Transparency New Zealand

So after  banging my head agaisnt a brick wall for 7 years I start another round with the ombudsmen.

Take it from me  don’t ever question  anything  that looks   tin the slightest way corrupt  In New Zealand  if you   do  your life will be in tatters.  I speak from experience.

It appears to me that   every one knows how useless the ombudsmen s office is  so   councils regularly refuse information..  why should they comply ? This way they can conceal corruption and buy time.

So here I go  again

Request for Investigation by Ombudsmen                                         17/04/2013

I have  recently made three requests   to Auckland council for official information and one for  a breach of privacy

 I am being totally ignored.

I made the request via the FYI web site   and can be seen on the site http://fyi.org.nz/request/adoption_of_cats_from_concourse#comment-245

http://fyi.org.nz/request/rebranding_of_waitakere_animal_w

  and an earlier request http://fyi.org.nz/request/animal_welfare_instituteof_new_z

Having questioned this gross corruption many years ago and seeing new developments and questioning this  I  have found myself   being harassed by the council and  my  information requests rejected.

Wendy Brandon Counsel for council   saw to it that my emails were blocked this included an email which I had sent to the duly elected representatives complaining about her action

 This email can be seen http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/02/15/update-on-wendy-brandon-counsel-for-auckland-council/

 While there has been no apparent independent enquiry into   the actions of Ms Brandon, the  Ceo of council  who  has been at the centre of this   had the privilege  of investigating himself   see http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/04/03/doug-mc-kay-investigates-himself-and-responds-to-councillors/

I now find that  a block wall has been thrown up in my path   and all my  LGOIMA requests are being  refused  while  I am being harassed  by council.

I first wrote of the harassment   in July last year http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/

 When the council  discovered that my neighbour had put a trellis up against my back fence.  Rather than tell me, I  found myself the  subject of a revisit.  I found it   ironic that the officer was a Waitakere  officer who should not have  been inspecting in Epsom .. do I smell a rat  yes a large one. Especially as this occured   at he same time as my company was put in to liquidation when  the   papers were  not served on me 

I believe that this was deliberate harassment as it occurred simultaneously as the liquidation of my company though non service of  documents.

I now have   a debt collectors letter  demanding $250  for that inspection  when I have never seen an invoice for the inspection  and only saw the inspector  who re inspected  and  who had not bothered to tell me that my pool did not comply. I am a failure  I don’t have x ray vision or  esp.    I simply did not  know that my neighbours had put up a trellis on the other side of the fence.( which incidentally  would not have supported a cat let alone a child )

It has been 7 years  since I questioned   the use of council facilities by a manager for private pecuniary gain, 7 years of shear HELL  .No one cares a dam  that people can write legislation for their own business plan and  use council facilities to run the  operation.. all we care about is concealing corruption.

The ombudsmen’s office has been singularly useless and the office of the auditor general likes wise. It comes as no surprise that both are members of Transparency International ( New Zealand )    and both the office of the auditor general and  the ombudsmen  appear to be condoning corruption  rather than taking action on it.

Now the Mayor has written the matter off as historic and publicly stated that he will not investigate despite the fact that he knows nothing about the matter… see   http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1

You will need to log in to see the  video .

Counsel for  council stopped  me from   reading  from my script  which is located here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013  and  falsely advises   the mayor that there is an injunction that prevents me from speaking about   the fictional AWINZ , when there is no such injunction in place.

Ms Brandon  has also sent out emails   to Councillors in which  I was the subject matter  and  the comments were wrong and defamatory,  she is ignoring  my requests  for  a  copy of the email .

It is very hard to convince me that  New Zealand is the least corrupt  and I ask the  Ombudsmen to investigate the following.

1.        The conflict of interest in the ombudsmen’s office and  the office of the auditor general being members of transparency International New Zealand   an organisation which  has  only just after I prompted them  listed a set of  rules September 2012 Transparency Times

2.        The harassment by Auckland council  as set out in http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/   and the subsequent debt recovery action when  no invoice has ever been sent to me.

