Dubious doorstop
Did Lawswatch read the Mitchell Report? I don't think so. 7:31 PM, November 21, 2005Yes we did. At least as well as anyone who's waded through this thick tome looking for answers, which is to say that though our eyes glazed over and our jaws went slack, we have indeed read the report. A photo of our copy adorns this post, in fact.
Why not get the Mitchell Report posted so we can all see? Not edited highlights but the whole thing? 8:03 AM, November 22, 2005We would, anonymii, but can't. For one thing we have only a hard-copy version and while kind Watchers have assisted with tasks such as typing up Dotty's RCP rantings, asking them to transcribe this magnum opus would cause the kind of uprising previously seen only in the Chron newsroom. We suspect we know why Wanganui's forestry holdings have had such a dramatic decrease in value - they had to woodchip half the plantation to make the paper for this report. The Mitchell Report is so thick that had it been available then the Diva could have used it to stand on, instead of the pile of Chrons, when he was posing as resident madman for the Herald on Sunday lensman back in February.
I was wondering if you could print the entire Mitchell Report which other posters are going on about. That was an independent audit so maybe that would settle a few things? 7:56 PM, November 21, 2005
We haven't been able to get an electronic copy from either Council or Larry Mitchell's website, though it carries a lot of other reports he's prepared, as well as some interesting background on Mitchell himself.
While we're not sure how long the report is - it's not numbered in sequential fashion but rather in sections but it must be well over 100 pages, and is more than an inch thick - about half that appendices.
Appendix 1, for instance, comprises four clippings from the Chron, all largely based on the Diva's rants and headed things like "We're living beyond our means, says Mayor", "Council will investigate forestry accounting error", and "Council finance probe". There's even a copy of the Diva's RCP column of 24 March.
It even includes PR direct from the Spin Fairy about referendumbs - hardly immediately germane to the question of forestry assets, finances, or anything else to which the report was meant to relate. And if that's not evidence enough of a hearty draught of Diva Devotion Potion having been quaffed before the report was authored, the Powerpoint presentation Mitchell put together includes the formal council pic and is headed (by Mitchell) "Inspired Leadership to serve the best interests of the Wanganui District". Excuse us? Is this an independent audit or a party political broadcast on behalf of the Vision party?
We suggest interested Watchers heads down to Guyton St and ask for their own copy (be sure to bring a wheelbarrow to carry it home).
So who is Larry Mitchell? As devotees of the first Leisure Suit Larry games, some Watchers couldn't help making that association when Mitchell made his appearance. He's a failed mayoral candidate and, it seems, well known stirrer in Puhoi.
The local newspaper there, the Village Press, provides this insight:
Your email gives Larry Mitchell credit for the "Survey" and he is a Mayoral candidate. Puhoi Forum should not be promoting, or be seen as promoting, his candidacy. This survey should not go out until all members of the committee have actually approved it in full.And this editorial:
Is it my imagination, but is the newspaper "Letters to the Editor" attack on Mayor John Law by Larry Mitchell the beginning of a campaign for coming Rodney Council elections? Puhoi Community Forum chair, Richard Walters, is clearly unhappy with Larry Mitchell's statements calling for an apology. Cr Elizabeth Foster has made it clear that the basis of the 'attack' on Mayor John Law was inaccurate.Letters to the Editor with imaginary authors? A modus operandi that sounds vaguely familiar to some Watchers...
Are we again going to see "Letters to the Editor" character assignation (sic) – often with imaginary named "authors"?
And in view of the way he banged on about the Big Bad Debt Bogey it would be interesting to hear what Mitchell thinks about the council going further into hock to help fund swimming pools etc.
Comments on this post are now closed.
30 comments:
The Mitchell report cost Wanganui ratepayers $44k, all for Mickey's electioneering. There's a law against this shit, but don't expect it to get applied any time soon.
Some anonymous cheerleader said:
"8% of $2.5 million is less than the construction index rising AT 10-15% per year and delaying the Splash Centre for 2-3 years. Basic maths."
That's a political argument in answer to a financial question. Red Herring on the menu again, is it?
"I was talking to the wife of a Vision supporter Sat night and she said they wanted Martin to be the candidate and then went all coy when I asked why, and said she's daid too much. They think he's malleable."
