The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

KIWIBLOG ‘General Debate’ 24 May 2011: My post outlining complaint to Chief Archivist about Auckland Council’s alleged failure to maintain full and accurate contracting records + responses.

General Debate 24 May 2011 Add this story to Scoopit!.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

Tags:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 at 8:10 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

91 Responses to “General Debate 24 May 2011”


  1. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:25 am Good moaning ‘Kiwibloggers’! ;)

    Yesterday, Monday 23 May 2011 I made an historic first complaint to Chief Archivist about Auckland Council’s alleged failure to maintain full and accurate ‘contracting’ records.

    I arrived at the Office of the National Archives with evidence which, in my considered opinion, proves that ‘contracting’ at Auckland Council is effectively ‘out-of-control’ and made a formal written complaint to the Chief Archivist, about an alleged breach, by Auckland Council, of s 61 (c) of the Public Records Act 2005, because the Auckland Council

    ‘(c) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under it.

    (This alleged failure to comply attaches to s 17 (1) of the Public Records Act 2005:

    ‘Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its offices in accordance with normal prudent business practice, including the records of any matter which is contracted out to an independent contractor.’

    (Evidence to support this complaint is provided in detail on my blog).

    I will be formally advising the Governing Body of the Auckland Council of this development, at their meeting this morning Tuesday 24 May 2011 at the former Manukau Council Chamber at 10am, where myself and fellow ‘Public Watchdog’ community activist, Lisa Prager have speaking rights.

    How can the elected representatives of the Auckland ‘$upercity’ Council support this 3.7% rate$ increase – when there cannot have been proper ‘line-by-line’ accounting because full and accurate records of contracts are not being kept in a proper way?

    In my considered opinion, if the private ‘piggies-in-the-middle’ consultants and contractors were removed from core Council services and returned to ‘in-house’ provision – there could be savings to residents and ratepayers of hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Whose interests are being served here, and where exactly are our public monies going?

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  2. Murray (7,635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:30 am Piss off idiot.
  3. bearhunter (849) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:39 am Murray, I see the dreadful twat (Fowler, not Bright) is saying that it wasn’t derogatory now. Perhaps he should try to substitute “Irish” for “Maori” and see how far he gets. Gobshite.
  4. Nookin (843) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:40 am I think that if ACC adds a further 3% to the rates it might come close to having the resources to comply with the forms-in-triplicate mentality that seems to pervade bureaucracy throughout New Zealand. Keep it up, Penny. Once you get strict compliance you might well have added 10% to the local householder bill. Won’t they be pleased with you then? And how proud will you be?

















  5. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 12:20 pm Bugger. Post at 8.25am. The reprieve is over… the blog blight is back with more electioneering.






  6. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 2:20 pm # Nookin (842) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:40 am

    I think that if ACC adds a further 3% to the rates it might come close to having the resources to comply with the forms-in-triplicate mentality that seems to pervade bureaucracy throughout New Zealand. Keep it up, Penny. Once you get strict compliance you might well have added 10% to the local householder bill. Won’t they be pleased with you then? And how proud will you be?”

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I prefer the bureaucracy to the ‘contractocracy’ ‘Nookin’.

    Over the last 20 years, after so much contracting out of core Council services to the supposedly more ‘efficient’ private sector – have YOUR rates gone up or down?

    Duh?

    I also support our lawful right to ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government, and have taken a step that no one else has, to help enforce the maintenance of ‘full and accurate’ records of all contract entered into with ‘independent contractors’.

    How can rates reductions be achieved by ‘line-by-line’ accounting – if the ‘accounts’ are not being kept in a proper way?

    How can Councillors from ANY political persuasion agree to ANY rates increases – if they don’t know where rates monies are being spent?

    Or ‘Nookin’ is your position on this matter that you don’t care that prudent stewardship is not being exercised over public monies, and you don’t care if rates go up?

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com


  7. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 2:25 pm @ Nookin: Please DNFTT!

    Friday will soon come around and the blog blight will be spanked again – this time courtesy of the voters within the Howick Ward.

    EEEK!


  8. nasska (589) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 2:42 pm Elaycee

    Do you know what time Friday the results will be available to the public? I’d hate to miss a moment of the celebrations.


  9. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm Well I don’t know about you guys but I’m extremely concerned that ACC is clearly deliberately concealing the true and actual arrangements it has with its contractors and I think this should be investigated, were anyone actually ready and able to do it.

    This is a serious problem people, requiring some sort of public watchdog activity of the very highest and most urgent order. Alacrity is king, should be the watchword for today.

    If only someone, somewhere, could take on this utterly vital and necessary role.

    But none exist.

    Oh the humanity.

  10. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm Nasska – Rest assured I’ll keep you in the loop. But don’t plan to attend any ‘blog blight celebration party’ any time soon…

  11. _
  12. nasska (589) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 3:55 pm Reid

    I feel for you in your despair. With such a blatant conspiracy going on who will you turn to?

