Thread: The results are in

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.
so if the process was dodgy i get the feeling plausable deniability will rear its ugly head and hb councill ''doing as it sees fit in its own region''. will be the official line.
great leadership aint it?? drop to 8 ''do as you like'' shoot wild hen pheasant and ignore the party line on ''properties with special conditions /interests'' do as you like???personaly i think they should look at letting the next four highest vote candidates in before the excrement hits the proverbial

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most. You seem to now want the the next 4, or those who the voters wanted the least.

If it is a constitutional issue that you are raising, once again, be specific about what the breech is and how you intend to go about having it remedied.

In regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".

there better be another election...some of us are paying attention...maybe not all the time, some much of the time...

@gsp follower...plausible deniability...seeing as they can all sign their names, I doubt that wimpish bollocks will gain any traction...be like shooting an overfed tame mallie if you ask me...

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

What are you talking about GSPF? I had an OIA request with NZF&G on the issue of the HB election- which has been answered and there is no mention of lawyers. Have you seen something that suggests lawyers have been involved in checking the process? Could you elaborate. I hardly think public officials would be deliberately misleading or lie.

yes i can tim i have an email from one b johnson to one peter mac saying he,d consulted an office solicitor at doc head office who he names.
he goes onto say the HB COUNCILL can do this change themselves and notify warwick lampp of the decision.

problem is i can find no evidence or trail of the councill ever making that decision???

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most

what i dont want is behind closed door decisions predicated on the thought that we dont know whats good for us?? after all we pay the bills and a countrywide licence gives us the right to expect every region to behave to the highest standard.
specificly i want to see that the decisions made are ,fair. consulted on,voted on or at least proposed and seconded and passed and there for all to see.if this flys who,s next more specificly i want to stalk up on the big rawhiti damn like i used to without having to hire a guide or pay an access fee or have them driven over me.
[the arguement i had over southland and subgauge lead, the lack of the consultation process
i was am prepared to live with either outcome there]

n regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".

yes tahr but no man/councill is a island if it is used as a precedent to pass the shaft on down the line.look at easterns hen pheasant take and put and take ducks

It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most

certainly shouldnt the voters/licence buyers have had the same information and opportunity to be consulted on something as big as the first ever councill numbers drop ever??since voters dont know who each other is voting for.
what diff would returning the councill to the the 12[ out of respect to the next 4 highest polling candidates and thier voters] untill this is adequetly sorted?? would seem less complicated than having to stir up the minister to get another election and or bringing eastern councill in to take over by stealth. they do already know where the money is or is going tho..??

stealth for the wealth...

Originally Posted by EeeBees

stealth for the wealth...

thats what i dont get either EeBees how come your reasonably flush but you cant get keep staff??
it sure as hell aint the climate or working space

Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?

the same as southland if enough people say enough wellington will have to listen .
if the nzc is as politised as im lead to believe then they,l follow the key theory.[ oil the biggest squeak.]bad as southlands actions were this, if its played out the way it looks,it demands that nzc take the same stance as they did against southland and at least send hb back to survey/consult thier licence buyers.

The council at no stage consulted its licence holders of their intentions to reduce councillor numbers and have bypassed all required processes
when they voted on an item that was in General business, and stated that it was a proposal to look at the possibility of reducing numbers, so no motion, no record of who moved it, no record of who seconded it., NOTHING AT ALL and that is the most telling fact that they have acted improperly.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

if you can find where the councill meet and voted on the numbers drop. good luck cos it dont exist..why aprill cos thats when elections nz were told apparently you,l see for yourself why june comes into it.

There is one possible explanation, that confirmed minutes have been altered for some reason on the website? That could explain the need to access computers, and why there is no trace of a bone fide decision? But not why there would be a need to do such a thing. I doubt the incentive would be worth the consequence?

258- Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other person,

And yet they are now blaming the previous manager for not putting it on the June agenda. surely when the councillors receive the meeting agenda prior to the meeting that not a single one of them noticed it was on the agenda, that is just sloppy and just pure arrogance to blame someone else for their own failings.

Originally Posted by HB Hunting

And yet they are now blaming the previous manager for not putting it on the June agenda. surely when the councillors receive the meeting agenda prior to the meeting that not a single one of them noticed it was on the agenda, that is just sloppy and just pure arrogance to blame someone else for their own failings.

not the point elections nz were saying they were informed of the decision the morning after the aprill meeting.??
when clearly no decision had been rightfuly made
they,re digging themselves deeper holes with the switching dates of when it was muted discussed anywhere from 12 to 18 months.
problem is the damning evedence of the aprill 2015 minutes and no trail before or after??

258- Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other person,

if theres a confidentiality agreement tim between all parties what could the penalty for abandoning the listing vessel? and fessing up first?if such had happened..
im pickin a labour court case wouldnt prejudice a criminal one and for owning up or reporting criminal action the employment court couldnt dock you for such???.
h bayers ultimatly it is your axe to grind make yourselves heard in hb and wellington email is a wonderful easy thing.you can keep sending till you get a reply unless your emailing hb with the questions i asked tho it appears but numbers will tell it did against southland on a case of no consultation and nzc bypassing.

Tony H
Donor Member
*****
Offline


Browning, knocks em dead

Posts: 795
Napier
Gender
To all those people in Hawkes Bay, please attend the next council meeting at Fish & Game office Tue 20th of October at 6pm. There will be an item on the agenda to discuss the validity of the current councils decision to drop to 8 member's.
Be there to give your support or show your disagreement to this decision, either way you should attend. I have been informed that the media may be in attendance, See you there]

come on the bay and the maggies

Thanks GSP Follower, I have sent several requests for this exact information, when did the council inform Election NZ and the national office and what was their response's, did they know of the underhanded, backdoor politics used to get it through.
Its plain as day that they have completely Fk'd this up, but who else higher up gave them the ok to carry on, how far up the chain does this go. All this info is being passed over to the media.
This should serve notice to all the other councils around the country to make sure they do things by the book because the licence holders are watching

Originally Posted by HB Hunting

Thanks GSP Follower, I have sent several requests for this exact information, when did the council inform Election NZ and the national office and what was their response's, did they know of the underhanded, backdoor politics used to get it through.
Its plain as day that they have completely Fk'd this up, but who else higher up gave them the ok to carry on, how far up the chain does this go. All this info is being passed over to the media.
This should serve notice to all the other councils around the country to make sure they do things by the book because the licence holders are watching

good luck hb hunter i got 3 different stories from elections nz before i got what i hope is the truth but could just be the latest version of said truth.

Yes there seems to be a lot of that going around, and people are looking to cover their own rear ends, so as not to be exposed by the actions of this council.
But as they say "the truth will win out in the end"
If you go to only one meeting this needs to be the one that people need to attend and bring this council to task, these people have forgotten what they are there for.

when did the council inform Election NZ and the national office

the councill didnt the manager did at least that the evidence i have.
who authorised him or gave him that impression god knows again no paper trail..
but as to if its being played for the benefit of several parties with multiple scapegoats each thinking the other is the patsy that could be the 64,000 $ question.

"the truth will win out in the end"

hopefuly but i suspect what could be a even more costly gag order employment agreement might stymie that.
its hard to see thier endgame but believe me its there.
but you guys taking back your region would stuff all the games.
getting eastern councill well away from the region would be one of my 2nd moves.
you will find a substancial cost hAS BEEN INCURRED before you even get the truth.

ALL THE BEST TO YOU ALL.