3.       The   investigation of  Doug Mc Kay into himself  with regards to the withholding of emails   and  also with regards to his lack of action or even acknowledgment of my complaints with regards to  Wendy Brandon   being   documents which will open  from the following links

a)      15 feb email complaint email

b)      request 1

c)      Request 2

d)     Request 3

e)      Request 4

f)       Request 5

g)      Request 6

h)      Request 7

i)        Request 8

j)         Evidence 1

k)      Evidence 2

l)        Evidence 3

m)    Evidence 4

n)      Evidence 5

o)      interpretation 248 crimes act

p)      Note 1

q)      Note 2

        And r)  http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/04/03/doug-mc-kay-investigates-himself-and-responds-to-councillors/

4.       The manner in which Brandon appears to control council and   has miss instructed  the may  with regards to  any injunctions in place and the  effect of them as  shown in the video clip  http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1

5.       The lack of provision of information   for the LGOIMAS as mentioned from FYI  web site

a.       http://fyi.org.nz/request/adoption_of_cats_from_concourse#comment-245

b.      http://fyi.org.nz/request/rebranding_of_waitakere_animal_w

c.       http://fyi.org.nz/request/animal_welfare_instituteof_new_z

     6. an investigation by the ombudsmen into the   8 issues  out lined in 3 above

Had the office of the Ombudsmen done its job properly in the first place I would not have had to endure all of this    it appears that the ombudsmen’s office  is doing little to prevent corruption in New Zealand.  It has allowed  MAF to get away   with  giving law enforcement authority to a fictional  organisation  and then  allowed it to cover up.It has condoned  Waitakere  council  in  not  acting  when  employees use their office for private pecuniary gain.

I find it amusing that your logo is fairness to all.  I am a whistle-blower and    you have proved  to me that whistle-blowers   do not even get the support of the ombudsmen in new Zealand.. its all about promoting the perception of us being the least corrupt.

So here goes another round of me banging my head against the proverbial brick wall   I  wonder how many years you will take this  time to write this off.

  But we can all rest easy  the perception is that there is no corruption   its  just  idiots like me  who walk into the trap and   have their lives ruined because they  think New Zealand  has a hard line on corruption when in reality we  just sweep it under the carpet.

The truth will come out in the end.

copies of this  is going to the international press  I am sure    with NZ in the news for tax havens  they will  be interested in seeing  how NZ conceals corruption.

Grace Haden

Transparency International have turned my application  for membership down for the third time.

Suzanne Snively   sent a reply  on behalf  of TINZ   declining me once again. It appears that she  does not like the comments which I make with regards to transparency International  she has however never  pointed  which statements  she is referring to    and she has not  told me  which  sites in particular she is looking at, it could well be that  she is looking at some one else web site and attributing comments to me. Suzanne you are not being very transparent.

This led me  to looking at the   constitution of transparency International .An incorporated society  only has one set of operative rules  and those are the ones  listed on the register of incorporated societies  and  those are the  copies of the   rules which the registrar has accepted.

Imagine then   my  surprise  when I found  that  Transparency International New Zealand  does not have any rules listed with the registrar.Does this make them unconstitutional ?

I phoned the societies  registrar this morning and confirmed that they did not hold a copy of the rules…. see the page as it appeared 2nd April NZ Companies Office – View Details transparency international    not  very transparent I would have thought.

There is a copy available on the charities web site  but it is not an official copy , not good enough  we think for   transparency International which has so much international clout.

Transparency International  New Zealand  are represented only  by some 70 people  10  of  whom are directors  making 1 in 7 of them  directors.  http://www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/about/governance

Those listed on the  governance site   represent  amongst them the large  accountancy companies   and appear to  be well connected with    Government  and  big business, the representation is mainly of  the rich and famous , those of us who  bang our heads  against the corporate walls   are not welcome.  It is after all about perception   and we bring too much reality  and insist on accuracy.

By way of example today Transparency International  Via Suzan Snively published a press release  No+Complacency+for+Corruption-TINZ-PR.

In just the first three lines  we at Transparency New Zealand  struggle to find  a verifiable comment

1.  there is no such  act as the Public Service Act

2. the state sector act is dated 1988    which is not  100 years ago

3.And   to the best of our knowledge there have been no  surveys done here or internationally with regards to   the integrity of public sectors   in a setting which allows comparisons to be  made.

