Tag: EY

Mayor Len Brown Settles

·

$40,000 of $250,000 cost to be paid by the mayor.

 

Two releases on the Len Brown Saga today.

From Auckland Council itself:

Negotiated payment from Mayor towards cost of EY report
Following publication of the EY report last year, Auckland Council’s Governing Body agreed that a group of councillors comprising Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, Christine Fletcher, George Wood, Dick Quax and Penny Webster would hold confidential discussions with the Mayor to agree a financial contribution from him towards the final cost of the report.

Speaking on behalf of the group of councillors, Christine Fletcher, Chair of the CEO Review Committee said today:

“Following discussions with the Mayor through Chief Executive Stephen Town, there has been a full and final agreement that he will make a contribution of $40,000 towards the final cost of the EY report. This is in addition to the Mayor meeting his own legal costs of $20,000.

“In the interests of open process and the public interest, we are releasing these numbers.”

Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town confirmed the cost of the EY report and legal work was approximately $250,000.

—ends—

Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1402/S00157/negotiated-payment-from-mayor-towards-cost-of-ey-report.htm

 

And from the Office of the Mayor:

Mayoral media statement on EY report costs

Mayor Len Brown says:

“I have agreed to make this payment out of respect to my fellow Councillors and to acknowledge the upset this issue has caused. I continue to be totally focussed on the issues that matter to Aucklanders.” “I do not intend to make any further comment on this matter.”

—ends—

Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1402/S00158/mayoral-media-statement-on-ey-report-costs.htm

Well if nothing else it was a very short statement.

 

Rest I will leave over to you. If you do comment please remember The Rules for commenting.

 

Reaction to the EY Report

· 1 Comment ·

Government needs to tighten up the “rules”

 

This is a rare piece of commentary from me personally into the entire “Len Brown affair.” Since the story broke I have been more or less silent on the “affair” aspect while constantly keeping an eye on the “conduct” side of the matter. From Day One when the story broke (while returning from a Council briefing on I believe it was on the Unitary Plan heading for notification) I have always said for me to no longer give “support” to the Mayor, he would have to conduct a criminal act (and be convicted) or conduct serious misconduct (an affair is not misconduct) through misuse of resources or power, and/or other serious nature.

I have the EY report that was commissioned by Council CEO Doug McKay after it landed (with an accompanying release) in my email box this afternoon. You can read the report over at this post here: The EY Report Commissioned by Auckland Council CEO. That said I was NOT at the Press Conference in Town Hall this afternoon over the release of the report.

 

After receiving and reading the report I have come to three conclusions:

  1. The “rules” set by the Council Code of Conduct,  that by the Remuneration Authority, and the Local Government (Auckland Amendment) Act 2009 are too loose with little measures provided if something does go wrong/breached
  2. Government must tighten up the regulations set about by the Remuneration Authority for issuing rules around use of ratepayers resources – e.g the mayoral car and when it can be used or not. In the same regard the Local Government Act needs tightening up so the Governing Body have available a wide range of measures to deal with errant elected members. This can range from a Censure motion to something more punitive (whatever one decides that might be short of sacking a mayor)
  3. Owing to this error in regards to several matters pointed out in the EY report (cell phone, mayoral car, and not declaring the hotels on the register)(and rather than the actual affair) my confidence in the mayor is shaken with support moving from positive to negative. That said I still have confidence and positive support in the wider main Council (although a particular CCO is an exception at the moment) and the rest of the elected members (regardless of whether I agree with them or not (Dick Quax and Cameron Brewer)). In being honest it has weighed on my mind on what else has the mayor not declared outside of the “affair” and could have this affected any other mayoral decision-making

 

I stress again to make it crystal clear that yes confidence in the mayor is shaken with support switching from positive to negative. HOWEVER, confidence and support remains with the Deputy Mayor and the rest of the Councillors despite disagreements from time to time. 

 

One thing I do ask of the Governing Body after the elected members have had time to review the EY report is that an extraordinary meeting be called of the GB ASAP! In that extraordinary meeting a motion of censure is called and voted for against the mayor immediately. Whether the vote passes or fails is beside the point in my opinion. The point being is that the Governing Body has now been damaged and in the eyes of the City the censure motion needs to occur to help restore confidence towards the Council. Failure to move the censure motion quickly could paralyse worthwhile projects before the Council – and that would be a true detriment to Auckland. It is risky

 

For the rest of it Parliament is going to need to haul backside and tighten up rules around Local Government to prevent this kind of mess from happening again. And to me that is going to be the main point coming out of this entire mess! 

 

The EY report

 

The EY Report Commissioned by Auckland Council CEO

·

The Release and Report as Is

[No Commentary]

 

Below is the Release and subsequent EY report that was commissioned by Council CEO Doug McKay. I will not be running any commentary in this post on the report and all comments will be disabled.

 

From Auckland Council:

Chief Executive statement: EY Independent Review

 

Doug McKay

Chief Executive, Auckland Council

13 December 2013 

 

The EY report released today summarises the findings of their review into the use of council resources and any improper preferential employment treatment, as it relates to the Mayor’s relationship with Ms Bevan Chuang. I commissioned EY to undertake the review to address concerns that had been raised.

This has been an exhaustive and comprehensive review. It addresses the issues that had been raised and I am satisfied that EY has delivered a robust and thorough report.

EY was asked to examine:

 

  • any use of council resources within the Office of the Mayor, in respect of the Mayor’s relationship with Ms Chuang, that contravenes council policies;
  • any improper preferential treatment in relation to Ms Chuang’s engagement as an employee, contractor or an advisor within the Auckland Council Group; and
  • any other issues that the reviewers or Chief Executive considers relate to, or arise out of, the above matters.

 

The review covered the period from the council’s amalgamation on 1 November 2010 to the commissioning of the review on 21 October 2013. EY’s findings are based on a factual and evidence-based review of the Mayor’s use of council resources as it relates to council policies and processes and, where appropriate, external obligations. EY has conclusively addressed the terms of reference of the review.

 

EY found that the Mayor did not inappropriately use council resources to support the relationship with Ms Chuang. EY examined the use of council phones, credit cards, expense claims, gifts, mayoral car use and travel. Any use, where it existed, was generally within the permitted guidelines and policies. EY did not find any expense claims funded by council to purchase gifts, accommodation, meals or entertainment as they relate to Ms Chuang.

Arising out of the review, EY found that there were some instances where the relevant council policies were not fully met, or the use of resources raised questions. These include, the amount the Mayor reimbursed to council for costs incurred for personal mobile usage, the Mayoral driver used for private family transportation when the Mayor was overseas, and the payment by council of a portion of a modest overseas dinner that was arguably private.

EY found the Mayor received nine complimentary hotel rooms that have not been registered as gifts or disclosed in his completed annual Declaration of Interests. EY reports the value of the complimentary rooms based on rates provided by the hotels is $6,130. They also found the Mayor received hotel upgrades which have not been registered as gifts or disclosed in the Declaration of Interests. There were 64 instances valued by the hotels at $32,888.50.

EY did not identify any improper preferential treatment in relation to Ms Chuang’s employment, contracting or advisory roles within the council group.

During the course of EY’s review, I was asked about the Mayor’s trip to Hong Kong undertaken in January 2013. The Mayor was a guest of the Hong Kong Government and all costs for flights, accommodation and hotel meal expenses were funded by the Hong Kong Government. The Mayor did not claim any expenses. No staff or support services, such as a translator, accompanied the Mayor.

 

I am now satisfied that the EY’s report has addressed the concerns raised with me. I would like to thank EY for completing this review and all the parties that assisted them.

—ends—

 

The EY Report in Full