Oh no. Do you suppose that means he might actually listen to arguments and form an opinion, as opposed to forming an opinion then ignoring the facts the way Mickey does?
Roll on the buy-election.
This is a silly and unworthy post from LawsWatch because I wanted to at least read the Mitchell Report and make up my own mind rather than read some personal attack on a guy who was actually commissioned by Colin Whitlock - Laws wouldn't have known him. Not your finest moment, LW.
Isn't that "anonymous cheerleader" right tho? If this council borrows money now then it actually aves overall because the construction index is increasing greater thah the rate of interest.
I was more interested in reading the agenda today that council has nominated around $5.6m of assets for sale and that $3.3m of them are "City freehold". That means no messy endowment problems. In other words the money is there.
Isn't it time people read the council agendas properly?
Sorry, anonymous @ 9.14 but we simply don't have the resources to type up hundreds of pages of text and figures. This is a voluntary effort, and so we have limited resources. If we could, we would. And our suggestion that you seek your own copies wasn't flippant - we really do urge Watchers to obtain a copy, read it, and draw their own conclusions.
As for Laws not knowing him... perhaps, perhaps not. That makes no difference one way or another as to his competence. And we certainly question the objectivity of someone who unquestioningly reproduces a political viewpoint as part of his references and captions a photo of Council in such a fawning manner.
Has Holdings put a time-frame on when they expect to have the cash in the back to pay off this new debt? Surely that's information that should be made available - or would that be political dynamite in the present climate of smoke and mirrors.
You're wrong LW. The Mitchell Report is not being covered here because you know that it condemns the past council and supports this. Isn't that the real reason you won't even post the executive summary??
So, Chas Council's Splash Centre gets the go-ahead (again). Barbara Bullock and the other returned Councillors must be starting to feel the warm fuzzy glow of actually seeing a project realised. They've put a lot of effort in over the years deciding to build it over and over and over. Vision themselves have decided to build the thing 3 or 4 times.
In any event, there's no problem figuring out why Council has to spend and borrow so much:
"Fundraising efforts already under way were going well and the Project Splash team had exciting concepts in initial stages.
“Hopefully, we’ll be in a position to launch them in the New Year.”
I hope so too.
LawsWatch is right to point out that Mitchell's report cannot be taken seriously if it contains the sort of overtly political material referred to in the post.
And it's fascinating to see these glimpses of Mitchell's background on his home patch.
If it takes LawsWatch to draw attention to this stuff then that's okay by me.
If Colin Whitlock was indeed responsible for selecting him, it's looks like another questionable decision by him. Perhaps he'll tell us all about it in his book.
Wanganui Holdings' charter says they have to maximise return. Does that mean they have to wait for prices to peak and then sell, or are they allowed to sell in a rising market.
How can property, the value of which is rising higher than interest rates, be considered an "underperforming asset"?
Perhaps the council can get Larry back for a little update on what he thinks about adding to that debt burdon he was so concerned about.
Did anyone mention to Mitchell that they were going to use forestry proceeds to help pay for a swimming pool? Or is that the new CEO's idea?
So, unamed "senior executive staff” are making decisions that override council decisions, are they, Michael?
And the result, in this case, is that Spin Fairy was able to churn out a simply fabulous press release telling us how pleased we all should be that the project by M Laws and Company, Interior Designers and Decorators, came in under budget.
Well, our grateful thanks to whoever those senior executive staff were. Why are they hiding their collective light under a bushel when they should really stand up and take a bow?
So even the "under budget" story was a lie. Of course it's going to come under budget when the job isn't finished yet.
We cannot believe a single word Laws says. Lying is by now so ingrained in his character I doubt he even recognises that he's doing it.
"Isn't that the real reason you won't even post the executive summary??"
So, one minute you're claiming not to have read the report, now you're familiar with the executive summary. Liar.
This Larry Nitchell sound like a bit of a character:
"Larry has recently established business relationships with a Kuwait based logistics company
(April 2005) and is involved in the merger acquisition of a security company contracting with
coalition forces."
Perhaps he can help set up Dad's army when he's finished helping "coalition forces."
"By dpoing this, we could potentially save the ratepayer money" warbles Mickey.
$825,000 of extra expenditure required every year (conservative estimate in 2004 dollars) to pay for the increased Splash Centre costs, and he calls it "saving the ratepayer money".
