Super city

Proposed Air Quality Bylaw- Information received from Auckland Council

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

 

surveyIn terms of % this is what they surveyed

survey percent

 

 

 

 

 

this is the area they surveyed survey area

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 stats

 
• 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 ?

User Guide NES Air Quality

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.

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

A leaked drawing of the State House Sculpture by artist Michael Parekowhai.

On the one hand we have a sculpture of a house   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 .

  1. There needs to be a decision by council , this may  be delegated but has to me made before the rates are set
  2. The decision made must comply with the law  and
    1. Must not exceed 10% of the amount of unpaid rates on the date when the penalty is added
  3. 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

  1.  the price which is due  on the due date  .. in this case  $4510.81 by 30 June 2015
  2. the  discounted price if paid  in its entirety early, this is usually heavily discounted
  3. 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

palmers turfI 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 thhenersone 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

wells flow chart_Page_2Sent: 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                wells flow chart_Page_1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             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

 7

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

lens house

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:

http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/maintenance/Road/Pages/Urban-Berm-Mowing.aspx

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

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/brown.jpgGood 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 ??????

BNZAucklandCouncil        BNZ                                                                 

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

 transparency NZ

 

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

WendyBrandonWendy

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.

 

  1. with the authority which  gave you the  claim of right to   divert me emails   from the  council computer system.
  2. 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
  3. The  memorandum which you sent through  to the  person in charge of the computer system instructing them to divert emails from me.
  4. Any   correspondence between yourself and Brookfields lawyers which pertains to me.
  5. 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