The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

OPEN LETTER TO EDITOR AND JOURNALISTS FROM THE SUNDAY STAR TIMES: How about reporting on the IMPORTANT FACTS re: The Auckland $UPERCITY

(Emailed this to ALL MPs and key media)

I DON’T CARE ABOUT NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR ANDREW WILLIAMS PEEING ON A TREE!

I CARE ABOUT UP TO $28 BILLION WORTH OF AUCKLAND REGIONAL PUBLIC ASSETS BEING PLACED UNDER THE CCO (COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION) MODEL – WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO A ‘COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROVING ITS ‘COST-EFFECTIVENESS’ FOR THE PUBLIC MAJORITY!

WHERE IS ALL THE IN-DEPTH  INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS ON THIS MATTER BY PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS??

Isn’t it time the mainstream media took some of the KEY FACTS which unpaid ‘Public Watchdogs’ have discovered through ‘investigative activism’ and helped deliver the TRUTH to the public?

Surely the unbelievable lack of fiscal responsibility by both local and central government on this matter – not to mention the spectacular USELESSNESS of ‘third party Public Watchdogs’ – who receive both public monies and have statutory duties to look after the public interest and OUR public monies – deserves SOME mention?

I live in hope.

Penny Bright

4 April 2010

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO EDITOR AND JOURNALISTS FROM THE SUNDAY STAR TIMES: How about reporting on the IMPORTANT FACTS re: The Auckland $UPERCITY

4 April 2010

OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR AND JOURNALISTS FROM THE SUNDAY STAR TIMES:

With all due respect – don’t you think that the public might be a little more interested in the fact that there has NEVER been a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ for ANY ‘Council Controlled Organisation’
(CCO), by ANY ‘statutory ‘Third Party’ , or ANY body tasked with ensuring ‘prudent stewardship’ is being exercised over BILLION$ of citizens and ratepayers monies?

Don’t you think this is slightly more politically significant than the North Shore Mayor peeing on a tree?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/3545800/Leaky-mayor-may-be-stripped-of-his-JP-status

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3545732/For-colourful-and-eccentric-read-unbecoming

Attached to this post is  the EVIDENCE which  proves this total lack of ‘fiscal responsibility’ by:

The Royal Commission on Auckland Regional Governance
The Office of the Auditor-General
The Department of Internal Affairs
The Treasury
The State Services Commission

Auckland City Council
Manukau City Council
Waitakere City Council
North Shore City Council
Papakura District Council
Rodney District Council
Franklin District Council
Auckland Regional Council

____________________________________________________________

31 March 2010

OIA REPLY FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF TREACHEROUS AUCKLANDERS (ATA)

So! NOBODY who is ANYBODY has carried out a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ for the CCO model confirming its ‘cost-effectiveness’ for the public majority.

WHY THE HELL NOT????

The Royal CON JOB didn’t do one – (so didn’t do their job, according to their ‘terms of reference’).

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) didn’t do one.

Neither did the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG).

Nor Treasury / the State Services Commission/ nor the 8 Councils in the Auckland region!
(See attachment)

WHO IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD INVEST BILLIONS OF THEIR PRIVATE MONEY INTO A ‘CONCEPT’ / ‘BUSINESS PLAN’ WHICH COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED WITH FACTS AND EVIDENCE?

HOW IS THIS OK WITH BILLION$ OF PUBLIC MONIES/ ASSETS???

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ‘PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP’/ ‘FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY’/ ‘DUE DILIGENCE’  regarding BILLION$ of public assets and public monies?

Time the giant public CA$H COW rose to its feet and made a stand!

IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO EXERCISE ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ AND PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP OVER OUR PUBLIC MONIES – WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOU ANY?????

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE’VE BEEN DENIED OUR LAWFUL RIGHT TO A BINDING POLL (VOTE) ON THE AUCKLAND ‘$UPERCITY’  ‘REORGANISATION PROPOSAL’!

NO SAY – NO PAY!

The same principle applies to citizens and ratepayers in the Canterbury region who have had NO SAY in the removal of their democratically-elected representatives.

My recommendation on this matter  for citizens and ratepayers of the Environment Canterbury region is the same as for citizens and ratepayers of the Auckland region.

DISPUTE AND PAY NOTHING!

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com/

__________________________________________________________________

WHY MARGARET BAZLEY CAN’T BE TRUSTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN CANTERBURY – SHE DIDN’T AS A ‘ROYAL COMMISSIONER’ FOR AUCKLAND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE!