    I can only console you with the thought that cometh the hour, cometh the man (or madwoman).





  13. nasska (589) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:12 pm Reid

    Over the past week or so I have noticed a disturbing phenomenon. Fortunately it has been confined to a very small number of commenters on Kiwiblog but I thought I should run it past you in case you consider that it should be brought to the notice of the authorities.

    There have been a couple of comments made on this blog supporting the work Water Woman is doing in opening our eyes to the incredible conspiracies going on around us. While it would be easy to dismiss these commenters as aliens or methos having a bad day there is another possibility.

    I refer of course to a version of the “Stockholm Syndrome”. Is it possible that these sad people have worn out their scroll wheels & are now actually forced to read the cut & paste ramblings of the resident madwoman? They may have become enslaved by the wafflings of their captor & their now addled brains see her as a benign source of information.

    Your thoughts & any recommendations for appropriate therapy could help these poor souls.

  14. Sofia (145) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:30 pm nasska –
    There have been a couple of comments made on this blog supporting the work Water Woman is doing in opening our eyes to the incredible conspiracies going on around us. While it would be easy to dismiss these commenters as aliens or methos having a bad day there is another possibility.

    This conspiracy of yours, nasska, may be supported by the comments, to which I think you refer, are not ripped to shreds by the afore mentioned Water Person.

    On the other hand –
    Your thoughts & any recommendations for appropriate therapy could help these poor souls.

    it might be that these ‘other’ comments ARE therapy.
    Or even anti-thesis, to the GAMES PEOPLE PLAY [see a synopsis of this treatise by famed Dr Eric Berne] – the game player in this case being the Water Person, a textbook case for transactional analysis.

  15. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:31 pm @ Nasska says: “cometh the hour, cometh the man (or madwoman).”

    Wash your mouth out.


  16. nasska (589) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:46 pm Sofia

    Alas, there are so many complications.

  17. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm # Elaycee (175) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    @ Nookin: Please DNFTT!

    Friday will soon come around and the blog blight will be spanked again – this time courtesy of the voters within the Howick Ward.

    EEEK!
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ah yes – another profound comment from the gormless , more dollars than sense ‘Elaycee’ who doesn’t care where her rate$ monies are spent and doesn’t support ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.

    Whatever dear ……………….. (yawn…………………..)

    There are now THOUSANDS of people who live and/or travel through the Howick Ward who have seen the signs:

    “NO RATE$ INCREASE!”

    “CUT OUT THE CONTRACTOR$!”

    “SUPERCITY = SUPER RIP OFF!”

    90,000 voters have read my 150 word ‘Candidate’s Statement’ – where I have outlined my opposition to any rates increase.

    So – whatever the outcome of the election (you SILLY woman) – the message is out there (which is the main reason why I stood in the first place.)

    (Opposing rate$ increases is a message that you ‘Elaycee’ – would quite possibly support – if it were not coming from me?)

    One day, dear – when you learn the political sophistication of ‘issue by issue’ politics – you will perhaps realise how ineffective you are being?

    However – such a realisation would require a modicum of intelligence/ common sense – so unfortunately – I’m not expecting you to catch on any time soon.

    Same comment applies to ‘Nasska’ , ‘Sofia’ ‘Reid’ and ‘Nookin’?

    (Unless of course you have your own private contracting snouts in the public trough, or are connected in any way with those who have?

    PERISH THE THOUGHT!

    But, of course with your GUTLESS anonymity – there is no way of checking – is there?

    How convenient !

    (Meant of course in my customary caring way ;)

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  18. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 6:04 pm # KH (149) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    If I had to chose between having the dodgy ‘free’ trade agreement and Pharmac
    I would choose Pharmac ”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I agree KH.

    Have you seen this?

    “POSTCARDS OPPOSING TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AVAILABLE TO SEND TO POLITICIANS

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is the means to effect a Free Trade Agreement with the US.

    For full details on why this would have a very negative impact on NZ, check http://www.nznotforsale.org

    There is no bigger issue this election.

    Two versions of a postcard opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement are now available, one to be sent to PM Key, the other to an MP of the sender’s choice. Postage is free (because they’re going to Parliament).

    Here is the text (which is the same on each one).

    “Dear Prime Minister Key

    I urge the Government to withdraw from negotiations for the TPPA and instead put New Zealand’s national interest at the heart of all trade and investment negotiations, rather than the interests of transnational corporations and the US government.

    The TPPA will, among other things: undermine what little NZ has left in the way of any controls of foreign investment; institutionalise the very same horrendous financial practices which led to the global financial crisis; allow American corporations to sue the New Zealand government in private international tribunals; attack Pharmac and drive up the cost of prescription medicines; make access to digital recordings more expensive and copying more restricted; attack our GE and tobacco controls and food labeling and food and appliance safety standards; and weaken our controls of food imports where they might carry disease. The whole process is both secret and fundamentally undemocratic in the way in which it is being negotiated and then ratified by Executive decree.

