Anticorruptionnz's Blog

29/01/2010

About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

What is  AWINZ

AWINZ is a private SPCA type organisation which has its roots in a concept established by Mr Wells in 1994  when the concept of a public private partnerships first emerged.

It currently operates in Waitakere city claiming to be a charity , It is a name  which has  had a number of people associated  with it but in reality is no more than a trading name for person or persons  unknown.

Neil Wells the manager of  Animal welfare Waitakere city, a public service role contracts  effectively to himself  for the services of AWINZ  . the  council  staff at animal welfare give their    paid time” voluntarily” for animal welfare work which is performed using council cars, from the council  facilities and using council resources. All AWINZ does  is collect the  donations from the public  for this  service which is effectively being paid for by the  rate payers.

Origins of AWINZ

Neil Wells   has a background in animal welfare , he is also a barrister , he used to head the RNZSPCA  but  decided to set up a SPCA type concept  which was a private enterprise which he headed.

His original  concept was a  nation wide territorial authority animal welfare  service as set out  in this document . It sets out his business venture which he was in control of.- it is a nationwide concept where by Dog control and stock control officers who perform the legislative  duties for territorial bodies( councils )  are  trained, supervised, controlled by Mr Wells for a fee,   to  become animal welfare inspectors. At point 7  he sets out the  costing  which in 1996 was $2500  and $1250 per annum there after  per inspector .

After lobbying  for a new animal welfare act , Mr Wells  offered to write it and introduced into the no 1 bill the  concept of using Territorial bodies . Had this  been successful this  would have facilitate  his  business enterprise as  above.

There were objections to local government being involved in what was seen to be a central government role  and a second Bill was introduced, the two bills were read together and during the process that the bills were passed into legislation Mr. Wells was employed as an independent advisor to the select committee.

A pilot programme had already been introduced  at Waitakere city in 1994  which was to run for a short period  but  continued on into an “interregnum” phase ( it has never been established if this  was done with the sanctions of government or  simply overlooked.)

Who is AWINZ

To overcome the hurdles, introduced by the objections  of local government being  involved in what was seen to be a central government role  , the concept of a trust was introduced by Mr Wells and had various  suggested  names ,  trustees and  concepts .

11/01/1996         Territorial authority Animal welfare services a trading name for a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time.

Jan-98                   National animal welfare trust  board Proposed  Trustees  Neil Wells ,Waitakere  city council        and  councillors

early 1998           Waitakere Animal Welfare Trust

Late 1998             AWINZ Waitakere  city council     and un named trustees

Late 1998 Neil Wells  recruits   Nuala Grove   , Sarah Giltrap    & Graeme Coutts to be trustees and is paid for it  by the city through tom Didovich  see copy  of the invoice

In  1999        AWINZ  which is later ( in court)  alleged to be an “oral “trust  makes an application for  funds an application to the minister of Agriculture . In each of these documents a claim is made that the trust exists by way of  trust deed  when   the reality is that no trust deed existed at that time. A statement is made in both and confirmed in the first document in Hand writing that the trust is being incorporated.

In 2006  we questioned the existence of AWINZ  when no trust deed could be found or evidence of incorporation . We incorporated a trust with the identical name  which  brough  attention to the falsehoods in the application    and after  nearly 7 years of not incorporating the trust or  having a visible trust deed it was now so urgent  that  they could not meet with us to resolve the issue  and needed to sue us to  force us to relinquish the  name.

A trust deed materialised in 2006  and later a second deed appeared  which  was in contradiction to  correspondence which I had received from Maf.  The trustees  allegedly  signed the deed 1/3/2000 when Tom Didovich the manager animal welfare Waitakere drive to   them and  collected the signatures.  I have long wondered why this was not done at a meeting of the trust board.

Trustees were   Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts,  Sarah Giltrap and Nuala Grove, the deed required no less than 4 trustees.

2006   On discovering the identities of the trustees I phoned them  and asked them  about their  trust, Graeme Coutts  said that  they had never met because they were not that type of trust, he then said he  had to  check with Neil before he could speak to me further . I never got any more from him and  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap  through Neil wells claimed that I had harassed them, when all I had done was phone them and asked them if they were trustees.