31 March 2010

Why Dame Margaret can’t be trusted in Canterbury` to look after the public interest!

As one of 3 Royal Commissioners for Auckland regional governance, she (and Shand (ex-World Bank) and Salmond) DID NOT DO THEIR JOB, and stick to their TERMS OF REFERENCE

“….to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—

(a) the current and future well-being of the region and its communities; and

(b) the region’s contribution to wider national objectives and outcomes:”

They recommended

“All Auckland Council’s major trading and infrastructure activities
should be undertaken through CCO’s”

BUT NEVER UNDERTOOK ANY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR ANY CCO!

NO ONE HAS CARRIED OUT ANY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR ANY CCO!

The Royal Commission / the DIA / The OAG/

Treasury/ The State Services Commission/ the 8 Councils in the Auckland region

(See last attachment)

NO ONE CAN POINT A STICK AT ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THE ‘COST-EFFECTIVENESS’ OF THE CCO MODEL FOR THE PUBLIC RATEPAYING MAJORITY!

So – how can Bazley be trusted to ‘do a good job’ for the Canterbury region?

She didn’t do a good job for the Auckland region.

Unless you think that setting up a bigger public trough for multinational private snouts will be good for the public majority in the Auckland region.

Since when has a Rogernomic$ blitzkreig ever benefitted the public majority?

WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM MARGARET BAZLEY’S ‘STEWARDSHIP’ IN CANTERBURY?

WHERE WILL THE MONEY GO?

WHERE WILL THE WATER GO?

If I were a ratepayer in the Canterbury region – I’d be sending a VERY clear message in the form of a ‘letter of dispute’.

I’d refuse point blank to pay ANY rates for the Canterbury region.

When democracy is in flames – the people need to fight fire with fire and give a message which cannot be ignored.

“NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!”

“NO SAY – NO PAY!”

Cheers!

Penny Bright

Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
______________________________________________________________________

‘MAYOR’ JOHN BANKS (UNLAWFULLY) DENIED ME SPEAKING RIGHTS TO ADDRESS THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT THE TOWN HALL ON 25 MARCH 2010, AND HAD ME THROWN OUT BY SECURITY GUARDS WHEN I TOOK THE ‘SPEAKING RIGHTS’ HE HAD (UNLAWFULLY) DENIED ME:

Don’t you think this unlawful and undemocratic  conduct of the Auckland City Council Mayor John Banks,  is far more deserving of public scrutiny and censure than that of the North Shore City Council Mayor Andrew Williams??

(This Council meeting was filmed, and I have requested a copy of the DVD under the Privacy Act)
____________________________________________________________

24 March 2010

Mayor John Banks

REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS AT THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY 25 MARCH 2010 AT 6PM:

Dear Mayor,

Having yesterday evening received a copy of the Agenda for the above-mentioned Auckland City Council meeting, under the ‘urgency’ and ‘public interest’ provisions of Auckland City Council Standing Orders, I request ‘speaking rights’, in order to cover the following matters, which I have covered in some detail at this point so that yourself and fellow elected representatives have more time in advance, to give them due and proper consideration:

A) LACK OF  ‘DUE DILIGENCE’ IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ‘COST-EFFECTIVENESS’ OF THE CCO MODEL:

1) Confirmation from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), that the Royal Commission on Auckland regional governance did NOT carry out any ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model, despite their ‘Terms of Reference’ which clearly stated:

“Appointment and order of reference


KNOW YE that We, reposing trust and confidence in your integrity, knowledge, and ability, do, by this Our Commission, nominate, constitute, and appoint you, The Honourable PETER SALMON QC, Dame MARGARET BAZLEY, and DAVID SHAND to be a Commission to receive representations on, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government    arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future in order to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—

(a) the current and future well-being of the region and its communities; and

(b) the region’s contribution to wider national objectives and outcomes:”

_______________________________________________

The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua

PET/CCO/2  (30 July 2009)     (ATTACHED)

Submission of the Department of Internal Affairs to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 120 others

The Local Government and Environment Committee (the Committee) has invited the
Department of Internal Affairs (the Department) to make a submission on the petition of
Penelope Mary Bright and 120 others that asks that:

The House of Representatives note that there be no legislative change to enact
recommendation 21A of the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland
Governance that:

“All Auckland Council’s major trading and infrastructure activities
should be undertaken through CCO’s” until an independent cost−benefit analysis
confirms the cost−effectiveness of the CCO model (particularly for water services) for
the majority of citizens and ratepayers.”

………………………………….

