Called to account
We don't actually doubt that His Worshipfulness is being essentially truthful when he says he doesn't take the Mayoral salary - or rather, doesn't keep it, since the law requires that it be paid to him so IRD can dip into it to cover important expenditure like Winston's late-night taxi rides up Courtenay Place. In fact, of all the motivations driving the Diva, personal venality doesn't even get a look-in.
However, given his oft-stated sacrifice, we're certain the Diva would want credit for helping all those widows, orphans, lost roosters / cats /dogs, "nil rates rise" ratepayers, or whatever other worthy cause he donates to, so we're offering to give it.
The ten-month anniversary of the election passed yesterday. That's ten months of giving till it hurts for Michael. But to whom?
Some commenters seem to have their doubts:
In the past, the Diva seems to have become confused between the bank account of his then-wife's company, and some sort of charitable purpose. An "honest mistake" apparently... one anyone could make. After all, how many times have you mixed up the cash you'd earmarked for those poor starving children in Africa with your housekeeping money?Anonymous said...
Looking forward to the downtown mayoral office then. It's coming out of Michael's salary, isn't it? Which he doesn't take, right?
Anonymous said...
He does not. Good man.
Anonymous said...
Where does it go then? I only ask because I heard that so far, 100% of the mayoral salary has been paid into the bank a/c of one Michael Brian Laws.
Anonymous said...
No-one seriously disputes the mayor foregoing his salary. From comments made publicly, he donates the nett sum to charitable and constituency purposes. He asked for the entire salary to remain within council but apparently is required to receive & pay tax as per some obscure legislation. This contrasts with certain councillors trying to double-dip ...
Anonymous said...
Yeah good on him. We may disagree with some of the things that he does but credit goes where credit is due.
So, just to be sure the poor boy is no longer confused between "doing good works" and "pork barrelling friends and relations", we'd humbly suggest that evidence of the Mayoral largesse be posted on the Council's website and made available at its offices.
Can't see a problem with that, can you? After all, we're practising open government here, right?
Comments on this poll are now closed.
41 comments:
What's needed is someone with an accountant's mind to tally up all the amounts he's promised so far and deduct them from the total mayoral stipend. Most folk I talk to seem to think the account would already be in the red. And that's without any sign of the biggie, the downtown office, which he has assured will entirely be funded by his goodself.
You're right about venality. Not even his worst enemies would accuse him of that. But the problem is that I'm aware of a four figure donation he's made (to an acquaintance's daughter) that was intensely personal and he insisted upon as anonymous. Made me think quite highly of him for a second or two.
Laws won't reveal those to us or anyone else. It's not a year yet - and he certainly wouldnt respond to anything this blog says he should.
Suggest the Chronicle should ask the Q closer to Christmas when the year is gone.
One other thing is worthy of note. There used to be an entertainment allowance that was paid to Mayor Chas for entertaining guests, drinkies with councillors etc. The word is that account was closed immediately. And we do know he paid for the entire accounts associated with the Referendum party (his party but also his money).
Just some thoughts. Don't forget he reputedly paid half the campaign accounts of the Vision candidates too.
Perhaps he's going to wait three years then donate the entire $210k in one go, plus all the interest (and minus tax).
Or perhaps he's just lying to us for our own good.
Which is it, Michael? On the one hand, as you said to Barbara Bullock, it's none of our business. On the other, if you're going to make a virtue of it, and make election promises, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of glib bullshit to justify whatever.
I think you're too scared to have the downtown mayoral office. After all, how can you control Guyton St. if you're not there?
Stupid person! This is politics - people have one week before 3 years to make good all their pre-election promises.
Each Visionary got between $2k and $3k except Dot, from memory. they had to buy into Vision in the first place, though. Around $2k each, I think. There's no info available about how much ML put in. What they did is pretty normal, what's unusual is that they don't appear to want new members.
That referendum party wouldn't have come cheap. Top end caterers, champers. And a lot would have been drunk that night with the arjeant second last and public art last.
$2-3K x 12 equals one shitload of dolleros.
That would be very cool, if you wait 3 years then donate the lot. Make it part of a referendumb as to how it should be spent, or put the lot on debt relief for our own good.
Why is speculation about this "stupid"? it's only politics, petal.
But they each donated $2k or so. They pretty much spent their own money. I'm sure the wealthier ones put in more, but tell me what's wrong with that?
Stupid is, as stupid does.
Jealousy is different again.
How many other of the Cardinal Sins do you have in here, stupid?