Nick Wright and  ex wife Vivienne Parre

I was intimidated  by Vivienne Parre , wife of Nick Wright    who later was to take  the matter to court as a solicitor for Brookfields.   Parre did the work pro bono  according to an email sent  by Wright  but despite this the  costs in court were crippling .

The statement of claim which  had no supporting evidence was filed  by David Neutze   and the plaintiffs  calling themselves AWINZ were  Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley.

These people were less than the  four required by the trust deed  and Wyn  who  with  the others claimed  that the trust we had incorporated in April  2006 was passing itself off a the trust which she had joined in  May 2006 ( but had no trust deed to prove that it was  more than a fiction )

Hoadley , Didovich, Wells and Coutts  sign a trust deed  on  5-Dec-06  and now claim to be the same  trust as the one which was granted the approval as  an approved organisation.

This requires some explaining.

A person or an  incorporated group  can own property. They can also sue and be sued and through the various  legislations  those which are not natural persons are registered  with the ministry of economic developments .

Those bodies  which are registered  can have some one act for and on behalf of the “ organisation.’

Trusts are one of those  weird things  which can be incorporate or unincorporated.  If a trust is unincorporated  they have  existence only through the  trust deed which the trustees have signed  , they  often pick a name  which may or may not  be unique  and the trust is  effectively invisible except for the  deed  which is   some where.

If an unincorporated trust  buys  property the name of the trust does not appear on the title   but the names of the trustees do.  The same occurs  when an unincorporated trust owns a company, only the trustees names appear on the  share holders list.

If an unincorproated trust enters into a contract  it is actually  the trustees  who enter into it  unless they have a document  which authorises  some one to act for them , this was never the case with AWINZ and such a document was never sighted  by  Central government before allowing one person to make an application on behalf of a group of persons.

If an unincorporated trust sues   they can only do so in the names of the trustees.  In this case the alleged  trustees  who    sued me  were Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graham Coutts  who at the time did not have a trust deed  or any proof of being a trust.

The action  taken against me  has been a legal process taken for  an improper purpose- the lawyers involved had a duty  to ensure that  the proceedings were being taken for a proper purpose  and that the  people making the claim  could  do so .

No evidence has ever been produced  and through manipulation of the court process  Nick Wright  from Brookfields  has obtained a verdict against me  by introducing prejudice  into the court by calling me vindictive  etc  and diverting the court from the lack of facts.

More on  dirty legal tactics later..  this entire scenario is proof of how dangerous it is to question corruption in NZ  the lack of support  and the penalties for speaking   the truth.

Advertisements

23/01/2010

Whistleblowers checklist

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 11:31 pm

I found this  several years ago and have re discovered it

In my experience  this is  so true

  1. Am I in the position to know that what I see as fraud really is improper in the bigger picture?
  2. Can I prove my allegations with self-explanatory documents that don’t need my public explanation?
  3. Is my family prepared for the possibility of a negative high public profile?
  4. Are my family and I financially and mentally ready for a protracted fight to prove our suppositions?
  5. Am I mentally ready to have my neighbours and perhaps my friends turn against me because of my disclosures?
  6. Am I ready for personal attacks against my character and to have any past indiscretions made public?
  7. Am I sure that my motivations are to expose fraud for the right reasons and not just sour grapes, revenge, or public attention?

Source: taken from Whistleblowing Outlets Hillman Project September 1995

If you need  a hand   questioning corruption  I have learnt a lot  the hard way ..no need for more victims   please contact me    http://www.helpme2.co.nz     http://www.verisure.co.nz

Transparency International New Zealand

Filed under: corruption,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:57 am

To the executive

I am now in possession of  my privacy act request   and wish to raise   some further issues.

From your web site I note that     you define transparency  as  follows   “Transparency” can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably.

This I believe  sums up exactly  what I wish to know . It is  obvious those  who made decision in the email poll must have  known more about me  than   what was on my application . I would  have hoped that if  nothing had been supplied to  the members  of the board that they would have responded that they did not know enough to make a decision and asked for more information and not provided a declinature.