[9] The Government’s decisions to date in relation to water and wastewater do not align with the proposal in the submission. As noted above, the Government is promoting legislation that aims for water and wastewater services to be integrated in one organisation,Watercare. An independent analysis (but not a cost−benefit analysis) of the impacts of using a CCO for water and wastewater services was undertaken by the Royal Commission.”

(My underlining)

_______________________________________________________________________

2)  Confirmation from the DIA that they also have NOT carried out any ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model,.

“From: Kirstin Lambert <Kirstin.Lambert@dia.govt.nz>
Date: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Subject: FW: Request for information – CCOs
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>

Hi Penny,

Thanks for your phone message earlier today. I have been following up on your question with various people over the last day or so, and can now advise the following:

  • ·         DIA has not undertaken any formal cost benefit analysis of CCOs.  ”

3) Confirmation that the Office of the Auditor-General has NOT carried out any ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model.

This is despite a formal request for the ex-Auditor-General, Kevin Brady to so do on 6 April 2009.

The reasons given by ex-Auditor-General, Kevin Brady for failing to ‘inquire into the cost-effectiveness of the Metrowater CCO model‘ are given below:

__________________________________________________________________

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Brady <Kevin.Brady@oag.govt.nz> wrote:

Dear Penny

Thank you for your email of 6 April, copied to a range of others, in which you asked me to inquire into the cost-effectiveness of the Metrowater CCO model.

The Public Audit Act gives the Auditor-General a discretion on whether to inquire into matters that are raised with us. We receive many requests every year, and carefully consider the appropriate response in each case.

As you note in your letter to me, the future of Metrowater is a policy matter that is the subject of current political consideration. The Royal Commission has made specific proposals on this issue, and the government has now made policy decisions in response. Legislation is currently being prepared for consideration by Parliament. The question of the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model is a part of that policy debate.

The Auditor-General is not a policy agency. It would be inappropriate for me to inquire into what are essentially policy matters, particularly while they are being debated at a political level and through the parliamentary process. I therefore do not intend to carry out an inquiry into this issue. You will have an opportunity to raise your concerns with the select committee that considers the legislation.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Brady

Kevin Brady
Controller and Auditor-General
Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, Tumuaki o te Mana Arotake
Level 5, 48 Mulgrave Street, Thorndon, Wellington
Private Box 3928, Wellington
Ph: + 64 4 917 1500  |  DDI: + 64 4 917 1502  |  Fax: + 64 4 917 1509
Email:  kevin.brady@oag.govt.nz

__________________________________________________________________________

MY RESPONSE TO THE (EX) AUDITOR-GENERAL KEVIN BRADY:

5 May 2009

OPEN LETTER

Auditor-General

Kevin Brady

Dear Kevin,

Regarding my request on 6 April 2009, for you  to inquire into the cost-effectiveness of the Metrowater CCO model and your refusal to so do on 24 April 2009:

As a matter of some urgency, can you please provide a copy of whatever written (or other) evidence upon which you are relying, to substantiate your comment:

” Legislation is currently being prepared for consideration by Parliament.

The question of the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model is a part of that policy debate.”

This is news to me.

The placing of over $28 BILLION worth of public assets into Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs), is absolutely pivotal to the proposed Auckland ‘Supercity’ model.

: “All Auckland Auckland Council’s major commercial trading and infrastructure activities should be undertaken through CCOs”

[Recommendation 21 A of the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance]

The CCO model, (as you know), has not yet been subject to ANY ‘cost-benefit’ analysis by any body, including your Office – the Office of the Auditor-General.

Commonsense would suggest that even if you are correct in your above-mentioned claim,

The question of the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model is a part of that policy debate,” then, if that ‘policy debate’ is to be meaningful – there still needs to be factual evidence which supports the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model.

Which there is not.

……………………………………………….”

(ATTACHMENT WITH CORRESPONDENCE WITH EX-AUDITOR GENERAL KEVIN BRADY IS ATTACHED.)

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ANY CCO MODEL BY THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL.

WHICH RAISES THE BROADER QUESTION:


“WHOSE JOB IS IT TO ENSURE THAT PARLIAMENT EXERCISES ‘FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY’ AND ‘PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP’ OVER PUBLIC MONIES?”  (RATES AND OTHER TAXES?)

IF ‘PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP’ IS NOT BEING EXERCISED OVER OUR PUBLIC RATES MONIES – WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC  GIVE YOU ANY?