    I will be voting for a party which puts our national interest first, not those of foreign corporations under a TPPA”.

    The cards are also online at http://www.box.net/shared/ju1gxifyio and people are welcome to download and print their own. Bear in mind that they are meant to be on light card, not paper’

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  19. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 6:07 pm Blog Blight: Roll on Friday. It doesn’t matter what you think – the voters are the ones that matter.

    The only good thing about the election for you is that, after its all over and you are licking your wounds, you can still use your signs for firewood.

  20. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm # Elaycee (180) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Blog Blight: Roll on Friday. It doesn’t matter what you think – the voters are the ones that matter.

    The only good thing about the election for you is that, after its all over and you are licking your wounds, you can still use your signs for firewood.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    errrr….. ‘Elaycee’ – have you overdosed on your ‘THICK’ pills?

    HANDY HINT 101: If you are going to make a comment about someone else’s post – it does actually pay to READ it – so you don’t make a complete IDIOT of yourself?

    You seem to have missed this bit – so I’ll repeat it so you hopefully will engage your ENORMOUS brain before typing your next response?

    “There are now THOUSANDS of people who live and/or travel through the Howick Ward who have seen the signs:

    “NO RATE$ INCREASE!”

    “CUT OUT THE CONTRACTOR$!”

    “SUPERCITY = SUPER RIP OFF!”

    90,000 voters have read my 150 word ‘Candidate’s Statement’ – where I have outlined my opposition to any rates increase.

    So – whatever the outcome of the election (you SILLY woman) – the message is out there (which is the main reason why I stood in the first place.) ”

    Ok ‘Elaycee’?

    GOT IT dear?

    (I’ll be celebrating whatever the outcome of the election, and will have more signs I can use IF I decide to stand in the Epsom electorate?

    ;)

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  21. Steve (1,506) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 6:47 pm Penny,
    The Space Station is above NZ right now, the people onboard need someone intelligent to talk to coz they are bored shitless. NZ shitstirers is on the menu of things to do today.

    It is ‘Space Station’ ok not ‘playstation’




  22. Hurf Durf (2,727) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:06 pm Anyone see Ebola manage to make his crap speech about US-Irish relations all about himself? “Is feideh linn!!!” Really? Really? Piss off. Still, I got to see his car get broken by his wife’s fat arse so swings and roundabouts.

    Speaking of losers, they’ve found traces of DSK’s DNA (stop giggling in the back there) on the dress of that chambermaid. Looks like an open and shut case, Danno etc.

    Only four more days until polls close, Penny! Are you confident? I think you’ll make a great (snort) and useful (guffaw) contribution to Auckland Council. Nah, couldn’t keep a straight face. Sorry.

    Apparently even Camping might be way off. Iran has pencilled in the return of the Mahdi for the 5th June so I get to keep off doing any housework for another week and get a few more beers in. Bonzer.

  23. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:37 pm nasska your 5:12 raises an interesting, serious and critical point.

    I wonder if I shouldn’t call: The Bureau?

  24. Viking2 (4,092) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:45 pm National’s Tau Henare has “overstepped the line” by calling Hone Harawira “so racist, he has chocolate milk in his cup of tea,” a fellow MP says. :lol:

    Henare – who has been dubbed the Minister of Twitter for his prolific use of the social networking site – posted the comment on his Twitter account earlier this afternoon.

    Labour MP Trevor Mallard, also an enthusiastic social media user, said “it’s beyond the limits.” :cry: :cry:

    “The line is drawn in a different place on Twitter, but in this case Tau has gone beyond it. It’s unlikely to upset many people, mainly because of the way that Hone is perceived by a lot of people. :x

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5048491/Twittering-Tau-Henare-in-chocolate-milk-racism-storm

  25. Viking2 (4,092) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:50 pm White kiwi chick hatched
    A rarity these days a bit like virgins.

    A rare white kiwi chick has been born – the first to be hatched in captivity.

    The chick, named Manukura, is not an albino but the rare offspring of some North Island brown kiwi from Little Barrier Island.

    But wouldn’t you know it the racists manage to even claim the white one as their’s. Rangitane chief executive Jason Kerehi said tribal elders saw the white chick as a “tohu” or “sign” of new beginnings.

    Well they would given the dosh the Nats. have handed them lately.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/cutestuff/5047359/White-kiwi-chick-hatched

  26. Pauleastbay (924) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:50 pm V2

    I would have thought asssaulting a fellow MP was pretty much “beyond the limits”, call me old fashioned

  27. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm Ground Control to the blog blight:

    I’ve certainly received the candidate statements. My vote has already been cast. Roll on Friday.

    Hard to see how you could possibly consider a right spanking and rejection courtesy of the voters as a success. But you never know – you may even reach the dizzy heights and get 1.0% of the vote this time. Er, but then again, maybe not…

    BTW – I’ll have to take your word re the number of words in your candidate statement – I got a headache halfway through the fir$t paragraph!