We have written to Suzanne and requested clarification  we will update  you   when the reply is received.

Subject: Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon

To the Mayor and   Councillors

Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon and full investigation of her conduct.

Please see the email exchange below the regards to my emails  to councillors being Diverted.

This is particularly serious in that I  have been questioning corruption in council for the past 7 years and  my innocent questions to Waitakere city council about the use of the  animal facility   at the concourse  by  an organisation called AWINZ. ,( which in reality was a trading name undefined   person or persons)

The then manager  of dog and stock control  ,who got his position  without declaring his conflict of interest   with regards to  AWINZ   sued me   to silence me.   I now have proceedings before the court  to overturn the judgement which was obtained by fraud.  The lawyers involved in these proceedings  and whose actions are  subject to the    court decision  are also one of the  big  five suppliers of   legal services to council .(BROOKFIELDS)

I have been prevented from obtaining speaking rights  and then when I complain about the  actions of counsel for council  I find that she has  diverted  my emails to her email address only.

I have a truck load of evidence on the corrupt use of council premises  and Wendy Brandon is fobbing me off and  claiming that I am contempt of court  when   the evidence I am presenting is in the words of MAF in their  Audit report http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf  and  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”

Rate payers money  was being used   for a private enterprise  and Counsel for council   both past and present have covered this up.

I happen to think that this is serious .. what else is being covered up ?

Just this week I gave submissions to the local government   electoral  committee and asked  why  we bother with elections  when it appears that   the council lawyers  run the place.  We could actually save a lot  of money.

If council was run as a business  Ms Brandon would be placed on suspension   while the  investigation into   the diversion of emails    is investigated  especially when these emails are  complaints about her action. What else is she concealing from councillors ????

I know for a fact she is also blocking  LGOIMA requests, not just mine  but those of  other people as well .

As a rate payer  I like to think that the people we  vote into  council  are the ones  who are in control  and not the hired help. I also have an expectation that the council which  enforces laws on the residents   also    complies  to the law  with the same vigour  and    not by ignoring   section 14 of the  local government act 2002 by acting in an  open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.

We should be encouraging   whistle-blowers on council corruption my story is  enough to  ensure that any one will remain silent.. the cost has been too high  and  there are those who would rather discredit me than  look at the fact. If you   are not sure about me  ask ALF  ,   we worked together   in the police  he is aware of my ethical standing.

It is interesting  that what I   questioned years ago   appears to be   exactly what is going on today ,   council employees   stepping out of line  and acting  as if they own the council.

I would  love to address all of you on  corruption in council  ,  I am not defaming any one, I  am speaking the truth and   can present it as pure fact , I have no doubt  that what I will reveal will be  an  eye opener  and will enable  you to  will be able take action to prevent t  rate payers money from  haemorrhaging  from the council coffers.

Regards

Grace Haden

Last year I published several articles critical of  the actions of Wendy Brandon Counsel for council , I was concerned  with her position of being  judge and executioner and acting in   what appears to be an autonomous manner with the affairs of council and by passing the  input of  those who have been  duly  elected to represent the  rate payers.( of which I am one )

the issues which I  have raised are serious  ones  and  issues which affect her  employment as counsel for council.

the following are links to some of the issues I have published and include emails which I  have sent to  councilors  asking for an independent investigation into corruption.   With Gate keeper Wendy in the way   serious public corruption is being swept under the carpet.  the following are  my topics as they were posted from early  November 2012

Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Auckland council responds Via Wendy Brandon

Is Wendy Brandon concealing fraud ?

Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption

RE: request for urgent investigation by council

Wendy Brandon continues to conceal corruption

Wendy Brandon and the Wislang Case

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW

One of my LGOIMA requests which she refused  was for  the job description that she is employed under .

It is also not lost on me  that Brookfields Lawyers  who have been very keen to keep the lid on the  public corruption  which I  have been questioning are listed amongst the highest paid  lawyers used by council see reference here

the following is the  confirmation from Brandon herself that my emails are diverted to her , so much for democracy    it would appear that we have a hand full of   council employees   running rough shot over the democratic process and the one person whose actions I am questioning is the only one to receive my emails!

It realy leaves me  with one question  WHO IS RUNNING COUNCIL?  Why bother with an elction process when  we could just run it  with a lawyer in charge instead of  a whole heap of people.