________________________________________________________________________

B) CONTINUING FAILURE OF ‘COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION’ METROWATER LTD, AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD COMPLIANCE WITH METROWATER’S ‘STATEMENT OF INTENT’ REGARDING ‘DEBT MANAGEMENT’

1) The continuation of Metrowater’s attempt to sell the family home of Luapo and Maria Iosefa over a disputed Metrowater account, in violation of the Local Government Act 2002 and the  Human Rights Act 1993.

1) METROWATER’S STATUTORY DUTIES AS A COUNCIL-CONTROLLED ORGANISATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 INCLUDING:

59 Principal objective of council-controlled organisation

(1) The principal objective of a council-controlled organisation is to—

(a) achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the statement of intent; and

(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so;  “

2) METROWATER STATEMENT OF INTENT 2009  ( Pg 7)

“THE NATURE OF OUR BUSINESS

1. Commercial Reliability

…..

Maintain a robust customer debt management process that is fair and reasonable and audited on an annual basis. “

___________________________________

PLEASE BE REMINDED THAT I HAVE NOT YET HAD ANY RESPONSE FROM ANY PERSON FROM AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL – EITHER AN ELECTED COUNCILLOR, OR COUNCIL OFFICER TO THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE EMAILED ON 23 MARCH 2010:

“23 March 2010

Mayor and Auckland City Councillors
Auckland City Council CEO
David Rankin

OPEN LETTER:

Dear Mayor and Auckland City Councillors, Auckland City Council CEO David Rankin,

Can you please confirm ASAP in the form of simple YES/NO answers – whether or not Auckland City Council have ensured  Metrowater’s compliance with policies outlined in your Statement of Intent’ regarding  ‘debt management’:

1) In the first instance, the unlawful persecution of the Iosefa family will cease forthwith. Metrowater has been instructed to immediately withdraw any proceedings from the High Court for any further ‘Writ of Sale’ or the like, over their family home at 89A Canal Rd Avondale.

Metrowater will fully reimburse Maria and Luapo Iosefa for any costs incurred as a result of Metrowater’s lawyer’s unlawful actions.

2) A full investigation will be carried out, INVOLVING DISCUSSIONS WITH MYSELF AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER PRESSURE GROUP AS DIRECTLY-AFFECTED PARTIES,  as part of  the ‘audit process’ into Metrowater’s debt management processes and actions, given the now proven highly unprofessional style of work of Metrowater’s (former?) lawyer, Michael Tolhurst, and current ‘Legal and Compliance Officer John Hilario; including, but not limited to;  proven discriminatory political bias against myself and fellow WPG members; failure to follow lawful due process in the serving of court documents; lies being told me in order to destroy my credibility (including a complaint against me – authorised by Metrowater’s CEO, to the NZ Law Society); the use of ‘standover’/’extortionist tactics’ to enforce payment of disputed accounts; Metrowater’s failure to follow its disputes process.

(EG: How many legal proceedings initiated in the Auckland District Court by Metrowater’s ‘law’ firm City Law, ended up as ‘Judgments by Default’ – because the Defendants didn’t file a ‘Statement of Defence’, or attend the hearing?

HOW MANY OF THESE CASES WERE AS A RESULT OF LAWFUL ‘DUE PROCESS’ NOT BEING FOLLOWED BY METROWATER’S LAWYERS, AS WAS THE NOW PROVEN  CASE WITH MARIA AND LUAPO IOSEFA?

3) In the interim, ALL current legal proceedings against WPG members will be withdrawn FORTHWITH.

____________________________________________________________

Confirmation of this information is required before I request the formal intervention of the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide.”

___________________________

I REQUEST (AGAIN) DOES THE CONTINUATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY ‘COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION’ METROWATER LTD, AGAINST LUAPO AND MARIA IOSEFA HAVE THE EXPRESSED LAWFUL AUTHORISATION AND ENDORSEMENT OF AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL?

