Re: Te Kopuru Wastewater / KDC Debt Planning / "Plain English"
Accounting for another $20M ?Debt?
Official Information Act request to Kaipara District Council

Gentlemen, (for as Commissioners, so you are, exclusively.)

As a concerned Te Kopuru rate payer, trying to make sense of KDC's "Noddy-Land" accounting English, where the word "Remission" appears to mean a doctor gives anaesthetic, only upon condition that he can later administer gratuitous pain upon the "patient" ( i.e. The Ratepayer), and who wishes to try and understand how on earth "WWTP"s (sic - KDC) got us into this "shit" (sic - my apologies, FOR PLAIN SPEAKING; I mean $80M-sewage at Mangawhai), may I ask the following question regarding the councils "use of English" in accounting, and their debt intentions in this financial year?

KDC appear to have previously advised Central Government, i.e. ?Treasury, but not it's ratepayers, as far as I am aware, that it intends to spend in this financial year, $10-20 Million, i.e a further quarter of our total current indebtedness, upon a project described as "Bride Replacements". (Search Google, it returns ONE & ONLY ONE, unique to KDC, instance of the use of this phrase within the entire .govt.nz domain: it is obviously not a common technical or roading, council accounting or administrative term in current usage.). My 4 questions are:

Q1. What does KDC mean by "Bride Replacements", other than matrimonial exchanges, as Google suggests in associated adverts, and I cannot think in OUR present parlous state, we the Rate Payers consented and intend to spend $20 million on "bridal paths", and fund this from rate increases from next year?

Q2. Does KDC actually intend to spend this planned expenditure; if not, why did it advise Treasury, that it did so intend? And when did it advise Treasury & Audit-NZ that this plan had been cancelled or had been projected or advised in error?

Q3. Does KDC have any Policy or Staff Instruction, regarding the use of "Plain English" in accounting and other communication with rate payers. If so, where on the network can this be found? (<"Plain English" agreement, dated 21 December 2010, proposed by the Dargaville Cinema Charitable Trust> does not seem to be a policy as such?)

Q4. In your opinion & judgement, is a "consultation" with Rate Payers, as required by the Local Government Act 2002, legally achieved, if written material which form a part of that consultation, either fails the test of "Plain English", or is inaccessible to ordinarily skilled local people to be affected by the decision at hand, through being "buried" & unidentifiable as pertinent, in inordinate amounts of other information or defective & incomplete IT-Systems? What is reasonable to ask of your rate payers, or are we to be governed in ignorance?

Yours Sincerely,

Charles Barclay

Re: Clarification request dated 01SEP14, received at fyi.org.nz 05SEP14
Te Kopuru Wastewater / KDC Debt Planning / "Plain English"
Accounting for another $20M ?Debt?
Official Information Act request to Kaipara District Council

Gentlemen,

KDC appear to have previously advised Central Government, i.e.
Treasury, but not it's ratepayers, as far as I am aware, that it
intends to spend in this financial year, $10-20 Million,

See: http://www.infrastructure.govt.nz/plan/2...

See spreadsheet: capital-intentions-plan-project-data.xls
See Sheet Tab Titled "Local Government"

Local Government Capital Intentions
.
Column Headings Read:
Sector Sub Sector Region Council Project Description Cost Ban Start Date Band Finish Date Band Comment

Data Line in question reads:
Transport Roading Northland Kaipara District Council Bride Replacements 10M - 20M 2014 2020 +

My 4 questions are: (Abbreviated; please read original request)

Q1. What does KDC mean by "Bride Replacements."

Q2. Does KDC actually intend to spend this planned expenditure. Who made the original projection to Treasury? When was it cancelled? Who was advised of this?

Q3. Does KDC have any Policy or Staff Instruction, regarding the
use of "Plain English" in accounting and other communication with
rate payers. If so, where on the network can this be found?

Q4. In your opinion & judgement, is a "consultation" with Rate
Payers, as required by the Local Government Act 2002, legally
achieved, if written material which forms a part of that consultation, fails the test of "Plain English", and is therefore incomprehensible to them.

Yours Sincerely,

Charles Barclay

Re: Te Kopuru Wastewater / KDC Debt Planning / "Plain English"
Q4: Formal Notice: "Significance & Engagement" Consultation / Submission.

Gentlemen (as Commissioners)

Thank you for the reply to this specific question, which I presume was made "for & on your behalf" by Ms Osborne.

Q4. In your opinion & judgement, is a "consultation" with Rate
Payers, as required by the Local Government Act 2002, legally
achieved, if written material which forms a part of that
consultation, fails the test of "Plain English", and is therefore
incomprehensible to them.

Question 4 (KDC answer to date)

We do recognise that there is technical or Council language in our
documentation that can make it difficult for everyday use. Our Annual and
Long Term Plans have to meet statutory requirements consistent with
Accounting Practice regulations, and pass vigorous auditing processes
before they can be released. This can compromise the ability of Council
to use plain language.

Our District Plan is also a legal document and subject to legal
interpretations and challenges. It is also has to be able to stand up in
the Environment Court. We do try to minimise the use of jargon however
finding the right balance is not easy.

I regret that the answer fails to answer the substantive element, that of <legally achieved>, in your opinion or that of your legal advisors. (I am grateful to you or her for her congent acknowledgement of the issues involved.)

You may wish to answer this here in reply, or you may wish to answer it specifically, in the context of the "Draft Significance & Engagement Policy" Consultation Process, where it may arguably be considered pertinent.

Should you choose NOT to answer the question unambiguously herein, may I formally request, that the question (outstanding and unanswered at the 03 OCT 14) be tabled as a submission in the above process, and may I reserve the right to speak to the submission, in that wider context?

My Thanks & Regards,
Charles Barclay.

Dear Council,

Very well: Then may I ask the Commissioners for a definitive and unambiguous answer to my original Q4, specifically the "legally achieved" test? The cogent discussion of the difficulty & issues relating to ratepayer 'consultation' above may excuse 'a failed consultation process', but does NOT answer the question of whether such an attempt is legally sufficient to the stipulation of the acts?

As ratepayers ("Owners / Shareholders" not "Customers")... If we are unaware of change, are unable to access information, or what we are told is incomprehensible to us, THEN we are doomed to be governed in IGNORANCE: A profoundly undemocratic state of affairs.

Yours sincerely,

Charles Barclay