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 8:43 a.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: Diverted emails urgent lgoima/privacy act request.

Dear Grace

Emails to elected members and other council staff are often filtered to ensure the most efficient use of their time and to ensure that council resources are applied to best effect. Councillors, for example, have dedicated support staff who manage their emails on a daily basis. All of the elected members and senior council staff to whom you write receive large volumes of emails every day. In this situation emails from you to the various and numerous addressees have been blocked to all council addresses except my own since November 2012. You were advised at that time that all correspondence from you will be retained in council records but no reply will be sent. This applies also to all LGOIMA requests, in respect of which a failure to reply is a deemed refusal that may be referred to the office of the Ombudsman by way of complaint.

Please note that there is no legal requirement for emails sent to a council email address to be delivered unfiltered to that or any other particular email address; any email sent to an elected member’s email address or any other council officer may be treated as having been received by council for LGOIMA and other official purposes.

Yours sincerely

Wendy Brandon

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 5:22 PM
To: Bruce Thomas
Subject: Diverted emails urgent lgoima/privacy act request.

Forwarded to Neta

It has been brought to my attention that   emails from  certain people are not being deleiverd to the councillors   and or council managers that they are addressed to.

By way of privacy act and LGOIMA  could you please urgently  advise  if there is  a block or diversion on my email  address or any of the email addresses I use.  If so

Is a block or  diversion

1. When  di d it take effect
2. Under which  legislation are you   capable of  doing  this
3. When was I advised of it
4. Who is blocked from receiving my emails
5. Who  are my emails diverted to
6. Who approved this
7. Please provide all correspondence relating to this  action/ decision.

I  seek the answers to these questions  under urgency as it effects  my right to transparency and justice.

Regards

Grace Haden

The law commission has published its report  on the Review of Official Information Act 1982 and Local Government Official Information Act 1987  submissions can be made online  and the  acual papers are able to be downloaded

The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation (NZLC R125, 2012)

Summary of Key Recommendations

Had I know that submissions were being called for I for one will be making a submission in view of the Wendy Brandon   saga.

I have to wonder why the council lawyer gets involved in blocking a request for official information, this apparently is becoming a trend over seas   and somehow a law degree gives a person more clout to prevent transparency.

I have made a complaint to the law society  with regards to Wendy Brandon’s actions  as  her obligations as a lawyer are to  act according to the  rule of law   and  as a council solicitor the  law spells out the requirement for her to act in an open transparent manner.

The law society have come back and said that they will await the reply of the ombudsmen.  Given that I have already been down the  Ombudsmen path in my protracted AWINZ matter  I am braced for another 2 year wait before  the information I have requested  is released.

Apparently   if it released through the ombudsmen I can then take the matter back to the law society   and they will look at Ms Brandon again.

So  with official information act request and LGOIMA  request  the  right to refusal under    the  provisions   of the acts  can be abused  by referring all matters to the ombudsmen’s office.  This in turn becomes bogged down and the who process   comes to a screaming halt.

Now if councils were fined for unnecessarily withholding information    that would force compliance much the same way as we are fined by council when we stay in our parking spot  for a minute too long.

You have to question    who the lawyer works for   does the lawyer act for the public who the council is supposed to represent, ensuring that the public’s interest is protected or does the lawyer work for the employees of the council ensuring that corrupt practices are concealed by preventing transparency?

It is our rates money that pays the wages  .

While on the  topic of submission  be sure to  check out the parliament site  and make submission on   issues which you wish  to comment on.

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012 4:25 p.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’Mayor Len Brown

Subject: request for urgent investigation by council

Good afternoon  Doug

I made a LGOIMA request from your   solicitor Wendy Brandon.

I admire her efficiency as  within an hour she had ascertained that the documents  I   requested  were not  available  she  stated “I confirm that the information you requested cannot be located and/or does not exist.’

As I cannot  doubt the integrity of your  lawyer , who is after all an officer of the court and expected to uphold the rule of law , and being a  council employee she  is bound by the provisions of the local government act  with regards to transparency , I have to accept her response  and  apply the implications of this response to  my LGOIMA request

It is not for the    counsel  for council to  conceal corruption . She has a duty to  ensure transparency and accountability  and as a lawyer her honesty and therefore her word  can be  assured.