IF SO – PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH  AUTHORISATION, (PERSONALLY SIGNED BY THOSE WHO ARE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS ACTION – AND THUS THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTION), SO THAT I CAN MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE INTERVENTION I WILL BE SEEKING UNDER S 256 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002, AS FOLLOWS:

Local Government Act 2002

256 Minister may appoint person to act on behalf of local authority, or initiate review

(1) If the Minister considers that the grounds in subsection (2) exist, the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette,—

(a) appoint a person to perform and exercise a local authority’s responsibilities, duties, and powers either generally or to the extent specified in the notice; or

(b) appoint a person to review, consider, and report on the performance of a local authority, either generally or in respect of any particular matter specified in the notice

(2) The grounds are—

(a) that the local authority is wilfully refusing or substantially refusing to perform and exercise its duties and powers under this Act or any other enactment; and

(b) the refusal—

(i) is impairing, or likely to impair, the good local government of the local authority’s district or region; or

(ii) endangering, or likely to endanger, the public health or safety of the local authority’s district or region.
2) Legal proceedings ARE still continuing against other WPG members, despite our above-mentioned request that such proceedings with withdrawn, whilst:

“A full investigation will be carried out, INVOLVING DISCUSSIONS WITH MYSELF AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER PRESSURE GROUP AS DIRECTLY-AFFECTED PARTIES,  as part of  the ‘audit process’ into Metrowater’s debt management processes and actions, given the now proven highly unprofessional style of work of Metrowater’s (former?) lawyer, Michael Tolhurst, and current ‘Legal and Compliance Officer John Hilario; including, but not limited to;  proven discriminatory political bias against myself and fellow WPG members; failure to follow lawful due process in the serving of court documents; lies being told me in order to destroy my credibility (including a complaint against me – authorised by Metrowater’s CEO, to the NZ Law Society); the use of ‘standover’/’extortionist tactics’ to enforce payment of disputed accounts; Metrowater’s failure to follow its disputes process.

(EG: How many legal proceedings initiated in the Auckland District Court by Metrowater’s ‘law’ firm City Law, ended up as ‘Judgments by Default’ – because the Defendants didn’t file a ‘Statement of Defence’, or attend the hearing?

HOW MANY OF THESE CASES WERE AS A RESULT OF LAWFUL ‘DUE PROCESS’ NOT BEING FOLLOWED BY METROWATER’S LAWYERS, AS WAS THE NOW PROVEN  CASE WITH MARIA AND LUAPO IOSEFA?”
I REQUEST (AGAIN) DOES THE CONTINUATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY ‘COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATION’ METROWATER LTD, AGAINST OTHER WPG MEMBERS HAVE THE EXPRESSED LAWFUL AUTHORISATION AND ENDORSEMENT OF AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL?

IF SO – I (AGAIN) REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH  AUTHORISATION, (PERSONALLY SIGNED BY THOSE WHO ARE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS ACTION – AND THUS THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTION).

_______________________________________

C) AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL’S UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF 4 ‘STOP THE $UPERCITY’ BANNERS DISPLAYED OUTSIDE PASIFIKA ON 13 MARCH 2010.

1) How is it that Auckland City Council is allowing Council staff to break the LAW as follows:

Local Government Act 2002
155 Determination whether bylaw made under this Act is appropriate
(1AA) This section applies to a bylaw only if it is made under this Act.
(1) A local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.
(2) If a local authority has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must, before making the bylaw, determine whether the proposed bylaw—
(a) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and
(b) gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
(3) No bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, notwithstanding section 4 of that Act.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:

14. Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
21. Unreasonable search and seizure
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise. “

(Correspondence related to this above-mentioned incident is attached.

Please be advised that the Council Officer who unlawfully seized these signs without my knowledge or authority did return them to me by 11am Monday 22 March 2010 as requested.

HOWEVER – the fact that he believed he had the lawful authority to seize them in the first place – when HE DID NOT – means that there is something seriously wrong with Auckland City
Council’s processes and procedures for which the CEO David Rankin must take ultimate responsibility, given his statutory duties as clearly outlined in the Local Government Act 2002 as follows:

” 42 Chief executive
(1) A local authority must, in accordance with clauses 33 and 34 of Schedule 7, appoint a chief executive.
(2) A chief executive appointed under subsection (1) is responsible to his or her local authority for—
(a) implementing the decisions of the local authority; and
(b) providing advice to members of the local authority and to its community boards, if any; and
(c) ensuring that all responsibilities, duties, and powers delegated to him or her or to any person employed by the local authority, or imposed or conferred by an Act, regulation, or bylaw, are properly performed or exercised; and
(d) ensuring the effective and efficient management of the activities of the local authority; and
(e) maintaining systems to enable effective planning and accurate reporting of the financial and service performance of the local authority; and
(f) providing leadership for the staff of the local authority; and
(g) employing, on behalf of the local authority, the staff of the local authority; and
(h) negotiating the terms of employment of the staff of the local authority.
(3) A chief executive appointed under subsection (1) is responsible to his or her local authority for ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the management structure of the local authority—
(a) reflects and reinforces the separation of regulatory responsibilities and decision-making processes from other responsibilities and decision-making processes; and
(b) is capable of delivering adequate advice to the local authority to facilitate the explicit resolution of conflicting objectives.
(4) For the purposes of any other Act, a chief executive appointed under this section is the principal administrative officer of the local authority.
Compare: 1974 No 66 ss 119C, 119D ”

__________________________________________________________________________

THERE IS MORE!!!
HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PROGRAMME MANAGER FOR THE ATA LEADING THE ‘INTEGRATION OF AUCKLAND REGIONAL WATER SERVICES’ IS NONE OTHER THAN GRAHAM WOOD – THE EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR OF UNITED WATER SOUTH AUSTRALIA???

(UNITED WATER – OWNED BY VEOLIA – THE LARGEST WATER MULTINATIONAL IN THE WORLD, PRIVATISED PAPAKURA’S WATER SERVICES IN 1997.

THE EX- MAYOR OF PAPAKURA – DAVID HAWKINS – WHO PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN PRIVATISING PAPAKURA’S WATER SERVICES, IS ALSO WORKING FOR THE ATA.

BOTH HAWKINS AND WOOD HAVE BEEN SECONDED TO THE ATA FROM WATERCARE.

WHY ON EARTH HAVE KNOWN WATER PRIVATISERS BEEN WORKING FOR PUBLIC WATER WHOLESALER WATERCARE???

HOW IS IT THAT THE PRIVATE WATER FOXES ARE RUNNING THE PUBLIC WATER CHOOKHOUSE????

HOW ABOUT LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE?

The Auckland $UPERCITY is a corrupt corporate coup.
It is all about setting up a larger public trough for fewer, but bigger private snouts.

We unpaid ‘Public Watchdogs’ have been ‘blowing the whistle until our eyeballs bleed’!
We’ve done the work – got the evidence – HELP YOURSELVES!

If you want any more information  – just contact me.

THESE ISSUES NEED PUBLICISING!

Look forward to reading some in-depth coverage soon.

www.stopthesupercity.org.nz

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright

Media Spokesperson
Water pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

5 attachments — Download all attachments

STOP THE SUPERCITY CCO PETITION 2008 18 REPORT 19 February 2010 49DBSCH_SCR4632_1-Petitions-2008-18-2008-20-and-2008-38-of-Penelope.htm
17K   Open as a Google document View Download
Penny Bright OIA response 30032010.pdf
111K   View Download
STOP THE SUPERCITY CCO PETITION 2008 18 Department of Internal Affairs.pdf
1624K   View Download
STOP THE SUPERCITY REQUEST FOR OAG TO DO ‘COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS’ OF METROWATER CCO MODEL 24 March 2010.doc
97K   View as HTML Open as a Google document Download
STOP THE SUPERCITY INT WORLD WATER DAY PROTEST OUTSIDE ATA 22 MARCH 2010.doc
26K   View as HTML Open as a Google document Download
Reply Forward
Advertisements

April 4, 2010 - Posted by | Stop the $uper City

2 Comments »

  1. Hello Penny, I want to say I tautoko (support)you and your group all the way. I wish you all the best for your campaign for the new city mayor. I hear you on radio Waatea
    and am very pleased that you get air time when ever and wherever. Last night Bruce Hopkins replayed an interview with you about your approach to the campaign. Actually it was early hours this morning. For the first time I managed to catch on to your page here. Many, many times I miss the address, and when you said it, I still missed some words. Luckily Bruce repeated it and I was able to catch the missing words…which were “word press”.
    The best way, and about the quickest is to reach me by email.
    We get deliveries once ever two months, we live on an island
    off the Great Barrier Island.
    If we can vote for you by email please let me know, or any other matter that you think about.
    Will keep up on this page, perhaps to get up to date.
    Let me know if there is a speacial page to go too.
    You and your group are doing wonderful work.
    We are on solar power out here, so can only listen in to radio.

    Ka kite
    Moana

    Comment by Moana Kake | July 11, 2010 | Reply

    • Cheers Moana!
      Have added you to my email list.
      Voting is by postal ballot.
      WORD OF MOUTH is the most effective form of helping to get the message out.
      The electronic form of WORD OF MOUTH of course – is email. 🙂
      EVERYBODY is the centre of a little universe.
      Think of everybody YOU know!
      How can YOU best help get the message out to your family, friends, neighbours, workmates, sports clubs, unions. church groups ……. etc?

      GO MOANA!

      Cheers and thanks again!

      Penny

      Comment by Penny Bright | July 11, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: