I stood for Council (and the mayoralty last time because I could not believe my eyes when I read the Audit Office report on the Carterton District Council. It confirmed my long held assertion that certain Councillors and staff of the Council are incompetent and corrupt.
The lack of good leadership is a major cause of the social problems in the Wairarapa, and the attitude of the police in ignoring and condoning crime such as this by our so called community leaders, is one of the major causes of the problems with crime, suicide, child abuse, methamphetamine and other hard drug use, etc.
I was amazed that I was the only one of the candidates who even seemed to notice this report, not one of the other candidates even referred to it. There's a global financial crisis, and not one of the other candidates thought there was anything wrong with this report. McPhee was going for his third term - he'd had plenty of time to get the hang of things by now!
This is as bad as it gets. I've got a good imagination, but I couldn't make up anything worse than this because there is nothing worse - this is totally disgraceful. A commissioner should have been appointed long ago.
Here's a quick link to Michael Appleby's submission to the Police Complaints Authority - who are anything but independent! The highlights from the Audit report are quoted from paragraph number 92 of Mr Appleby's submission:
92. The latest Long Term Council Community Plan of the Carterton District Council, including the Financial Reports, and current financial projections regarding the current budget for the immediate future has been assessed by the Council’s Auditors as “unsatisfactory”, which would appear to confirm that Mrs Raue’s concerns (concerns which are also shared by the signatories of a relatively substantial petition) are valid.
93. Laurie Desborough of Audit New Zealand, on behalf of the Auditor General, Palmerston North, has determined in his Draft Report on the Carterton District Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan 2006-2016, incorporating the 2006/2007 Annual Plan, Volume 1 Finance and Strategy (‘the Plan’), on page 157 that “In our opinion, the Statement of Proposal for adoption of the LTCCP of the District Council, incorporating Volumes 1 to 2 dated 19 July 2006, does not provide a reasonable basis for long term integrated decision-making by the District Council and for participation in decision –making by the public and subsequent accountability to the community about the matters listed below: - “There is inadequate underlying information to support the forecast information included in the statement of Proposal. As a result, the forecasts of capital expenditure and operating expenditure, including the estimates of depreciation, could be materially misstated across all of the District Council’s activities. Also, because the forecast expenditure is not supported by adequate asset management plans, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate that the forecast expenditure will deliver the proposed levels of service across all the District Council’s activities. As a result, the information in the prospective financial statements is not supportable, and has not been based on the best information reasonably expected to be available to the District Council at the time of preparing the Statement of Proposal. This is also a departure from Financial Reporting Standard No. 42 (FRS-42): Prospective Financial Statements.
94. As well, on page 158 of the Plan, the Auditor General found that: “The District Council has not identified and adequately explained the sources of funds for its activities’ capital expenditure. The District Council does not operate separate activity level reserves, and some capital expenditure is funded from a general reserve, which is funded from various activities. This may result in surplus targeted rates in some activities being used to fund capital expenditure in other activities. “Based on the above, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate, as required by Section 101 of the Act, that it is managing its revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.
95. As well, on page 158, the officer of the Auditor General found that: “The District Council has not complied with the requirements of the Act, and has not demonstrated good practice for a Council of its size and scale within the context of the environment in respect of the following: As explained above, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate, as required by Section 101 of the Act, that it is managing its revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.” “The underlying information used to prepare the Statement of Proposal is inadequate and does not provide a reasonable basis for the preparation of the forecast information, as explained above.
96. Furthermore, page 159 of the Plan shows that the Auditor General found that: “The financial information is not presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand, in that: As explained above the information in the prospective financial statements is not supportable, and has not been based on the best information reasonably expected to be available to the District Council at the time of preparing the Statement of Proposal. This is a departure from FRS-42. As explained above, the forecast expenditure is not supported by adequate underlying information, and the District Council has been unable to demonstrate that the forecast expenditure will deliver the proposed levels of service. Consequently the extent to which the forecast information and proposed performance measures provide an appropriate framework for the meaningful assessment of the actual levels of service provision does not reflect good practice for a Council of its size and scale within the context of its environment.
97. As well, the Auditor General found that: “the scope of our work was limited as we were unable to obtain sufficient information about the underlying information to support the forecast information included in the Statement of Proposal.”
98. Mrs Raue’s concerns about the viability of the proposed $4,000,000 community facility appear to be well founded. According to the Auditor General, the standard of performance of the Carterton District Council’s financial affairs is extremely poor; in fact, they appear to be in a very sorry state indeed.
99. Pages 11 and 12 of the Council’s LTCCP refer to the Council’s commitment to the proposal.
100. On page 12 of the LTCCP, the Council (who also, coincidentally, mainly comprise the members of the ‘Focus Group’ behind the $4,000,000 proposal) “seeks your views on contributing $1 million to this project.
101. The second paragraph on page 12 of the LTCCP states that: “Should the community support the concept,” the Council would agree to make a commitment of one million dollars towards the cost of this ‘facility’, and goes on to state: “Council seeks the views of the community as to whether you believe that this investment is important for the future of our district.”