What transpires in applying her response to the following request brings about serious issues of concern and I  ask the council to immediately investigate this  in the interest of the public.

The LGOIMA request  was as follows    I have added under each paragraph  what   the logical interpretation must be given the reply of  Wendy Brandon  …  I requested

•  Documents  which show that council has investigated the  use of the   council facilities , staff and resources   by AWINZ.

1. If the information does not exist this means that the council has never investigated, this is appalling   as it proves that the council is being negligent with  contracts,  conflicts of interest and allowing  the  public resources to be used for private pecuniary gain

•  Documents  and policies which allow the  managers of    divisions such as  dog and stock control  to independently contract / sign agreements to third  parties and  the processes which need to be followed.  E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to   give these assurances on behalf of council?

1. If the information does not exist this means that the council has not got any policies for  council managers and it appears to be a free for all , it must be of concern then that a  council manager signed an agreement which allowed a third party to use the councils facilities, staff and vehicles  for  free. This would not be a wise use of councils funds.

•  Mr Wells  in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that   AWINZ was  going to take over the animal welfare services  please provide any  documentation discussion papers  etc  which  would have  given Mr Wells  foundation for this statement. ,  see application

1. If the information does not exist this means that Mr Wells  misled the minister , The council now being aware of this  has a duty to  ensure that the minister becomes aware that the council   had no knowledge with regards to the AWINZ matter and that the parties who corresponded with him  n th guise of council had no  mandate to do so.

• Invoices for the payment  of   Kensington swan for all  legal  opinions  requested by council or by Dog and stock control   for the legal opinions  in  2000  which persuaded the  Minister to   give approval to AWINZ  as an approved Organisation   links to the legal opinion are here   initial  opinion             Draft           final

1. If the information does not exist this means that the council  manager involved   engaged Kensington swan  in his professional capacity  and  the council should make urgent enquiries as to who did pay for the services.

•  Why council  continued to  push for AWINZ to be approved  when crown law  said that it was ultra Vires  and any minutes of any council meetings which  gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this  action.

1. If the information does not exist this means that the council was not involved in the animal welfare aspects of the dog control  section and that  tis now calls for an urgent investigation in view of the  statements  from MAF which recorded that  AWINZ did operate from council premises.

• What was Lesley Wears position with  council and was the question raised in the fax  located here    addressed  please provide a copy of the response

1. It therefore appears that  Lesley Wear never received a response , I would however  have thought that council might have known who she was  since she was employed by council, perhaps this was overlooked by Ms Brandon, after all it was a lot of information that she got through in one hour.

•  In an email Neil Wells  states “while that could have been answered immediately  by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide   all council documents which supports this statement  and  who in Waitakere city  was waiting for directions as to where the   Kensington swan letter should be sent to  .

1. If the information does not exist this means that the council lawyer was  circumvented  and that the   legal opinion which was  obtained was not one which the council  had  requested or authorised , but had instead been requested by Mr Wells for his own purposes and apparently  paid for by  council. The  legal opinion swayed the minister as he believed that the legal opinion came at the request of council.  If this is not the case then it is important    and the minister should be   advised immediately that he has been misled.

• All documents  after 2000 relating to animal welfare   were not  made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.

1. If these documents are still missing then  Council  should be asking questions as to why all  documents  relating to the dog and stock control division are missing,   MR Wells the manager appears to have  an issue with losing vital documents, the governance documents for AWINZ were missing, the trust deed was lost more than once despite there being two copies  and now it transpires that  he somehow lost/ misplaced  all  the  animal welfare documents   for council, I would have thought that losing all the   documents for an  entire department would have been a matter of concern.  I now  of three persons who were sacked by council for a lot

Corruption is a serious matter  Doug.   This matter has been swept under the carpet for the past 6 ½  years , Your counsel in looking for this information and   discovering that it is all missing must  be seeing the red flags of fraud.  May I suggest that the council calls in the police or serious fraud office.