    I’ve also done my bit for the community and helped track down the cats and dogs that fled the scene after they saw your picture and your hoarding in Cook St last Saturday. One of the poor dogs (a rare, Tibetan Yak Hound) nearly reached the outskirts of Hamilton before it slowed and a ranger could get a leash clipped to it’s collar. Its still shaking but the vet says its not unusual in cases of severe shock.

    Luckily, its expected to make a full recovery.

  28. nasska (589) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:58 pm Reid

    A man such as Quiller who wouldn’t crack under torture, especially hydro-torture, might be able to infiltrate Water Woman’s extensive network of conspiracy experts. Only then could we know for certain whether any of our fellow Kiwiblog commenters have been taken captive & had their minds reprogrammed.

    We owe it to the poor bastards.



  29. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 8:07 pm Roger nasska, will set wheels in motion.
  30. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 9:19 pm # Elaycee (184) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Ground Control to the blog blight:

    I’ve certainly received the candidate statements. My vote has already been cast. Roll on Friday.

    Hard to see how you could possibly consider a right spanking and rejection courtesy of the voters as a success. But you never know – you may even reach the dizzy heights and get 1.0% of the vote this time. Er, but then again, maybe not…

    BTW – I’ll have to take your word re the number of words in your candidate statement – I got a headache halfway through the fir$t paragraph!

    I’ve also done my bit for the community and helped track down the cats and dogs that fled the scene after they saw your picture and your hoarding in Cook St last Saturday. One of the poor dogs (a rare, Tibetan Yak Hound) nearly reached the outskirts of Hamilton before it slowed and a ranger could get a leash clipped to it’s collar. Its still shaking but the vet says its not unusual in cases of severe shock.

    Luckily, its expected to make a full recovery.”

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    So ‘Elaycee’ – I see your intellectual prowess is closely matched by your wit and repartee.

    (yawn ……………)

    At least you can put a face to my name – unlike GUTLESS/anonymous ‘Kiwibloggers’ such as yourself?

    (Meant of course in a caring way, dear :)

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  31. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 9:30 pm # nasska (586) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Reid

    A man such as Quiller who wouldn’t crack under torture, especially hydro-torture, might be able to infiltrate Water Woman’s extensive network of conspiracy experts. Only then could we know for certain whether any of our fellow Kiwiblog commenters have been taken captive & had their minds reprogrammed.

    We owe it to the poor bastards.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Then again ‘ nasska’ – have you considered that the ‘fellow Kiwiblog commenters’ to whom you are referring, may just have a greater intellectual capacity than yourself and ‘reid’, and/or might actually (unlike yourselves) also have a better understanding of the principles and practice of ‘freedom of expression’?

    You could also start more ad hominem attacks on them, for daring to hold a point of view that is different to your own?

    (ESPECIALLY if they have the temerity to agree with me on some issues! :)

    Or is consistency also not one of your strong points?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  32. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 9:39 pm Quiller was dispatched from London 10 mins ago, Penny. I’d be quite worried, were I you.
  33. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 9:51 am # reid (7,381) Says:
    May 24th, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    Quiller was dispatched from London 10 mins ago, Penny. I’d be quite worried, were I you.”
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Think I’ve got more important things to worry about ‘reid’.

    Like the total lack of transparency regarding hundreds of million$ of apparently unaccountable Auckland regional citizens and ratepayers monies which are being spent on private sector consultants and contractors.

    Happening here i(n New Zealand – ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world (along with Singapore and Denmark according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’. Pity about the REALITY!)

    No central registers of contracts?
    No ‘devilish detail’ giving the names of the contractors; scope, term and value of contracts?

    How can elected the Auckland Council elected representatives, make prudent decisions about rates, when there appears to be no basis for ‘line-by-line’ accounting?

    Why are ‘core’ Council services, such as fixing the footpaths, water pipes, roads; trimming the grass and trees, looking after parks and reserves; planning ……….. not being carried out ‘in-house’ by Council staff?

    Why have we got two lots of private ‘piggies-in-the-middle’ – private contractors who are carrying out core council work – then private consultants employed as ‘project managers’ to administer the ‘works contractors’?

    If replacing the bureaucracy with the ‘contractocracy’is SO efficient – why have Council rates continued to go up – not down?

    Unlike the whining ‘Kiwibloggers’ – who constantly attack me – at least I have a proven track record of doing something to help stop this rort.

    That’s the thing about ‘activists’.

    We may get bad press – but we do have a habit of making things happen and getting things done.

    Perhaps those who do not have their heads firmly embedded in their bottoms have a wider perspective, and are in a better position to take a more appreciative overview?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  34. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:04 am at least I have a proven track record of doing something to help stop this rort

    No, you don’t. You have a proven track record of raising issues that don’t matter, or if they do matter, don’t actually exist.

    Every single issue you’ve raised since you’ve chosen to inflict yourself on we here, is trivial. Just like this one is. See, just for this example, it may well be that the i’s aren’t dotted and the t’s aren’t crossed, on the ACC contractor’s records. But even if that’s the case, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING SINISTER IS GOING ON.