102. Also referred to on page 12 of the LTCCP is the Council’s alleged commitment to the consultation process, although the events at the public meeting which led to Mrs Raue’s unlawful detention make a mockery of this document, and of the Council’s commitment to the consultation process.
103. The actions of the local Police in trying to shut Mrs Raue up, and to silence her questioning of the need for an expensive white elephant in the community is an intolerable intrusion into Mrs Raue’s political rights to involve herself into the debate by the local community as to the wisdom or otherwise of this community facility.
104. The behaviour of the Masterton Police towards Mrs Raue, and their numerous and serious breaches of her human rights, guaranteed under the NZ Bill of Rights Act, deserve the most serious investigation by the Police Complaints Authority, and consideration given to awarding her financial compensation for each and every one of these breaches.
105. As well, she is entitled to recompense for the legal fees she has incurred as a consequence of the blatant and cavalier disregard of these rights.
106. The harassment of Mrs Raue was continued by the Masterton Police when they also charged her with disorderly behaviour for her alleged conduct in the local library, when she was attempting to obtain material relevant to the $4,000,000 proposal, from the Library, which was advertised as the contact point for material about the proposed facility.
107. Judge Goddard, on appeal, acquitted Mrs Raue of that charge and indicated that her behaviour certainly did not require the intervention of the criminal law.
108. But the Masterton Police, in laying the charge, and its pursuit of Mrs Raue, have resulted in Mrs Raue’s incurring further legal fees of $5,000 in defending the charge in the first instance, and then on the successful appeal to the High Court (which did not allow costs for the successful appeal).
109. The participation in the democratic process by civic-minded citizens such as Mrs Raue is to be applauded. Without the fearless questioning of local body officials by such citizens, who are prepared to stand up and be counted, the days of vigorous and healthy political debates would be numbered.
110. The bullying and intimidatory tactics of the Masterton Police that night were a disgrace to the New Zealand Police Force as a whole.
111. When Mrs Raue uttered her cri-de-coeur for help to Mr Rodney Hide, he expressed his concern that her upcoming trial was a serious constitutional matter, that it raised fundamental human rights issues, such as freedom of speech, in a so-called democratic society. He was right. Mr Daniels also expressed his concern to the Masterton Police about their insistence on continuing with these (politically motivated) charges.
112. It was fortunate for Mrs Raue that Judge Behrens Q.C. took an equally vigorous approach in his Judgments, upholding Mrs Raue’s human rights, and, dismissing all of the five charges laid against her, at the close of the cases for the Prosecution, the evidence presented by them, as they admitted, being “tenuous”.
113. Mrs Raue and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Appleby
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
ELECTION BY DECEPTION:
JUDGE RULES McPHEE
HAS NO AUTHORITY AT
COUNCIL MEETING
A Judge recently ruled that Carterton Mayor and local bully Gary McPhee had no authority to evict Katherine Raue from a Council meeting. for asking for the return of her electoral deposit, which the thieving bully is refusing to refund, among other things, including the long called for inquiry into the illegal takeover, mismanagement and closure of the former Carterton Community Centre by a group comprising mainly of people associated with the Carterton District Council). It is ridiculous that some academic in Auckland (or anyone else for that matter) thinks that Carterton's last local body election was democratic, or even legal.
Firstly, Gary McGoofy's idea of a democratic election involves making sure that only half the town can vote for any one candidate in the first place, by refusing to have an "at large" ward. Carterton only has an a rural ward and an urban ward, unlike most places which have an 'at large' ward enabling any person in the electorate to vote for a candidate, unlike the other two. So only the voters in the rural ward could vote for me, but there wasn’t much chance of that anyway, because McGoofy made sure they were sent the candidate information for the Central Otago elections instead.
Secondly, McPhee decided to appoint a private company from Christchurch to run the Carterton elections. This company distributed the candidate information booklets for the candidates for the Central Otago elections to the voters of Carterton,
Thirdly, the same incompetent private company who sent the voters the candidate profiles for the Central Otago electorate was then employed by McPhee and his corrupt Council to count the votes in Christchurch, a decision which prevented at least fifty per cent of the mayoral candidates having a scrutineer present.
Thirdly, the same incompetent private company who sent the voters the candidate profiles for the Central Otago electorate was then employed by McPhee and his corrupt Council to count the votes in Christchurch, a decision which prevented at least fifty per cent of the mayoral candidates having a scrutineer present.
Fourthly, it is an insult to democracy and a travesty of justice that McPhee was able to stand in the first place. His much publicised boast on the front page of the local paper about the drunken home invasion and assault on the innocent occupants of a local flat amounted to a confession of a serious crime, and established a clear prima facie case.
It is completely unacceptable that the police continue to refuse to charge McPhee and his accomplice with the violent attack. This was a vicious violent, unprovoked attack on harmless people who were minding their own business, cooking their dinner, and not bothering anybody, when McPhee and fellow Council officer Chris Keegan smashed their way into their home and assaulted them with a weapon.
One of the occupants had only got out of hospital the day before after suffering a stroke, and either one of the drunken bullies would have weighed more than all of the occupants put together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)