When I was declined I   asked   if I could present my self at the AGM  so that the members could meet me and make an informed decision  I was advised    “The Board has also considered your request to attend the 2009 AGM of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc and your request has been declined”  that request  was made after the declinature  for membership  yet you have not included    those emails   in the   privacy request reply.

I also note  by the times and dates on the emails that  that  I was declined   before all responses were  received  , is that  ethical?

  1. The  email    dated 24 November The author has  written “ Ok I vote  yes for every one except   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and the third person  who is associated with them. My reason  for this is that they all have very questionable tactics for achieving their political purposes which includes making slanderous statements. “ please advise
  1. How this person  obtained the information to make this  statement, was it based on anything he has been told or  heard in the society , or was it information  obtained else where, if so which  agency did it come from
  1. i.      I would  like that member to  provide me with the information which  he  had available to him   on which he made that statements. I believe that this is information which   needs correcting as I have been unfairly judged.
  1. In view of that statement I  also wish to know if  that  sentiment  has been  expressed   verbally at  any  time to   influence the other   board members , and why is there a reference to three people   when  only Vince Siemer  and I were declined   (  yes we do compare notes )
  1. I was also with Penny Bright  yesterday and saw her   information  request , I wonder why  she did not  get a copy of that email  which  obviously bore her name . ( you may also want to tell her   why  hr application was considered and  declined   by a  member when it  had not been tabled. )

Further  In the interest of transparency  , I would  like to know

  1. Why you are withholding information ? and not being transparent
  1. What information the members had in front of them  when they made the decisions about  membership , did they  just have names   or  did the email sent to the board members  have  the application forms attached and a synopsis on each person? If  so what did they have  about me?
  1. I have been on a number of societies  and have always been aware that   the only rules  which are current  are those which are filed with the registrar and sealed by him.  I note that unlike other societies , your rules are not   visible   on the  Societies web site  . I note that you do  have   rules filed with the charities commission   there is nothing in these  guide lines which  state what the criteria  for membership is  and I therefore request  a copy of the criteria  which  I was judged against.  Why can some people  join and why can’t others .

My  work, my background and my  aims and  objectives are in line  with those stated in your objectives.  I do much to   expose corruption and   was heartened  by your  flyer which  states  corruption ruins  lives  Fight  back.

My  family has been devastated   because I questioned corruption.  I fought back   and the  very organisation  which encourages fighting back    will not let me  join  therefore   I cannot  I can pass on   what I have  learnt and observed in the practical sense of  fighting corruption.. its  like   sending the troops  into battle and then abandoning them.

I  did not wish to join  to push my own  barrow-  but for the good of the public , so that the work  that I am  doing has wider implications. I don’t have a political agenda  other than  having  stood for the Kiwi party in Epsom, I did not  join as a  Kiwi party member  and I am entitled to my own political affiliations as much as I  am assured  freedom of association ( bill of  rights )

I work at the coal face I work with the people to whom your principals  apply.

I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which  Transparency International  has not lived up to its own objectives, what is ethical about the manner in which I have been judged? Where is the transparency   ?

I can only speculate that you do not wish a person such as myself  to be  a member because I expose corruption and this  is not  in  line with the perspective  which you have  cast  on New Zealand internationally. The reality is that we are as corrupt as the next place   only we pretend  that we are not  corrupt   we    beat up any one  who pokes their head up and says “excuse me  but isn’t that wrong?”

I see peoples lives destroyed by corruption and firmly believe  that  if people stopped seeing  New Zealand as a  corruption free zone, they may actually start asking questions , questions which would reveal the truth  and   then they  would not be ripped off and their lives would not be destroyed.