    Like the mad Don Quixote however, you just can’t see that and instead, when no-one else agrees with you, you take it to mean you’re onto something quite serious indeed and you must press on regardless of the resistance.

    Now Penny, sorry, but this is mental. You’ve got some quite serious delusion going on in your head, I suggest you see a specialist in counselling people with paranoia, because you are.

    As I’ve told you before, you don’t add value because no-one here thinks you raise any serious issues whatsoever. Now it could be that we’re wrong, or it could be that you’re wrong. Have you seriously considered the latter possibility, or not really? I’ve also told you how to start adding value, but you won’t, instead you perpetuate your mad Don behaviour, daily inflicting it upon us, and then you’re surprised you get resistance.

    As I said Penny, this is mental and you need to see someone about it.

  35. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:06 am Oh oh – the blog blight returns…

    Memo to BB: Why don’t we just let the good folk of Howick Ward decide whether they accept your views or consign them to the garbage. Your blatant electioneering is repetitive and tiresome.

    Roll on Friday.

    EEEK!

  36. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:14 am So – obviously not going to hear a loud ‘popping’ sound anytime soon from ‘reid’ or ‘Elaycee’?

    The loud ‘popping’ sound of heads being suddenly extracted from bottoms?

    Pity.

    However – just seems to prove the point (again) that there are none so blind as those who WILL not see?

    Continue your blissful ignorance – and both of you have a LOVELY day! :)

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  37. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:31 am Blog Blight: The only popping sound will come from the champagne corks. Winners are grinners.

    EEEK!

  38. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:37 am OK Penny prove me wrong. Explain precisely what is sinister about what you’ve discovered over the ACC contractor records. Tell us exactly what the shortcomings are, and exactly why, in your opinion, this is a problem. You haven’t done this yet, BTW, if you think you have, for every single one of your posts above consists merely of your bald allegation there’s a problem with the register, but you haven’t explained the nature of the problem. Nor have you explained precisely why, in factual terms, this is a sinister issue. You’ve said that in your opinion it is, but you haven’t given any facts to back that up.

    Be really really specific and factual and don’t waste my time with your opinion, lay the facts out, as clearly as you can. Facts only, not your opinion.

    Can you do that?

    If not, why not.

  39. Nookin (843) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 10:55 am Reid
    Is Jonathon Quinn coming as well?
    http://www.brettbattles.com/
  40. alex Masterley (700) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am As an aside the last time some-one complained about ACC contractors (the blokes who did the curbing and footpaths if i recall correctly), rudman in the herald i think, an audit was done on the contractors works and who owed what to whom. Banksie got all hot under the collar about it too.
    Rudman suggested the contractor owed the council money.
    However when the dust settled the audit showed the council actually owed the contractor more money than was thought.
    Red faces all round.
  41. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am Ok ‘reid’ – here is the FACTUAL EVIDENCE which you have requested:

    (Apologies folks for the length of this post – but it contains the FULL OIA reply – and ‘reid’ has ‘asked for it’ (as it were :)
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I made a formal written complaint to the Chief Archivist, (Monday 23 May 2011) about an alleged breach, by Auckland Council, of s 61 (c) of the Public Records Act 2005, because the Auckland Council

    ‘(c) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under it.

    (This alleged failure to comply attaches to s 17 (1) of the Public Records Act 2005:

    ‘Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its offices in accordance with normal prudent business practice, including the records of any matter which is contracted out to an independent contractor.’ ) ”

    The evidence to support this complaint, included the following items of correspondence:

    1) 10 March 2011: ‘Open Letter/ Local Government and Official Information Act (LGOIMA) request to the CEO of Auckland Council.

    2) 26 April 2011: Reply from Bruce Thomas ‘Public Information Manager’ Auckland Council, including copies of transfers for information to the 7 Auckland Council CCO’s (and Council Organisation).

    3) 16 May 2011: LGOIMA reply from the Regional Facilities Auckland CCO.

    4) 11 March 2011″ Acknowledgment by Ministerial Secretary Jess Van Harlem (Office of Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide) of my originating ‘Open Letter/LGOIMA request of 10 March 2011.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE:

    It comprises of my questions and the replies from Bruce Thomas ‘Public Information Manager’ Auckland Council, as follows:

    2) 26 April 2011: Reply from Bruce Thomas ‘Public Information Manager’ Auckland Council

    (Official Information Request No. 9000108231)

    26 April 2011

    Dear Ms Bright

    Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
    Re: requests for evidence of record

    I refer to your email dated 10 March 2011, which we received on 11 March 2011, requesting information about records relating to independent contractors.