And what about the total silence over OSH issues on Queens Park? is that "saving the ratepayer money", when the 2003 estimate to do the (compulsory) work was $6 million?
What's wrong with publishing an Executive Summary? Presumably it has one.
is that "saving the ratepayer money", when the 2003 estimate to do the (compulsory) work was $6 million?
10:41 AM, November 23, 2005
***********************************
Liar. It's not compulsory.
Anonymous said...
The Mitchell report cost Wanganui ratepayers $44k, all for Mickey's electioneering. There's a law against this shit, but don't expect it to get applied any time soon.
=+============================
What law would that be?
The executive summary is another red herring. Lawswatch has already detailed ommissions from Mitchell's report that contradict some of the claims made in it. That Councillors did not know about the volatility of forestry prices, for example, when the minutes prove otherwise.
Add to this the blatant politicisation of the whole excersize, as also detailed here, and I come to the conclusion that publishing the executive summary would be wasting bandwidth, and the time it would take to type it up: you've got a copy anon, I wouldn't be surprised if you've got an electronic copy. Whatever, why don't you email the Watchers with it, if you're so concerned?
To put it another way: go catch your own herrings. The issue here is that Mickey Laws has misused ratepayers' money for blatant political party propaganda.
LawsWatch is quite right to treat Larry Mitchell’s report as a joke. It has no credibility thanks to Mitchell’s bizarre PR job for the politics and spin machine of the mayor and diVision.
Surely the Spin Fairy could have done it more cheaply (under mayoral instruction of course) and saved the ratepayers all that money … but then that wouldn’t have handed the mayor the opportunity to claim “independent” and “authoritative” support for his rantings.
Why shouldn’t LawsWatch draw attention to the author’s politics and the way they are reflected in the more ludicrous aspects of this overtly political report?
While no one expects the Chron to give its readers the information they need to judge the credibility of the mayor’s ravings, imagine what the media would do if the Audit Office stuffed its annual report with a picture of the Labour Cabinet on the steps of Parliament and a glowing caption about “visionary leadership”.
Or if Treasury laced its briefing paper to the incoming government with lots of clippings of Don Brash’s election press releases about tax cuts?
The Wanganui District Holdings report seems to have been filed in the Chron’s too hard basket, so thank you Laws Watch for making sure we know about this stuff.
Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, Mickare.
Isn't it funny how your fellow TV personalities do like to take the piss over your oh-so-good-for-wanga-celebrity media appearances?
Still, loved the perm and lip fluff, eh bro?
anonymickey said ...is that "saving the ratepayer money", when the 2003 estimate to do the (compulsory) work was $6 million?
***********************************
Liar. It's not compulsory.
Can he please also tell us why he went to such great lengths to ensure the matter was not put on the strategy committee agenda for debate as part of the annual plan deliberations?
Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou, Mickare.
Isn't it funny how your fellow TV personalities do like to take the piss over your oh-so-good-for-wanga-celebrity media appearances?
Still, loved the perm and lip fluff, eh bro?
2:09 PM, November 23, 2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To explain to all those who are goping "Huh?" to the above - on Eating Media Lunch lasat nite Newsboy rang 5 (6?) radio hosts to see how "culturally sensitive" they were with some guy going "tena kotou ..." repeatedly. One of them was our mayor who lasted 4 tena kotou's before saying "goodbye silly man" & cutting him off. Others included Paul Holmes, Leighton Smith etc and our mayor came across quite well. The photo was obviously taken from his MP days in the early 1990s. The rendition above is not accurate but then the hatred of the few posters here doesn't let the facts get in the way.
So let's get this right. The only reliable independent reports are ones which criticise the mayor and council. All others are unreliable. Thanks for that LawsWatch - you're playing it straight again.
The Mitchell Report gives a good chronology of how the last forestry board misled council despite having councillors on it. A bit like the Sarjeant Gallery Trust Board.
As I read my Chron this morning, the mayor got his way again. Apart from turning up to their eat their lunch, do the rest of the councillors ever do anything?
"It's not compulsory."
Health and Safety is compulsory for every other bloody employer in the district. What makes WDC different? OSH won't take Helen Lawrence's word for it the way the Chron does.
anonymayor said ... "our mayor came across quite well"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, he would say that, though. Wouldn't he?
Post a Comment