I  can assist  I have a chronology of  documents to simplify the matter,  I am a licenced private investigator and can tell you  that those documents disclose  the fact that council premises were being used by a fictitious organisation  called Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  and that   Mr Didovich  and Mr Wells colluded together to use the council  resources for private pecuniary gain.

My summary is  below, the hyperlinks  open the documents  shown  .

This letter will also be on Transparency.net.nz  so that those who are following this  matter can be kept in the loop.

I  would imagine that in view of the  information  which Ms Brandon has given me  that  it would be negligent of council not to investigate.

I am certain that this is the tip of the ice berg in council corruption  and  you will no doubt  uncover more  and thereby save rate payers millions.

As ever I am happy to assist.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 2:53 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Councillors
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Dear Ms Haden

As advised in my reply to your most recent requests for information, if you wish to make a complaint about Council’s response, you must direct that complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.

 However, I confirm that the information you requested cannot be located and/or does not exist.

As to the remaining allegations, Council must obey the law. There is currently an injunction in place prohibiting you from making any statements or allegations “reviling or denigrating Mr Wells”.  This latest round of emails and other correspondence contain statements that clearly fall within the terms of the orders being the same or similar to those that gave rise to the granting of injunctive relief.  Unless or until the injunction is dismissed, I am unable to take any further action.

Kind regards

Wendy

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 2:08 PM
To: Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Councillor Penny Hulse; Councillor Cathy Casey; Councillor Richard Northey; Councillor Sandra Coney; Councillor Penny Webster; Councillor Mike Lee; Councillor John Walker; Councillor Sharon Stewart; Councillor Michael Goudie; Councillor Ann Hartley; Councillor Cameron Brewer; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Catriona McDougall; Councillor Alf Filipaina; Councillor George Wood; Councillor Des Morrison; Councillor Calum Penrose; Councillor Noelene Raffills; Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External); ‘Dick Quax’; Councillor Arthur Anae; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz; Wendy Brandon
Subject: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Open letter  and LGOIMA to  Mayor Brown  with regards to Corruption apparently  being condoned by counsel for  Council .

Sir, please find here with a  most condescending reply from your general counsel Wendy Brandon

I originally requested speaking rights   with regards to  serious corruption which occurred within  Waitakere city council, it involved public office for private pecuniary Gain and my   assertion is  backed with solid evidence.  I followed this up with LGOIMA requests    and second LGOIMA  seeking   the ability to   discuss the matter with a councillor

Instead of  solutions  I   receive a put down by  Brandon  who is severely neglectful of both her duties as  an officer of the law and as a  counsel to   council

The fundamental obligations of a lawyer are to the rule of law  and as such she is employed in a public capacity and  is all that stands between the exposure and concealment of corruption.

AWINZ  is an “organisation”  run by the  then dog and stock control manager  and existed on council premises   used the council  staff and vehicles  emblazoned with identical logos as used by AWINZ   the  “ organisation “ .

While council denied its existence   MAF at a time of  an audit  recorded “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”

 Effectively this independently  proves   my allegations  of  Public office for private  pecuniary gain .

Counsel  has responded to me and attacked me( if you can’t attack the  issue it appears that you attack the person )   ,  she does not get the point that the issue I am raising  has nothing to do with  any court action   but has everything to do with corruption within council.

Previous counsel for  Waitakere Denis Sheard denied  emphatically that AWINZ existed on the premises.  The independent evidence   which I have provided    to council on the 21^st October  shows  that this was the case.

Wendy Brandon should  be asking questions  with regards to the MOU attached  and  be asking

1. Why was the council lawyer was  not involved in the  drafting and  supervision of the signing of the MOU with AWINZ .
2. Why was  Animal welfare services   able to enter into an agreement with a trading name( AWINZ  does not exist as a legal person )    and be questioning  the research  if any which was done  to establish  who represented the name  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The document  concerned is the MOU  attached and available here
3. Why  was Mr Wells  employed by council without consideration  to the conflict of interest  this posed ,which by the way  was not declared on his application ,
4. Further Counsel and  Council should be  aware that the  manager whom Mr Wells  signed this MOU with    became  a member of the so called trust which was set up as a cover  up  on 5 December 2006
5. And was the council aware that  Mr Didovich had used council funds to pay Mr Wells   to  set up the trust ( this is one of many invoices .
6. And that Mr Didovich collected  and witnessed the signatures  of the alleged trustees of the 2000 AWINZ  trust while he was on leave .
7. 7.       Mr Didovich also wrote to  the minister approving  of the use of staff, he did this on the letter heads of  North shore and Waitakere city council . MAF were looking for assurances from council but only got these assurances from an accomplice a council manager without consultation through  the proper avenues in council .” MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City  Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work).”
   1. It should be noted that Lesley Wear asked for an explanation, and questioned what the risks were for council  it would be  good to see if this  was ever addressed
   2. Mr Didovich  also   sought a legal opinion, which circumvented   the  councils solicitors    and obtained  the Kensington swan opinion.  When  crown law   opposed the involvement of council  in   the animal welfare work  due to  it being ultra vires   a second legal opinion was sought.  A draft was  sent back to  Didovich  and   then the final version   came back     which was a decision the minister relied upon… this  final  document   had information which indicates   significant input  from Mr Wells with his personal knowledge of the event on the select committee.
      1. Council should be asking why was the council lawyer left out of the loop ?
      2. What was the costing estimate how much did the  legal opinion cost?  And how was it paid, who authorised it.

I  sincerely believe that Council is keeping the lid on this matter because by  exposing it – it would open a can of worms.

By Way of LGOIMA  I request

1. documents  which show that council has investigated the  use of the   council facilities , staff and resources   by AWINZ.
2. Documents  and policies which allow the  managers of    divisions such as  dog and stock control  to independently contract / sign agreements to third  parties and  the processes which need to be followed.  E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to   give these assurances on behalf of council?
3. Mr Wells  in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that   AWINZ was  going to take over the animal welfare services  please provide any  documentation discussion papers  etc  which  would have  given Mr Wells  foundation for this statement. ,  see application
4. Invoices for the payment  of   Kensington swan for all  legal  opinions  requested by council or by Dog and stock control   for the legal opinions  in  2000  which persuaded the  Minister to   give approval to AWINZ  as an approved Organisation   links to the legal opinion are here   initial  opinion             Draft           final
5. Why council  continued to  push for AWINZ to be approved  when crown law  said that it was ultra Vires  and any minutes of any council meetings which  gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this  action.
6. What was Lesley Wears position with  council and was the question raised in the fax  located here    addressed  please provide a copy of the response
7. In an email Neil Wells  states “while that could have been answered immediately  by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide   all council documents which supports this statement  and  who in Waitakere city  was waiting for directions as to where the   Kensington swan letter should be sent to  .
8. All documents  after 2000 relating to animal welfare   were not  made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.

I wish to add that the  Ms Brandon  is not employed  to   conceal corruption and she has an obligation to  facilitate  transparency and  accountability , documents which I have obtained in the past show that as much as 40%  of the work  for   animal welfare services in Waitakere  was  being  Animal welfare work  which according to the documents I have was ultra Vires for council  .

Mr Wells  appears to have been   able to control and influence council and derive a personal income from animal welfare prosecutions undertaken as a result the involvement of  council officers working in council vehicles paid by  the public.  the evidence is shown in the chronology    this is   Public office for private   pecuniary income  a recognised form of corruption .

He effectively   ran  an SPCA type organisation   using council  staff resources and  vehicles.  All income  and no expense. And it appears that Wendy Brandon is condoning this .

No wonder our rates are  sky high.

A full chronology is available at http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf

Truth is never defamatory   I am not denigrating Mr wells  I am  stating fact  supported by the 5000 or so documents on my chronology     .

I have paid well over $300,000  because I did some pro bono work for a council officer  who questioned why she  was volunteering her council paid time to   AWINZ. Council responded by sacking her  and then taking her back to the ERA  on allegations of breach of confidentiality.  Others have been sacked and silenced as well , No wonder council  staff do not speak up   speak up and you lose your job.

Council should have investigated. It’s not too late they can still investigate  I have done the hard work   not just for free but at a personal  cost which is far too high.

It is through the neglect of council that I  have  had to endure 6 ½ years of litigation .

Is  Council  so irresponsible that it cannot see corruption  even when it is pointed out to them?  Is   placing gaging orders over  staff who  speak out  in concern  a  responsible thing to do ?How does that fit  in  with transparency????

