Put it in Writing

Address to HMLB on 6 August 2015 by Gary Osborne
Madam Chair, Board members, ladies and gentlemen.
On the Council web-site is stated “Local boards provide important input into region-wide strategies and plans including those of the council-controlled organisations.”
Ratepayers often rely on reports from CCO’s to their local board and expect them to be accurate. It is therefore vital that when “mistakes” occur they are corrected in writing in a timely manner.
On 2 July the report regarding the Te Atatu Rd corridor that was presented to this Board, stated “Affected residents and businesses have been contacted directly.” That was untrue. I was told the mistake was corrected verbally at the meeting but such a report becomes a matter of public record unless corrected in writing. Only one member from your entire board, your chair, remembers that correction.
At my insistence, Glenn Boyd, Relationship Manager sent me an email on 13 July advising me the minutes had been updated accordingly. However when the minutes were presented for confirmation as published on 16 July on the official council website, the secretarial note was missing. At 5.30 pm tonight we have the farcical situation of two different resolutions for approval the minutes of the meeting on 2 July. They are resolutions HM/2015/101 and HM/2015/108. The record on the official council website remains unchanged.
In future it should be incumbent on any person presenting a report to the Local Board, if they are aware of errors in that report, to produce a written statement of correction that can be tabled and presented to the Board chair at the time of presentation. Furthermore they should advise the Board secretary in writing as soon as they become aware of the errors prior to the meeting, especially in cases when reports are prepared weeks in advance of an actual meeting.
In theory we live in a democratic society. In practice, since the advent of the Super City I know many ratepayers dispute that. I look forward to action from my representatives on this board in future. Action is far better than excuses.
At least Lester Levy, AT Board Chairman, has called for an internal audit and he took the trouble to contact me on a Sunday night.
I urge this Board to insist on formal written corrections to inaccurate formal reports in future.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Put it in Writing

  1. Could somebody please explain to me how the Council managed to become the owner of generations of investments by ratepayers in regional infrastructure.

    I am aware that on the older rates demands (before the council prescribed us to be clients) that informed us of which loans we were paying off and what those loans were for- I am one of those old fashioned types that considers paying off a loan confers an interest and I believed that the council was steward of those investments …. but privateered
    On the watercare site ….ownership is determined as being “wholly owned by the Auckland Council” …. all good but what happened to the ratepayers interests….

    As…STEWARDSHIP IS NOT OWNERSHIP and knowing that the Council serves in a fiduciary relationship… I have some questions

    1- How did the servant manage to script a change of ownership without the genuine consent of the investors in the Property
    2- The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 defines “money laundering” or the concealing of and transferring of interests in Property as being a “Criminal Act” while Section 408 determines that this act shall bind the Crown…. so
    … are the corporations formed for scripting a change of ownership from ratepayers to council without genuine consent not simply instruments of money laundering or products of criminal activities sanctioned by or orchestrated by the council and crown?

    Perhaps others are genuinely interested in ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL and perhaps they may help me answer these questions …. but it is important to note that OWNERSHIP AND STEWARDSHIP have entirely different meanings … Surely if the ratepayers funded the accumulation of properties they should have an interest in those properties rather than their servant who serves in a fiduciary relationship.


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 )

Connecting to %s