And a lot would have been drunk that night with the arjeant second last and public art last.
Your malice is showing. "The Sarjeant" wasn't in the referendumb. The Warren Mahoney design for the proposed extension was, but according to The Heart plans we're still extending the Gallery.
What was your point again?
Silly Anon said
"Stupid is, as stupid does.
Jealousy is different again.
How many other of the Cardinal Sins do you have in here, stupid?"
What makes you think I'm jealous? Do you mean of Michael's wealth? Why would I need Laws' money when I have my own? Why don't you come down from your high horse and debate on issues, pal? we can't bite you, you know.
I'm aware of a four figure donation he's made... that was intensely personal and he insisted upon as anonymous... Laws won't reveal those to us or anyone else.
Good on him for doing that, and nor should he disclose it - if the donation were made from his non-Mayoral income.
But it was he who put the issue of salary sacrifice on the table pre-election as a reason why people should vote for him, and that therefore makes him accountable for the disbursement of every cent.
If there's pressing reasons of confidentiality over some Mayoral salary donations, then clump them under "donations to individuals" and let an independent auditor certify the lot (which ought to be done anyway).
Suggest the Chronicle should ask the Q closer to Christmas when the year is gone.
And publish it right alongside the "missing Rudolph" story? Given it's recent performance, we wouldn't trust the Chron to know it was Christmas. Unless there was a Mayoral decree to that effect, of course.
I understand 2k came from thier own pocket, but ML put almost 3k from his own personal stash, all above borad in the eyes of the 'letter' of the law, however if 'Joe Blogs' knew he had 'payed' for such a flashy campany, do you think they might have felt brought?
Check out Queen Dotty's new blurb on the WDC site, I think I'm going to vomit........
Do you know her husbands a laywer?????
What's needed is someone with an accountant's mind to tally up all the amounts he's promised so far ...
The problem is pretty obvious. Who are we to demand it? We have no authority. Only the Wang Chron could ask, claim Fourth Estate mandate, and get away with it. I mean seriously, Laws isn't going to respond to a request here. It needs to enter the public arena and in a legitimate fashion. Get one of the anti- councillors to publicly challenge him.
Oh yeah and anon may not be jealous of his money but I am!
That last comment is the problem ... how do you make an OFFICIAL enquiry because the LGOIA wouldn't apply.
The problem with getting other councillors to ask is pretty obvious in hindsight:
If Laws proves that the money is all properly disbursed (and he's too smart not to) then the councillor asking looks a selfish plod.
Dotty says: What do big corporates such as Shell, Foodstuffs, Mitre 10 and Ryman Healthcare have in common?
Yes, what do they have in common?
An oil company with an appalling human rights record.
A supermarket chain with 56% of the market which uses its might to try to stop a small independent butcher from making "misleading claims" and then gets caught doing exactly the same thing itself.
A hardware franchise whose franchisees thumb their nose at Council bylaws and ignore pecuniary conflicts of interest even when though they are Councillors themselves.
An elderly care company whose annual report to shareholders is described by NBR as little more than "spin".
Questionable ethics, perhaps? Perfectly in keeping with the civic leadership of the day, of course.
Who are we to demand it? We have no authority.
Good grief! Who are you to demand it? You, and the rest of Wanganui, are Mr Laws's employers, that's who. He is accountable to you. Your authority stems from the ballot box.
Only the Wang Chron could ask, claim Fourth Estate mandate, and get away with it.
Blogs are increasingly seen as a legitimate part of the media - particularly issues-based blogs such as this one. Even the venerable Forbes says "... the definition of journalism is rapidly changing. 'Traditional' media like print newspapers, broadcast news and weekly magazines years ago began being augmented and in some cases supplanted by 'new' media on the Web."
With around 500 to 700 readers a day, we'd argue we have as much right as the Chron to ask questions and expect answers.
You're kidding yourself.
A blog is not a formal part of the media and certainly not one like this with an identifiable (& one might argue, biased) standpoint.
Ahem - you're also anonymous. Not a good vantage to be demanding anything from anybody.
That's the point about blogs - they don't pretend to be fair, balanced or bound by ethics.
Unlike the Fourth Estate which is charged with those responsibilities and sanctions apply under both law and industry codes that the Chronicle, Star FM, NBR etc must adhere to.
And who gives a Ford Mustang what Forbes says?
You can't dis the USA in one breath and then quote a US establishment publication with the other.
Well you CAN - but not if you want to be taken seriously. Oh, you don't? Then don't ask serious Qs and then demand serious answers!