Aside from my professional  life, I am a mother and a housewife  , I used to be a wife  but corruption  saw the end of my marriage when a lawyer  decided to re write my marriage  vows  because I was sued  for  speaking the truth  .( connection 2 )

I believe that if you sweep dirt under a rug  sooner or later  you  will trip over it  and it will come out. To get  stains out   there is  nothing like  sun  light . Perhaps those who criticise my methods  do not realise that the mechanisms  that we pretend  exist to deal with those issues  don’t  work  and when people are  being beaten up through the court and financially  crippled  because they questioned , have no alternative  but to use alternative methods  because no one else cares, the only ones that do  have   suffered the same and then we  get criticised  for associating with them –  no  doubt in an attempt to isolate the victims  so that no  one know  how many of  us there truly are.

For  Four Years I have been questioning

  • why   we allow people in New Zealand to write legislation  which will further their own business interests( and provide potentially  vast pecuniary income ) ,
  • why people in council can contract to themselves in a trading name
  • why it is Ok to make a  false statement to the minister to set up a law enforcement agency .
  • Why  they can  solicit  public donations  claiming to be a charity and deposit money in a bank account   only they can access
  • Why they can prosecute people   and offer diversion  for a donation to   their trading name  and their bank account .
  • Why they can use   council staff , facilities and resources  and claim to  be  charity  and compete with a charity
  • Why  the court can be used   to  buy silence .. I was also sued  for  attempting to locate a director and liquidator – the business partner  of David Nathan  ( chamber of commerce )  had a finger in the pie and funded the lawyers , he is now  a fugitive from our laws    but still used the court  to  beat me up  . see news item

I have  all the proof in the world  obtained  from the  government  departments and councils   involved, yet I am the one    who  was taken to court for defamation for  speaking the truth  and denied a  defence . When the judge could not   find enough evidence  he had to resort to Google .

Yes I can see why   you don’t want me   because   I believe that   what I have touched on is but the tip of a very big ice berg.see https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/the-unitec-connection/

It is good for business that people  believe New Zealand is not corrupt.. it bankrupts many  and  writes off debts.  I just wonder how many lives have been lost because of our corruption  and the  justice system  which  appears to support it.

I  guess your reply  will  show   prove if your  organisation is farcical or not .

In the interest of transparency   I have put this on my blog  to keep the readers informed. https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

07/01/2010

Update on Didovich

Update on Didovich

I have updated the previous post relating to  Tom Didovich to include the   fact that he collected the signatures  for the trust deed  by driving about Auckland  and getting the trustees to sign it. He was the witness to their   signatures.  Further compounding his involvement .

It also needs to be pointed out that Tom Didovich is no longer an employee of Waitakere city . We therefore need to further question his involvement in AWINZ as his continued involvement is  clearly not a responsibility placed on him by the council  .

I would   love to hear from the RNZSPCA as to why  they don’t mind being integrated with AWINZ   they are competing charities  and they  need to carefully read the following documents

26/08/1994 ENHANCING ANIMAL WELFARE SERVICES- a proposal     author Neil Wells

12/12/1994 Waitakere City SPCA  author Neil Wells

3/05/1995 N. E. Wells & Associates acting as a consultant to Waitakere city author Neil Wells

15/01/1996 concept of a nation wide trust “territorial authority animal welfare trust” author Neil Wells

January 1998 strategic options author Neil Wells

Flow of funds author Neil Wells

Trust proposal : includes the statement  -“Care would be needed to ensure that activities are not perceived to be in competition with the SPCA although this might be a challenge.” author Neil Wells

14/04/1998 this document included the statement “While there would be no thrust to promote the new charitable trust as an “alternative SPCA” it would not take long  for the public to gain this perception.” author Neil Wells   It is a document worth considering as to the possibilities  of AWINZ competing with RNZSPCA

23/12/1998 In discussion today with Tom and Neil Wells, it was agreed that from a public relations perspective, their position should be preserved in some way – either as is or by being absorbed in or connected with the new trust. However, a great deal of the current Animal Welfare development proposal is confidential for the meantime and some Friends of the Ark are connected with SPCA (who will not welcome our move into what they perceive as “their” territory). Accordingly we suggest that when the issue becomes public (at about Annual Plan time) the Friends are brought it  and offered a role in the new set-up.  Author Dai Bindoff Waitakere City Council

06/12/2000 SPCA staff and vehicles used on the lord of the rings movie monitoring in the contract which AWINZ held. See AHA letter ( American Humane  association )

06/01/2010

Why don’t we Verifiy and deal with Facts

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 8:53 pm

I have had a call from a number of  RNZSPCA   inspectors  who have  voiced their concerns   that while those at the top  have holidays  and  are on an income  derived from donation , the  volunteers   i.e. those doing the work   get very little support .