    As a general comment, we note that section 17(1) of the Public Records Act 2005 to which you refer does not establish an obligation to create and maintain a register of contracts and nor is there any other statutory obligation to do so. Nonetheless, the Council is currently in the process of developing such a register. Even once it is established, the information contained in the register is unlikely to be disclosed on the grounds that to do so would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. Of course, any requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    Please note that Council Controlled Organisations are independent entities separate from the Auckland Council.
    They have their own obligations to respond to requests under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

    Regarding your request, we have responded to your questions in the order in which they were raised.

    1) The information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, each of the following local authorities had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor:

    a) Auckland Regional Council (ARC)
    b) Auckland City Council
    c) Manukau City Council
    d) Waitakere City Council
    e) North Shore City Council
    f) Rodney District Council
    g) Papakura District Council
    h) Franklin District Council

    2) Please provide the information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, how many Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) operated under each of the following local authorities:

    a) Auckland Regional Council (ARC)
    b) Auckland City Council
    c) Manukau City Council
    d) Waitakere City Council
    e) North Shore City Council
    f) Rodney District Council
    g) Papakura District Council
    h) Franklin District Council

    Your request is refused under section 17(f) of the Act on the basis that the information requested, to the extent it may exist or be held by the Auckland Council, cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

    17. Refusal of requests

    A request made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (f) That the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

    3) Please provide the information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, that each ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) operating under each of the above-mentioned local authorities had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    4) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time that the Auckland Transition Agency (A.T.A.) was operating, that they had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    Your request is refused under section 17(g)(i) of the Act on the basis that the information requested is not held by the local authority and we have no grounds for believing that the information is held by another organisation. Alternatively, your request is refused under section 17(f) on the basis cannot be made available without substantial research.

    17. Refusal of requests.

    A request made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (g) That the information requested is not held by the local authority and the person dealing with the request has no grounds for believing that the information is either-

    (i) Held by another local authority or a Department or Minister of the Crown or organisation;

    5) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time the Auckland Council has been operating, there has been created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ established for for any matter which has been contracted out to an independent contractor.

    7) Please provide the information which confirms that in each of the above-mentioned categories, auditors responsible to the Office of the Auditor-General, have double-checked that a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ has been created and maintained.

    8) Please provide the information which confirms that in accordance with normal prudent business practice, Auckland Council has now ‘amalgamated’, created and maintains full and accurate records of any matter which has been contracted out to an independent contractor, including the above-mentioned Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organistions’ (CCOs); Council organisations and ‘statutory entities’.

    As mentioned at the beginning of this letter, this information does not yet exist and your request is therefore refused under section 17 (e) of the Act.

    17. Refusal of requests

    A refusal made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (e) That the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found.

    6) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time the each of the following Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organistions’ (CCOs); Council organisations and ‘statutory entities’ has been operating, there has been created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ established for for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    a) Auckland Council Investments (ACIC)
    b) Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (TEED)
    c) Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA)
    d) Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL)
    e) Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (AWDA)
    f) Watercare Services Ltd
    g) Auckland Transport

    The information, to the extent it may exist, is not held by the Auckland Council and your request has been transferred to the organisations listed above. A copy of our letter of transfer is attached for your information.

    9) Please provide the name and position of the Auckland Council employee who is ultimately responsible for the creation and maintenance of records of any matter which is contracted out to an independent contractor, as defined in s17 of the Public Records Act 2001, and would bear ultimate responsibility for any of the following offences:

    61 Offences
    Every person commits an offence who wilfully or negligently—
    (a) damages a public record; or
    (b) disposes of or destroys a public record otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or
    (c) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under it.

    The Auckland Council has a corporate responsibility to comply with the Public Records Act 2005.

    You have the right in accordance with section 27(3) of the LGOIMA to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman regarding council’s refusal to release any information under this letter and for the delay in getting this response to you.

    If you have any further queries please contact me on
    (09) 301 0101, quoting Official Information Request No. 90000108231

    Yours sincerely

    pp (? not legible)

    Bruce Thomas
    Public Information Manager
    Democracy Services

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Hope this helps ‘reid’.

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  42. Manolo (4,214) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:03 am Nutter alert, nutter alert.
  43. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:16 am # alex Masterley (700) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am

    As an aside the last time some-one complained about ACC contractors (the blokes who did the curbing and footpaths if i recall correctly), rudman in the herald i think, an audit was done on the contractors works and who owed what to whom. Banksie got all hot under the collar about it too.
    Rudman suggested the contractor owed the council money.
    However when the dust settled the audit showed the council actually owed the contractor more money than was thought.
    Red faces all round.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Why are core Council services, such as footpaths construction, repairs and maintenance being contracted out to the private sector in the first place?

    Where is the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis which PROVES that this is a more ‘cost-effective’ use of residents and ratepayers monies than when such services were provided ‘in-house’?

    How much private profit have those with Council footpath contracts made since the contracting-out of this core Council services began?

    How is the use by Councils of this ‘business’ model serving the interests of anyone other than those who get this Council ‘business’?

    Who is checking for conflicts of interest between those who give out the contracts and those who receive the contracts?

    There is NO publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for either elected representatives, or council staff/ consultants who sign off these contracts.