A blog is not a formal part of the media and certainly not one like this with an identifiable (& one might argue, biased) standpoint.
Not that we want to make this about us but... so then the Guardian has no credibility because it is proudly left wing and liberal? Likewise the London Times because it leans unashamedly to the right? And so on... Lots of media report from a "biased" standpoint.
Admittedly they do so in societies where readers are mature enough to view their reportage with that standpoint in mind, and make their own judgements. We think Wanganui is capable of that.
Conversely, as commentators such as Rory O'Connor point out, "legitimate" media are increasingly plagued by scandal - the Jayson Blair and Dan Rather affairs, for instance, as well as the "we waited five days to report on GK Taylor resigning" scandal :-)
If you're really interested in the debate, we recommend CyberJournalist.net.
You can't dis the USA in one breath and then quote a US establishment publication with the other.
We've dissed the US?
Anonymous said...
That last comment is the problem ... how do you make an OFFICIAL enquiry because the LGOIA wouldn't apply.
The problem with getting other councillors to ask is pretty obvious in hindsight:
If Laws proves that the money is all properly disbursed (and he's too smart not to) then the councillor asking looks a selfish plod.
9:03 PM
"All properly disbursed", "prove"? Say he comes up with a bunch of documents and waves them about? How do you know he didn't print them himself? Basically, until someone says "the mayor gave me money" he hasn't given it away.
In any case Barbara Bullock already asked him. "It's none of your business Councillor Bullock." The minute the prick promised it it became our business.
Helen said...
Do you know her husbands a laywer?????
7:59 PM
Whooo, I'm really scared. I feel a scary ballad coming on
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf,
The big bad wolf,
the big bad wolf?
Dick's afraid of the big bad wolf,
That hides under his bed!
It's going to mock him for his height,
The big bad wolf,
The big bad wolf,
It's going to mock him for his height,
And for his thinning hair!
But we'll protect him from the big bad wolf,
The big bad wolf,
The big bad wolf,
Yes we'll shoo away that big bad wolf,
If we'll just vote for him!
On the subject of our favourite Comic, they must be desperate to carry on the current animal theme. There's a howler on the back page with the heading Equestrian above a story about the steeplechase at the world athletics champs. One would think that perhaps the associated heading about the Kenyans might have rung a few bells in the sub's mind. Is anyone awake down there?
Blogs are neither formal nor credible because people don't have to pay to get them (Eg Chronicle), they're not subsidised by taxpayers (eg National Radio) or supported by advertising revenue (Rivercity Press) - or some combination of all the above.
They're just one person's idiosyncratic perspective and, in this case, an anonymous perspective.
So of course no-one is going to take any enquiry from L/Watch seriously. Duh!
This doesnt mean to say that L/watch isn't entertaining. I think thats why most of us stroll through here :)
Anon said
"So of course no-one is going to take any enquiry from L/Watch seriously. Duh!"
That won't stop people contacting Lawswatch with info. Like the GK scoop. Not to mention the fact that questions posed on this blog have received detailed answers, albeit from "anonymous".
I'm not in the least bit concerned that a blog doesn't fit the traditional news-delivery format: they're a new paradigm.
"So of course no-one is going to take any enquiry from L/Watch seriously."
Well, we may (just about) all be anonymous but as with life and politics, some are more anonymous than others.
Just keep a lookout for comments in ML's inimitable style and you'll realise that HE certainly takes this blog seriously enough to be a prolific commentator. Not to mention his fulsome praise for The Watchers' snese of humour in the Chron front page LW launch story.
Strange, really to be claiming that as an endorsement of LawsWatch's raison d'etre but there you go.
And we know LW is being monitored by the "mainstream" media, if you could include the Chron in that category. One national Sunday even ran a story with the LawsWatch url last weekend and a journalist has contacted The Watchers asking to be tipped off about any forthcoming story breaks like last week's GK resignation.
Journos are like whores. They ll do anything for a story. But they ll always want the credit for themselves.
Micheal's a journalist
Linda Clark, derisively: "He's not a journalist".
Who's the illiterati who spells 'Micheal'?
And I'm not aware, in any of his previous incarnations, the mayor has ever said that he is a journalist. If you read his columns, it's pretty obvious that he loathes them.
Linda Clark wasn't a journalist either. She was one of Rogernomics principal cheerleaders.
Linda Clark is a shrew.
Nice. Real classy. Your mother must love you.
She does. And I have the infinite advantage over you that I actually know who she is.
She's the busy lady who never showed you quite enough attention, right?
Post a Comment