This is in keeping with a trend which I have observed with  charities, both trusts and  incorporated societies.

I recently dealt with an incorporated society where  the   head was on $60,000 per annum and  was running about in a $40,000 car paid for the  by the incorporated society . It appears that tis lady  was ‘in  charge” of the entire set up having worked her way up from volunteer to a position where by she  could hire and fire the entire executive and select her own executive  who  had no idea what was going on  and  approved with everything  she put to them because of the trust they had in her.

There is something very wrong  with our set up for trusts and incorporated societies  ,sure there is now a register  but registers need to be more than that – no one apparenlty  verifies anything .

Had there been a verification process  an ‘ organisation”  like AWINZ would not have passed the test  it would have failed because

  • it  did not have a publicly available trust deed
  • was not incorporated
  • the trustees  did not sign the application to the minister
  • there was no evidence that those alleged trustees consented to any one  applying for “ the organisation “ to become approved
  • no one has apparently ever checked the minutes of the “ organisation”
  • The trust  according to evidence given in court ,does not meet. ( it is  not that kind of trust )

This brings me to the issue of trusts  there is  a huge amount of confusion behind them   . There are many people who sit on trusts  and the Auckland Air cadet trust is one of them    where by   one person takes charge  and the others  simply nod and give consent.

Very few trustees   or those on executives of incorporated societies know what  their legal roles are  . It is therefore   essential that any one  who wishes to be in control of a trust or incorporated society  had a group of “nodders”  and disposes quickly of any one  who  questions and  therefore threatens the control.

When action is commenced against a trustee or  an executive member   to remove them  the others  should question  and  not sit back and accept the unverified spin of the person  who is seeking to remove a member.

My company Verisure can help in situations like this   we  gather the information so that impartial  material is placed before the  meeting and  the facts examined rather than allowing some one to be bullied off the  organisation  .

02/01/2010

The role of Tom Didiovich … Trustee of AWINZ and RNZSPCA officer

How much is AWINZ intertwined with the RNZSPCA?  the role of Tom Didiovich  … Trustee of AWINZ   and RNZSPCA officer ..

You will find Didovich’s  web  site at http://www.lifecoachtom.com/

He is a life coach  known as “life coach Tom”.   His web site says “Be well. Seek and find your own and therefore authentic truth for there you will find contentment and harmony with your self and the universe.”

He claims his credentials through Coach inc  but    he is not  listed on  their web site.

His history can be summed up  from this article from the RNZSPCA Tom Didovich  was recently appointed national education and branch support manager, based at national office . Much of Tom’s 25-year background in animal welfare has been as manager of Animal Welfare Services in Waitakere,west of Auckland”

What is not revealed is Didovich’s connection with AWINZ this can be shown historically as  follows.

Didovich was manager   of animal welfare Services in 1994  when Wells  first put forward the concept of An  spca for Waitakere city A in Waitakere city

In May 1995 Wells acting as a  consultant for waitakere city corresponds with MAF enclosing a proposal  for the animal welfare division of Waitakere city  to commence a pilot programe for the council officers to be trained to a standards equal to or exceeding that of RNZSPCA officers – ( note the charge out rates on page 7  )

In preparation for the transition into a private service the Animal welfare Division which  Didovich heads    has an overnight name change  … nothing more than a stroke of a pen.

An agreement “pilot contract” is forwarded to Didovich from Wells which includes provision for Wells to act as Barrister see clause 4 (e)as part of the “pilot programme”

15 January 1996 Wells writes to Didovich about the plan for a Territorial Authority Animal Welfare Services a division of N.E. Wells & Associates

They later appear to  work on a draft  paper integrating animal welfare with animal control . Note at the bottom of the first  page  the invitation for Didovich to ad Lib a  little bit more.

As the Bill which has been written  by Wells progresses through the select Committee  (where Wells is employed as a independent adviser ) it becomes clear that a formal structure is required to facilitate the concept of  this “ territorial  animal welfare Authority “ and  Wells  proposes a Trust concept   for which he is paid , the invoice is approved by Didovich   and  paid for  by public funds .

In January 1998 a proposal  document “strategic options ” emerges in which  it states “Care would be needed to ensure that activities are not perceived to be in competition with the SPCA although this might be a challenge.

3 march 1998 Wells communicates with Didovich and has commented on Didovich’s Draft .

April 1998  email wells emailConfidentially, as you know there is a thrust to form a new charitable organisation similar in objective to the SPCA but organizationally different in that it would be a charitable trust rather than an incorporated society. But both are not-for-profit organisations.” While delivering animal welfare compliance would be one of the objectives it would not be the only one.

While there would be no thrust to promote the new charitable trust as an “alternative SPCA” it would not take long for the public to gain this perception. This is all part of contestability”.

13 may 1998 Didovich provides comments on why there is a need for a trust

Didovich email august 98 suggests  that the trust  should have sponsors for credibility.

31 aug 1998  It would appear that the pilot programme which was set up for 6 months  continued to operate  without  any  official authority  ( based on the word interregnum) . despite the fact that  the “pilot programme”  appeared to be operating  in anticipation of the new act becoming law .

2 sept 1998 Didovich announces that  Animal welfare Waitakere has  the dog control contract for the North shore and comments that the North shore is a wealthy area into which they can tap for DONATIONS. He also   talks of calling the service provided to North shore as  Animal care and control, this is again but a trading name.

2 sept 1998 there is a letter from Wells  to DIDOVICH clarifying that “The pilot programme has now passed Into an ‘Interregnum’ phase.” There is no evidence  that Didovich ever questioned  what this meant  and if he had authority to continue on with  the programme.

didovich email sept 98Didovich updates his superiors and tells them of a requirement  for a trust and a response is received   from John Rofe principal adviser council owned business .  and a Further   more official response is located which appears to have been prompted by Didovich pressuring the council in that establishing a trust step was Urgent  paragraph 2 .council direction re trust

On 30 November 1999 an invoice is issued by Wells to recruit the trustees  this invoice is authorized for payment by Didovich invoice re trustees this trust was to include Waitakere city  but it never eventuated as such an no deed was ever signed.

23 December 1998 there was communications with  some of the  council staff   with regards to the waitakere  trust  “In discussion today with Tom and Neil Wells, it was agreed that from a public relations perspective, their position should be preserved in some way – either as is or by being absorbed in or connected with the new trust. However, a great deal of the current Animal Welfare development proposal is confidential for the meantime and some Friends of the Ark are connected with SPCA”

19 jan 1999Neil Wells tells MAF that the council have opted for not  being in the trust  but it appears that this is not communicated to Didovich (or the council)  who continues  to push the council to set up a trust many months on. didovich email june 99

14 june 1999 Didovich keeps the pressure on  to the council and cites the reason being that “The alternative is for Animal Welfare Services to lose all the warrants and this will set us back considerably”. Is he  ignorant of Well’s plans  doesn’t he know that wells has already told  MAF that the city is not going to be involved, or is Wells playing one  off against the other?

Two things happen at about this time Neil Wells  and some of the people who Tom Didovich gas  recommended to council in his  email august 98  set up  the trust national animal welfare  trust which is the name of the trust mooted to council for the proposed trust name in  early  1998 .At the same time these same  people set up  ark angels trust  which is not to be confused with the friends of the ark mentioned in the  email 23 December 1998

The second thing  that happen at this time  is that a notice of intent is  sent to the minister before the bill is even completed  and a month later  an application is made for  funds for the non existent organisation AWINZ. Two names appear on the application. Neil Wells and Tom Didovich.

at about the same time  Didovich and Wells let the SPCA know that they have set up a trust , the general impression  is  that a trust exists  but  nothing has ever been done to set one up.

In November Neil Wells  on behalf of AWINZ ( a trading name for person or persons unknown) applies for this to become an approved organization.   The trustees named are the people Wells recruited and invoiced  Council for ( approved by Didovich)

14 December 1999 Didovich is advised by Maf that all warrants expire

Maf require verification from  both Waitakere  city and North shore city as to support  for AWINZ  and Didovich does this   on two separate letter heads  One for  north shore and one for Waitakere

Tom   later  sends through statements from  all fourteen staff   with regards to  their  enforced  willingness to work   for AWINZ, I have attached  those of Lyn McDonald QSM   and  Jane Charles  who  both lost their  jobs later because  they were perceived as a threat to AWINZ. Staff to whom I have spoken  said that they were upset with this move as they were given no opportunity to decline this involvement and  received no extra pay.

AWINZ‘s transition into an approved organisation  is not  smooth  so Didovich writes to  the council lawyers  with the following instructionsNeil has suggested that he draft a contract under section 37(t) which you could then provide a robust opinion on for subsequent presentation to MAF Policy to see if they will accept  such a path forward.” This legal opinion is then forwarded By Wells to  MAF6 august 2000

1 sept 2000 Discussion occurs with MAF  and further legal opinions are sought all for the setting up of a Private enterprise all paid for by the public purse

AWINZ against the recommendations of MAF and treasurybecomes  an approved organisation  just after Bob Harvey   who at the time  was the president of the Labour party and   Mayor of Waitakere was consulted.harvey briefed

In 2004 Didovich  and Wells signed an mou for waitakere  . Didovich signing on behalf of the linked organisation  Waitakere  city   and  also  according to   their  files for  North shore  City.

Didovich  has the honour of being written up in the herald he makes the point of stating “”We enforce both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999, other councils don’t. “

In 2005 Didovich and  a staff member  form a liaison and Didovich  has to move on . Neil Wells takes over as manager animal welfare and remains CEO of the  so called AWINZ effectively contracting to himself. A check of the companies Web site  for  ONLINE GOODS LIMITED shows that  Didovich is in  business with Vicki Whitaker  who   resides at the same address as him  she is an AWINZ   inspector and is employed  by Waitakere city council as a dog control officer

Didovich  on leaving the council  takes up a role with the RNZSPCA  National Education and Branch Support Manager  but later  find his way into being a life coach .

When we raised  Questions with regards to the existence of  AWINZ in 2006   a trust deed emerges dated 1/3/2000 . It has to be noted that  Didovich witnesses the  signatures of Nuala Grove, Sarah Gilltrap and  Graeme Coutts . Didovich in an affidavit claimed that  he drove about Auckland to collect the signatures, it would appear that they could not even meet for  such an important  event as  signing the trust deed and  you can help but wonder   if the date on the trust deed  was accurate.

I am  told that two of the trustees   resigned allegedly because I harassed them (  I  said  excuse me are you a trustee of AWINZ ? )     Wells, Coutts and Hoadley take  legal action against me  ( see Hoadley’s involvement )

Didovich turns up in court regularly and is the only support person for Wells on occasions. In December 2006 a new trust deed  emerges and Didovich is identified as a trustee.

According to  the charities web site Didovich became a trustee ( although not  signing a deed )  on 14/8/06

As can be seen  on the charities register  Wells is a trustee  of The Waikato SPCA Trust ( with Peter Blomkamp chief executive SPCA )    Laingholm Baptist Church and The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand

Didovich on 3 December 2009  placed an advertisement  in the Gisborne Herald

Tom Didovich

SPCA NZ National Branch

Support Manager:

branchsupport@rnzspca.org.nz or

Ph (09) 827 6094 or fax (09) 827 0784

So  what are the parameters between AWINZ and RNZSPCA   are they acting as if they are  one organisation or does it not matter that   those in control of one are also in [psotions of control of the other?

The RNZSPCA are aware of Didovich’s involvement in AWINZ   they obviously don’t take it as seriously as one Government department6 dec 2000 lotr did when they discovered that  AWINZ had been  employing RNZSPCA officers for the  provision of false end titles for the Lord of the rings.aha

Blog at WordPress.com.