    How can ‘conflicts of interest’ be prevented, if interests are not ‘declared’ in the first place?

    (This principle equally applies to NZ Judges).

    To rely on the integrity of elected representatives or staff to just ‘put their hand up’, and declare an interest at the time of a potential conflict does NOT work for me.

    Not good enough.

    How can you double-check ‘interests’ – which are only known to the person concerned (ie: inside their head)?

    Honestly – how ON EARTH can NZ be perceived to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ when we have so little genuine transparency?

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  44. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:18 am # Manolo (4,214) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Nutter alert, nutter alert.”
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    It’s ok ‘Manolo’.

    We’re used to you and accept you for what you are.

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  45. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:22 am Yes Manolo I thought I’d wait till this was yesterday’s GD out of deference to those who couldn’t be arsed with what this is going to become.

    Penny what precisely does this establish, in anyway? What sinister secret is lurking beneath this “evidence?” You haven’t explained that. All you’ve said is some of them do have a register and some of them don’t, and the reply says we note that section 17(1) of the Public Records Act 2005 to which you refer does not establish an obligation to create and maintain a register of contracts and nor is there any other statutory obligation to do so.

    What about that, don’t you understand.

    In other words, so fucking what, if there is, or isn’t, any register? S-o f-u-c-k-i-n-g w-h-a-t?

    What your “evidence” establishes Penny is precisely what I said above, about your tilting at windmills. You pick on some trivial issue like the lack of a contractor’s register, then somehow, somewhere, over the rainbow, make a leap of logic that this means something sinister is going on. Newsflash Penny, it doesn’t look like it, to us, it never did and this “evidence” does nothing to establish that one way or the other. In other words, it doesn’t mean there is, and it doesn’t mean there isn’t. Now you clearly think there is something going on, and that might be because you have got some paranoid delusion about how the world works, that the rest of us don’t have. Now on the basis of probabilities, do you think there is any chance that if most of the world thinks one thing about something, and one or two people think another thing, who do you think might be correct, on the basis of probability, given there is no evidence, one way or the other.

    If this is all you’ve got, it just proves what I said Penny. You think otherwise, then spell it out. Tell me exactly what is wrong in that reply, from specific excerpts. I’ve highlighted a few myself, which I think are reasonable responses to an unreasonable question.

    THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE:

    It comprises of my questions and the replies from Bruce Thomas ‘Public Information Manager’ Auckland Council, as follows:

    2) 26 April 2011: Reply from Bruce Thomas ‘Public Information Manager’ Auckland Council

    (Official Information Request No. 9000108231)

    26 April 2011

    Dear Ms Bright

    Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
    Re: requests for evidence of record

    I refer to your email dated 10 March 2011, which we received on 11 March 2011, requesting information about records relating to independent contractors.

    As a general comment, we note that section 17(1) of the Public Records Act 2005 to which you refer does not establish an obligation to create and maintain a register of contracts and nor is there any other statutory obligation to do so. Nonetheless, the Council is currently in the process of developing such a register. Even once it is established, the information contained in the register is unlikely to be disclosed on the grounds that to do so would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. Of course, any requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    Please note that Council Controlled Organisations are independent entities separate from the Auckland Council.
    They have their own obligations to respond to requests under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

    Regarding your request, we have responded to your questions in the order in which they were raised.

    1) The information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, each of the following local authorities had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor:

    a) Auckland Regional Council (ARC)
    b) Auckland City Council
    c) Manukau City Council
    d) Waitakere City Council
    e) North Shore City Council
    f) Rodney District Council
    g) Papakura District Council
    h) Franklin District Council

    2) Please provide the information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, how many Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) operated under each of the following local authorities:

    a) Auckland Regional Council (ARC)
    b) Auckland City Council
    c) Manukau City Council
    d) Waitakere City Council
    e) North Shore City Council
    f) Rodney District Council
    g) Papakura District Council
    h) Franklin District Council

    Your request is refused under section 17(f) of the Act on the basis that the information requested, to the extent it may exist or be held by the Auckland Council, cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

    17. Refusal of requests

    A request made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (f) That the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

    3) Please provide the information which confirms that prior to amalgamation under the Auckland Council, that each ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) operating under each of the above-mentioned local authorities had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    4) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time that the Auckland Transition Agency (A.T.A.) was operating, that they had created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    Your request is refused under section 17(g)(i) of the Act on the basis that the information requested is not held by the local authority and we have no grounds for believing that the information is held by another organisation. Alternatively, your request is refused under section 17(f) on the basis cannot be made available without substantial research.

    17. Refusal of requests.

    A request made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (g) That the information requested is not held by the local authority and the person dealing with the request has no grounds for believing that the information is either-

    (i) Held by another local authority or a Department or Minister of the Crown or organisation;

    5) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time the Auckland Council has been operating, there has been created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ established for for any matter which has been contracted out to an independent contractor.

    7) Please provide the information which confirms that in each of the above-mentioned categories, auditors responsible to the Office of the Auditor-General, have double-checked that a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ has been created and maintained.

