision by council.
We went in search of the decision which Auckland council had made and found it in the 2014-15 annual Plan Volume 1 – Our Plan for 2014/2015 for ease we have isolated the pages concerned they are found here rates related policies
Penalties on rates not paid by the due date
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.
Spot the difference ?
Auckland council imposes penalties on each installment where as the act applies it to the rates assessed in the financial year and does not speak of penalties for parts of rates .
The rates are set for a financial year in this case being 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 in the rate assessment which we have before us is for $4510.81.
There is an ability to pay it by instalment , or pay the lump sum which gives a saving of a whole 1.1% . $4461.18. a saving of a whopping $46.63
Relevant here is Section 24 Due date or dates for payment, in the interpretation section due date, is defined as : in relation to a rate or part of a rate, means the last day for payment of the rate, or part of the rate, that is set out in the rates assessment
The question has to be : can “ a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment” be interpreted to mean a part rate ?
The assessment notice reads total rates payable 2014/2015 is $4510.81 to us this means that by 30 June 2015, $4510.81 needs to have been paid being the financial year as determined by 45 (1) (j). and most importantly 45 (1) (k) which states “the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year”
while Auckland council asks for the payments to be made by four equal installments , the overall obligation is to clear the rates due in that financial year .
The regime should be more in line with retail being
- the price which is due on the due date .. in this case $4510.81 by 30 June 2015
- the discounted price if paid in its entirety early, this is usually heavily discounted
- The price if paid by installments which should be equal to or as an incentive less than the demanded price
At all times the right to pay the full rates demand by the 30th June in one payment should remain an option as that way you are payign your entire rates in the year that it is due.
If you were to pay it in a lump sum under the Auckland council regime , and still be complying with legislation you would incur penalties of $338.10 ( being as stated on the notice $122.70 per installment ). Compare the extra penalties for being complaint with the law to the savings for paying early one gives you a penalty of $33.10 the other a saving of just $46.63 a difference of $291.47, so why is the money in Auckland councils pocket worth more than in yur pocket.. should it not be at least equal ?
more in part 2 the juiciest is yet to come.
Auckland Council back tracks on Berms
I refer to my previous post council-employee-benefits-v-mowing-verges
I received a reply from council which appeared to have been put together by one of their many talented spin doctors I have followed this up with another request and am awaiting a reply
In the mean time I noticed a magnificently groomed verge outside Palmers Remuera , on closer inspection this may be the ultimate solution.. too bad about the carbon credits but at least we will know the appearance is as artificial as the ethics and transparency in Auckland council.
Auckland transport at th
e time said that this move was so that they could standardise services throughout Auckland, if that is the case why do people in Henderson pay $4 for all day parking. should that not be standardised as well ?
Also discovered a business unit for council this week city parks , there is nothing on the website which indicates that it is a council business unit . I did find its annual return to council it went in under confidentiality.
So what is all that about ? the web site is a .co not a govt and the site is registered to the phone number is answered city park services.
| Registrant Contact Name | Enterprise Services |
| Registrant Contact Address1 | PO Box 8428 |
| Registrant Contact Address2 | Symonds Street |
| Registrant Contact City | Auckland |
| Registrant Contact Country | NZ (NEW ZEALAND) |
| Registrant Contact Phone | +64 9 3672400 |
How come this section of council cannot be open and transparent and provide the services to mow the verges instead of contracting it out.
Request for councillors to Investigate Fraud concealment in Auckland council
Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013 6:51 p.m.
To: Councillor Cathy Casey; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Subject: Congratulations and request for meeting
First of all congratulations to all of you.
I hope that you have got a better Idea of what I have been up against these past 7 ½ years. The corruption I questioned is pretty much the same as what the prosecution has been for on the north shore and the investigation is about in Auckland Transport .
The manager whose actions I questioned contracted council services to himself using a pseudonym
He also rebranded the council premises as per attached and if you look at the flow chart you will see how the fraud worked. 
I have been told this is historic but it was operating in 2010 and so were these other frauds which have been actioned.
No whistle-blower should have to endure what I have been exposed to . I request an urgent meeting so that we can start dealing with this matter before I have to sell my house because of councils neglect to investigate.
I look forward to hearing from you all
Regards
Grace Haden
To: Grace Haden; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Jazz Singh; Doug McKay
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Hi Grace,
The last time you asked to meet with us, the advice that Councillor Fletcher and I received from legal counsel is that all of your allegations have been exhaustively investigated and there is no action that we as councillors can take.
If you have any new evidence, please provide that to our legal department.
I am copying in CEO Doug McKay and Acting General Counsel Jazz Singh.
Kind regards,
Dr Cathy Casey
Councillor, Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward
Governing Body, Auckland Council
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:23 a.m.
To: ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’
Cc: ‘Jazz Singh’; ‘Doug McKay’
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Thank you Cathy
I have been somewhat unfortunate to have had Bias directed at me by your counsel Wendy Brandon . I have sent her evidence which any competent lawyer would recognise as being a conflict of interest in a mangers role however she responded that she refuses to investigate .
I have supplied tons of evidence , I can conclusively prove that there was no trust in existence and the manager was using council resources and infrastructure for self-enrichment. He was contracting to himself using a pseudonym. I think the vital ingredient all along has been is that Mr Wells is a colleague of Bob Harvey and there is also involvement of former mayor Wyn Hoadley . This is serious corruption and the councils lack of action has had major repercussions on me and my family.
I should have been able to ask the simple question Why is a manager contracting to himself without fear of losing my home. Council appear to have learnt nothing from this as I am dismissed as some freak.
Just in the past week globally there have been a number of fraud incidents where mayors and councillors have been involved in fraud , it won’t happen in Auckland as we have great control measures within which ensure cover ups. I have I believe conclusively proved that
Ruling-party mayor arrested in Venezuela crackdown
28 years in prison for corrupt ex-Detroit mayor
Greek ex-minister jailed for 20 years for graft
Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial
Just because former mayors are associated with the fraud does not mean that there is no fraud. I can appreciate that there is a huge amount of influence within council which has stopped this from being investigated. I am sure that Waitakere council fully knew what was going on but in the words of mission impossible they would have said “ if you are exposed we will disavow any knowledge of your action. “ The on going proof of this is the fact that I could not even get a straight response to my LGOIMA requesting why the branding at the concourse changed from Animal welfare to animal management. When council knowingly conceals corruption it condones it .
I have spent nearly 8 years hitting my head against a brick wall. The very people who should investigate have not done so . I am a Fraud professional I have the evidence – it is conclusive , real and verifiable . I have given it to your lawyers and your CEO multiple times and I am discredited in return.. A good policy is to attack the person when you cannot attack the issue , I am sick of being discredited and I am sick of being bled dry by your former employee who is using the charitable funds of a retrospectively set up trust to do as much damage to me as possible. A proper council investigation would have prevented that- Most of the evidence is on your files! That is why I am again approaching the councillors.
Cathy it was good to learn that you have a degree in criminology as such you may appreciate this perfect fraud .. it was a perfect fraud until I came along – few people would have picked up what I discovered, my mistake was to ask the question of accountability from council. I was taken to court for defamation and denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, NO EVIDENCE was ever produced and the court simply skipped the formal proof hearing, its like being sentenced without being found guilty ! .
I have never done anything but speak the truth, the price I have paid is excessive that is why I stood and I am sure with the number of hits on my site that I have drawn attention to the issue .
Wendy Brandon falsely claims that there is an injunction, there is no injunction against AWINZ. AWINZ (Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) does not exist, it had an appearance of existing and it was your staff, buildings and vehicles which gave it that appearance.. very clever really.
The only injunction is against me saying nasty things about Mr wells, so I say nothing bad about him and only confine myself to producing documents which show what he has done, I frequently ask him if there is anything I have published which he wasn’t correcting and not once in the past 7 years has he objected to anything or taken me back to court.
Cathy I Made another Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption last year and the end result was that Wendy Brandon had my emails diverted to exclude councillors . You have all the evidence- what is the point of giving you more when you won’t look at what you have .
I even made a complaint with regards to the conduct of counsel to council but it appears to be a diverted email which only Ms Brandon received see Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon there was supposed to be an investigation into her blocking my emails and that disappeared into thin air. In return I was harassed by council and a person claiming to be W is posting the obscene things directed at me on web sites belonging to my associates .
I can go blue in the face sending evidence to Ms Brandon she simply will not look at it that is why I am addressing this to councillors because you employ the CEO and he employs the counsel. If counsel does not take corruption seriously then that is an issue for the governing body.
If you allow this fraud to be concealed then I can only ask what else is going on., I am making a determined effort to expose the corruption in Auckland council and have already started with my latest LGOIMA where I have addressed the issue of some 55 million of undefined “ other “ employee benefits in excess of last years 8 million “ other benefits “ which are shown in your annual report Council Employee Benefits v Mowing verges
Cathy so here we go another three years of me being fobbed off. What do I need to do to get some one to look at the evidence. I am very happy to sit down with them and take them through it but in 7 years that has never occurred.
In my normal transparent manner I will be publishing this on Transparency .net.nz
I won’t hold my breath I know I will be ignored again. After all electioneering is over and were back as usual.
You will be hearing a lot from me I would love to meet with you and Christine as this is a governance issue it is very serious.
Regards
Grace Haden
Council Employee Benefits v Mowing verges
Back on the subject of Mowing Verges
Len Brown when he heard he had won said he would go out an celebrate by mowing his Berm this prompted me to look at how big his berms were and I noted that he might mow them but it also seems that he can use them for parking, the address is 8 Tiffany close have a look for yourself on Google earth , Google maps or wises.
Perhaps this is an employee Benefit ?
Maybe if we had a house like his an income of some $200,000 then we wouldn’t begrudge mowing the berms, the chances are the mowing contractor would be doing it .. For the rest of us there is nothing like paying for a service and then doing the work yourself and not being allowed to park on it.
I had asked by way of LGOIMA as to the policy for mowing verges, we are told it went through council yet in this email I have been clearly redirected to Auckland Transport as follows
Dear Grace
Thank you for your response.
As your enquiry requires more detailed information about the berm mowing policy, we have referred it to Auckland Transport.
You can expect to receive a reply from them directly within 10 working days.
Should you wish to follow up on this enquiry, please contact Auckland Transport on (09) 355 3553.
In the mean time, you may wish to read through the information provided on the Auckland Transport website in regard to urban berm mowing:
Nāku noa nā | Regards
Emma Powell
Written Communications Team
Auckland Council
(09) 301 0101
So I shall wait for Auckland transport to reply, I actually don’t pay rates to Auckland transport , I pay them to the council who owns the grass verges .
Yet we are saving 15 million in not mowing them.. this pales into insignificance in light of this item in the annual report
I have addressed this in a LGOIMA request via FYI. as follows
Dear Auckland Council,
In your annual report item 7 (www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoli…) you list the following
7 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ( millions )
Other 2013 Group 42 million 2012 7 million
2013 Council 21 million 2012 1 million
Please give a breakdown of the 35 million difference in the group
benefits between last annual report and current report and also the
20 million difference in the council benefits
Please also advise the number of employees council has and how many
of them benefited from these benefits and also detail how these
benefits were approved.
Yours faithfully,
Grace Haden
Will keep you posed I will be sure to bring the parking on the berm to the attention of Auckland transport if it si good enough for Len then is good enough for all of us.
open letter to Len Brown
Good morning Len
I put a question to you last night with regards to the corruption which I exposed at Waitakere city council.
At the council meeting earlier this year you said you knew nothing about it but would not investigate due to it being historic
Last night at the meeting you stated that there were two sides to the story, thereby indicating that you knew of another side which somehow implied that it exonerated the corruption
Your statement indicated to me that you know a version which I am not familiar with which makes me a villain and Mr Wells an employee acting legitimately and I therefore by way of privacy act request all information which you hold or have been told of which concerns the corruption in the dog and stock control division of Waitakere city council where Mr Wells was contracting to himself via the attached MOU
To spell it out Mr Wells signed the attached MOU with the previous dog control manager Tom Didovich.
Didovich plays a vital role in this corruption he had written to the minister consenting for Waitakere and North shore cities to become a linked organisations when in reality MAF expected this to be a council supported matter not something done in house in dog control this is reflected in the cabinet papers as attached and in the audit report
Not only did AWINZ not exist ( basically that is proved by the fact that the audit papers shows that it only had four meetings since 2004). The trust was established in 2000 by its own terms it ceased to exist 1.3 .2003 see page 4 .
The audit report proves it never held bank accounts so we now have a trust which never met and did not hold assets.
It also did not make the application for approved status on 22.11.1999 and it was not an oral trust as claimed by Neil Wells as the trustees that Tom Didovich paid him to recruit were recruited under a different deed
It was Tom Didovich the manager of dog control who witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the deed established in 2000 and Paid Wells to train the dog control officers. He acted without authority for and on behalf of council went on to become a trustee of a trust designed to conceal the corruption in 2006 .
I hope that you do not condone such actions
Under the privacy act I have the right to make corrections and quite obviously you have the story wrong.
I am extremely concerned that you should think that there are two sides as there is only one side portrayed in the documents I recovered from council and MAF and that is that Council has failed to investigate this properly preferring to see me the whistle-blower as the villain
I will be putting this email and my letter to you up on Transparency and will be directing everyone to it at each and every candidate meeting.
I felt that you got close to defaming me last night by suggesting that I knew of the other side.
I was denied a defence for the defamation claim .Wells never produced one bit of evidence. It is being appealed at this very moment for obtaining a judgment by fraud. .. the alleged defamation does not change the facts revealed in the documents held by council . if you can’t find them I will be happy to supply them to you . Your own documents will reveal corruption . Look at the audit report they expected AWINZ to be incorporated, and to be acting with the councils consent . council denied any involvement. The audit report does not look for corruption it only dealt with the obligations of AWINZ as far as MAF was concerned.. no one went back to the fact that AWINZ did not exist.. it was quickly re created in 2006 to cover up
For ease here is the video The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council
It’s complex but I can simply take you through it if I was to be given the chance.
No one should have to pay the price I have had to pay for questioning corruption in council , the questions I asked were legitimate and had foundation .
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
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;
The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council
It has taken me a week and a steep learning curve but I am happy to announce that I am embarking on a new chapter.. Video.. This is my first attempt or should I say the result of many attempts its not perfect but it sets out the story. I welcome feed back
reply to Wendy Brandon Counsel for Auckland Council
Subject: RE: complaint with regards to Wendy Brandon
Wendy
I wish to clarify the fact with regards to AWINZ. I am not on a campaign and I’m not in contempt. I have asked questions from council repeatedly with regards to the right of “AWINZ “ to operate from council premises .. AWINZ does not exist it is a fiction created by the then manager of dog and stock control . I cannot be in contempt for questioning something which does not exist and something for which there is no court order.
Council has never investigated this use of council resources for private pecuniary gain and it has been covered up by both you and the previous counsel for council.
I am the victim of gross injustice , I questioned serious corruption in council and was sued for it in circumstances where I was denied a defence and the uncorroborated evidence of the council manager is the subject of a perjury complaint.
The matter is now before the court to overturn the judgement which was obtained by fraud. The evidence to show that the judgement was obtained by fraud was evidence which the council manager sought to have withheld from me.
To get the evidence it has been like extracting hens teeth. Had Waitakere council and Auckland council conducted an investigation at any time they would have found that the council premises were being used for other than council business.
This is evident from the audit report of MAF which states “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 page 9 all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations” these words are not mine they are the words of MAF source http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf
You appear to have a fixation about concealing this corruption in Waitakere and then on top of it you do business with Brookfields who are heavily involved in the court action and against whom I have lodged complaint with the LCRO and the Law society.
I make a complaint about your actions and you see it fit to have my emails diverted so that they only go to you , where does that fit in with the ethical requirements of lawyers ?
Please provide me with the authority which enabled you to do divert me emails You have an obligation to the law and as Counsel for council you have to ensure open and transparent governance as set out in the Local Government act.
I consider your actions to be a gross conflict of interest and corruption.
I am somewhat confused by your statement
I also confirm that all of the information, records, reports, correspondence and material that is the subject of your ongoing requests has been provided to you by Auckland Council and its predecessor local authority, Waitakere City Council, or it cannot be located, or it does not exist.
I know that I did not obtain everything that was in the Waitakere animal welfare file so how can you make the statement above ? It appears to be a fob off to me, I am sorry if it is an inconvenience to you that I ask for transparency on a very serious matter of council corruption.
I have asked you to look at just a few documents, if you were only a half competent lawyer those documents would have had alarm bells ringing.
The evidence and the questions are set out in my email and blog entitled Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption
The evidence which proved that your council manager was involved in corrupting are in your own documents you have no place in protecting employees, former employees or fellow lawyers. You are paid by the public and need to protect the public from what was a perfect fraud.
I am writing to you in an effort to deal with this before taking it to the law society , I look forward to you providing answers to the following urgently Please provide me( by way of privacy act ) and as a provision of the lawyers and conveyancers act rules of conduct.
- with the authority which gave you the claim of right to divert me emails from the council computer system.
- With copies of all my emails which did not go through to the person or persons to whom they were addressed and were intercepted by you
- The memorandum which you sent through to the person in charge of the computer system instructing them to divert emails from me.
- Any correspondence between yourself and Brookfields lawyers which pertains to me.
- I would like you to address the criminal offences section 248-253 crimes act what I am looking for is your evidence that proves that you did not breach any of these provisions of the crimes act when you sought to have my emails diverted. I would also like to know how these criminal offences fir in with your interpretation that “Such diversion is entirely legitimate and simply a practical measure to ensure that your correspondence is managed appropriately”
Looking forward to your prompt reply
Regards
Grace Haden