By  doing nothing Auckland council is proving that  it condones corruption, this is a well-researched matter which proves  how corruption occurs in council  .

Auckland council by ignoring this shows that it  prefers to attack the messenger rather than  look out for the  interest of the public.   we pay the rates  we  should have accountability .

I look forward to  a civil response  and  the information I have requested supplied.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

A further exchange from Wendy Brandon

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 5:02 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Dear Ms Haden

Your right to hold me (d any other council officer)accountable for a response to a request for information made under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act is by way of a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. I have provided you with the relevant contact details and address in my letter responding to your request.

Kind regards

Wendy Brandon

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 5:40 p.m.
To: ‘Wendy Brandon’; len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Cc: ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Richard Northey’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Catriona McDougall’; ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘Councillor Des Morrison’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External)’; ‘Dick Quax’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz’
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Dear Ms Brandon

But as a  Barrister & Solicitor you have additional responsibilities , statutory duties  which extend beyond those of council officers.

It is very convenient to   neglect your duty   and    deny transparency and refer matters to the ombudsmen’s office  knowing that it is so bogged down that it will take years to get the information out.

You have not answered my question  and you  are not acting in   a lawful manner to uphold the rule of law which in your particular case is to conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and (ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner.

 Concealing corruption and fraud  within  council  is not   a legitimate   activity  for anyone    but as a lawyer  you have  a fundamental obligation to the administration  and facilitation of the   rule  of law, that includes

 Assisting in fraud or crime

2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.

     Prevention of crime or fraud

11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.

And for those not conversant with the crimes act there is  also my all-time favourite

Crimes act  25 Ignorance of law

The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

Your action is dangerously close to being    71 Accessory after the fact

(1)    An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him, in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

On behalf of the rate payers of Auckland    I ask you to act in  a legally responsible manner with regards to the  fraud which has been perpetrated in Waitakere city council    as set out and revealed in this chronology   and as  set out   in my earlier  emails .

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

    Did you know that you  can obtain information from the government and local government  regarding  almost anything.

They have to   provide you with the information unless there is a good reason to  keep it from you and then you have a right to  take the matter to the ombudsmen  for review.

Now there is a very simple portal which makes it so much easier  and on top of  it  it allows every one to see what else has been requested , this means that   we are getting even better transparency.

The site is http://fyi.org.nz/ and I can see this developing into an essential resource.It is  part of an international drive to transparency  I discovered the link after watching   an excellent TED   talk  my battle to expose government corruption.  a topic which  very much resonates with us.

There reason the site is so good is that there are times when two people make a request  and  the  answers conflict  or when  government officials are  being less than honest- not   the transparency is there.

We will be ensuring  that all our OIA requests and LGOIMA requests  go through this portal   we hope you do too

In reply to my request for investigation  I received the following

From: Jude Hutton [mailto:Jude.Hutton@oag.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 10:26 a.m.
To: Grace
Subject: RE: request for investigation

Dear Ms Haden
Thank you for your further email of 23 July 2012 to Lyn Provost.

You are concerned about the existence or otherwise of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).

We have reviewed the information you have provided in this and your earlier email of 19 June 2012 and must advise that we do not intend to investigate this matter any further.

We see from our files that you have written to us several times in the past about this matter. Our previous response has been that this matter does not require investigation by this office. There is nothing in the information you have provided to us in your recent emails that would cause us to change this view.

We note that your concerns are historic in nature and focus on the Waitakere City Council, which no longer exists. It is not clear from the information you have provided whether AWINZ still exists.

For your information, this office’s primary role is to audit the 4,000 or so entities that make up the public sector. We are also able to inquire into issues of concern that are raised with us. Our inquiries function reflects our auditing role. Our focus is on the way public entities use their resources, including financial, governance, management and organisational issues. The Auditor-General’s office is not an avenue for resolving individual complaints or concerns about how a public entity has handled a particular matter.

Regards

Jude Hutton

Inquiries Co-ordinator

Office of the Auditor-General Te Mana Arotake
100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011
PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
Ph: +64 4 917 1500 Fax: +64 4 917 1549
DDI: +64 4 917 1600

www.oag.govt.nz