    Please provide the information which confirms that in accordance with normal prudent business practice, Auckland Council has now ‘amalgamated’, created and maintains full and accurate records of any matter which has been contracted out to an independent contractor, including the above-mentioned Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organistions’ (CCOs); Council organisations and ‘statutory entities’.

    As mentioned at the beginning of this letter, this information does not yet exist and your request is therefore refused under section 17 (e) of the Act.

    17. Refusal of requests

    A refusal made in accordance with section 10 of this Act may be refused only for one or more of the following reasons, namely:

    (e) That the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found.

    6) Please provide the information which confirms that for the time the each of the following Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organistions’ (CCOs); Council organisations and ‘statutory entities’ has been operating, there has been created and maintained a (central) ‘Register of Contracts’ established for for any matter which was contracted out to an independent contractor.

    a) Auckland Council Investments (ACIC)
    b) Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (TEED)
    c) Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA)
    d) Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL)
    e) Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (AWDA)
    f) Watercare Services Ltd
    g) Auckland Transport

    The information, to the extent it may exist, is not held by the Auckland Council and your request has been transferred to the organisations listed above. A copy of our letter of transfer is attached for your information.

    9) Please provide the name and position of the Auckland Council employee who is ultimately responsible for the creation and maintenance of records of any matter which is contracted out to an independent contractor, as defined in s17 of the Public Records Act 2001, and would bear ultimate responsibility for any of the following offences:

    61 Offences
    Every person commits an offence who wilfully or negligently—
    (a) damages a public record; or
    (b) disposes of or destroys a public record otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or
    (c) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under it.

    The Auckland Council has a corporate responsibility to comply with the Public Records Act 2005.

    You have the right in accordance with section 27(3) of the LGOIMA to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman regarding council’s refusal to release any information under this letter and for the delay in getting this response to you.

    If you have any further queries please contact me on
    (09) 301 0101 , quoting Official Information Request No. 90000108231

    Yours sincerely

    pp (? not legible)

    Bruce Thomas
    Public Information Manager
    Democracy Services

  46. Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:28 am Blog Blight says: “it’s ok ‘Manolo’. We’re used to you and accept you for what you are. Kind regards, Penny Bright”:

    Well, Penny, must admit that its not so easy as far as you’re concerned – you’re on a mission to a planet no-one knows and this mission seems hell bent on exposing conspiracy theories that only a very few within your lunatic fringe can decipher.

    The good news for us on planet Earth is that the election is only 2 sleeps away.

    EEEK!

  47. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am # Elaycee (195) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Blog Blight says: “it’s ok ‘Manolo’. We’re used to you and accept you for what you are. Kind regards, Penny Bright”:

    Well, Penny, must admit that its not so easy as far as you’re concerned – you’re on a mission to a planet no-one knows and this mission seems hell bent on exposing conspiracy theories that only a very few within your lunatic fringe can decipher.

    The good news for us on planet Earth is that the election is only 2 sleeps away.

    EEEK!”
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    errr….. what is ‘conspiratorial’ about an Official Information REPLY from Auckland Council, consistently GORMLESS
    ‘Elaycee’?

    hmmm…. I think you are going to end up in a form of ‘Kiwiblog solitary confinement’ yourself dear, as others, (albeit belatedly) eventually realise that my concerns have a sound evidential basis?

    Hopefully we’ll all hear soon a LOUD ‘popping’ noise from your ‘end’ (as it were? ;)

    Kind regards dear.

    You have a LOVELY day :)

    Penny Bright
    https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  48. reid (7,386) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 12:11 pm Penny what precisely does this establish, in anyway? What sinister secret is lurking beneath this “evidence?”
  49. publicwatchdog (635) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    reid (7,386) Says:
    May 25th, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Penny what precisely does this establish, in anyway? What sinister secret is lurking beneath this “evidence?”
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    errr….’reid’ – have you been using some of ‘Elaycee’s THICK pills?

    If ‘full and accurate’ records of contracts are NOT being kept – then how can either Council staff or elected representatives, thoroughly, on a ‘line-by-line’ accounting basis – check EXACTLY where resident’s and ratepayers’ monies are been spent, in order to look at where costs can be cut back, in order to prevent rate increases?

    I you can’t get THAT – then I don’t know that there is much more I can do to help explain the situation?

    I’ve done what I can.

    You stated:

    “..you haven’t explained the nature of the problem. Nor have you explained precisely why, in factual terms, this is a sinister issue. You’ve said that in your opinion it is, but you haven’t given any facts to back that up.”

    Ok – well now I have.

    And I’m also EXTREMELY busy.

    So – can I respectfully suggest that you take your time and SLOWLY and CAREFULLY read (again?) the information which I have provided, as you requested.

    Hopefully then – you will ‘get it’?

    Kind regards

Advertisements

May 25, 2011 - Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Stop the $uper City, Transparency in Govt spending

No comments yet.

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: