While Chair of the REAA, Ms McDonald demanded increases in her fees, while burning through no less than FIVE chief executives in two years. Her fee increase may have been passed onto real estate agents, who would have passed them onto home owners; I note agent licensing fees have increased. I also note that McDonald appears to have agreed to the increase on the advice of a failed and predatory bent cop, who McDonald recommended the REAA employ. While McDonald denies it; she, with her fellow board members are accountable for the REAA performance, not the chief executive.
Ms McDonald has acted for the Police in a wide range of civil matters including representing Police in the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct in 2007. Notably, this so called investigation has been going on for years and has been a massive cover up, and a great big gravy train for all involved, over four years after the inquiry was directed to look into the deliberate and corrupt cover up of hundreds of child abuse files in the Wairarapa, the so called "investigators" have failed to even interview the main offender, Det Sgt Mark McHattie,who has now been promoted to head of the Auckland CIB,the Area Commander has also been promoted - which is just sickening really,given the local suicide rate and the obvious causal effect of reabusing the victims in this way and ensuring their complaints are not investigated - and the situation in the Wairarapa has got a lot worse recently, the police are worse than ever having established that they can get away with murder and have no fear of being called to account for their actions. Appallingly, John Key has just announced (October 2012) that he has appointed Ms McDonald to "investigate" the Great Dotcom Debacle - and is trying to claim she's an "independent" "investigator" - in spite of her snuggly relationship with the police, the police training college (where she is a Patron), and various police officers and ex police officers - disgraced ex officers mainly! Disgraced ex officers like Jon Moss and his mates:
The failed and predatory bent cop - Jon Moss of course. The same Jon Moss who reportedly had an affair with a coroner, while he was running internal investigations and she was finding in favour of police, including on the occasion that a civilian ran under a truck all by himself. The same bent cop whose work at Police was reviewed by the Office of the Auditor General, and found deficient. And yes the same bent cop who had had two criminal investigations launched into him in a 11 month period; both investigations about his behaviour towards 7 women, including a teenage girl. Nuisance behaviour that may have been learnt from his investigations into child abuse at Centrepoint ? We've had problems with sickos in the police being promoted for their corruption and incompetence for many years now, John Dewar was imprisoned for his role in covering up the rape of Louise Nicholas, and the scandal involving the Wairarapa police destroying hundreds of child abuse files and then being promoted for it is outrageous!
And the coroner is not enitrely clean either. Herdson appears to have been working for both the REAA and the IPCA at the same time. She helped get Moss the job at the REAA. Once he got the job he then went on to approve and sign off her substantial invoices, including travel costs that rival the Children's Commissioner. Wonder if their friendship was declared, and what was done to manage the integrity of these invoices? And, it was noted by many people that her report for the IPCA was loudly silent on Moss and his decisions, which were clearly within the scope of her terms of reference. As CCMusic Factory say, " things that make you go hmmmmm".
Then there are the matters of further complaints about Moss while at the REAA, as well as his tendency to stay at the Langham Hotel while visiting Auckland and generally live the high life at the Agencies expense. The one that strikes many as outrageous is the apparently undisclosed cash donation by the recruitment agent who recruited Moss, to a charity of Moss' choosing. The cash donation was unwise. The fact it was undisclosed by Moss is serious. Why did he hide it from the REAA? Or are the REAA hiding it from OIA requestors?
All this along with major and already public organisational performance issues in Moss' area. In their favour the REAA got rid of Moss via a restructure. On the downside it looks like the taxpayers have paid twice to rid themselves of Moss - police paid him six months salary to go, REAA paid him three months salary to go.
Wonder where he is now ? What woman he has lined up ? And who his referees were. McDonald? Herdson? Rickard? Time will tell. Scum floats to the top. Though it does appear that he has renewed his electrician's license. Let hope he is not targetting woman and girls who let him into their homes to do electrical work.
"Hi Steve – I was talking to Sarn Herdson tonight and she mentioned that you are doing some work for the Real Estates Agents Authority in Wellington.
I believe you are aware of the circumstances of my retirement from Police in that Sarn briefed you so that you were across any risk to Meredith Connell.I am now starting to look for employment and I did notice Investigators jobs with the Authority in the last week or two. I think the jobs have been taken down now though. This is just a query – as an experienced senior investigator, as to whether the Authority are interested in considering me either in a role or perhaps as a (cheap) contractor, perhaps. I am also familiar with the complaints/investigations process for Police and IPCA and so understand the requirements for the various levels of complaint / issues. If you would rather not be involved in this that is fine, I can go direct to the Authority. I can send a CV."
“Hi Jon. Your email is timely. If you send me your CV I will happily pass it on to those who matter.”
"Without overstating the situation, I would ask that you brief Kristy McDonald or the CEO on my application and situation. I do not want to embarrass her the Authority (sic) especially in its infancy."
"CE to Chair 3 March 2.23K, do you know a chap John Moss – potential investigator?Chair to CEFrom Police?formr professional stds? If it is – grab him. He’s a wonderful and lovely guy.U wld get on well with him.CE to ChairYep – same guy – Steve found himChair to CEHe’s greatCE to ChairSteve or John?! (both..)Chair to CEActually meant John but both"
Janet Mazenier to Steve HaszardWednesday 3 March 6:49 pmSteve, fyi Dean and Jon are interviewing Jon Moss on Saturday in Wellington. Dean’sreaction at our meeting this afternoon appears to have been driven off the fact that JonM’s CV is so rich so he did a bit of research which resulted in him finding out about thesituation regarding the complaint. Dean does reflect the fact that the universal view isthat Jon M fell on his sword , was cleared and was targeted […] and deserves a break, sothere is no judgment remaining there by Dean.But, Dean is (probably rightfully) a bit miffed we didn’t mention it at the meeting, andlater when he asked you one‐on‐one about him….consider this a warning to us both!Steve Haszard to Jane MazenierWednesday 3 March 22:08Possibly rightfully so. First step in the process was interview and then consideration ofother issues. Must say I am still not completely convinced the authority would want totake on the reputational risk (spoke with Jon on the phone and he has not been clearedby the IPCA yet). Anyway, that is food for thought for next week … amongst otherthings….Janet Mazenier to Steve HaszardThursday 4 March 5:25 amOK, we’ll tread with some caution – I do wonder whether Kristy is aware of the issue too– will check with her.Janet Mazenier to Jon DuffySunday 7 March 7:19 amHi Jon Dean and I had [a] good chat – is definitely a tricky situation. I will ring Jontomorrow as I need to get the situation clear then I’ll speak to Kristy – ordinarily Iwouldn’t do this given it is an operation matter [but] there are potentially reputationalissues.Janet Mazenier to Steve HaszardSunday 7 March 7:21 amSteve, FYI Jon and Dean are keen to engage Jon Moss however in the circumstances Ineed to ensure I am very clear about the matters that are still underway.Steve Haszard to Janet MazenierMonday 8 MarchCouldn’t agree more Janet
“K, I need to talk to you about Jon Moss & the response to the READT folk. Dan & I r in Greymouth 2day – will be free up till 1:45pm – when suits you?"
"Jon Duffy to Janet MazenierSunday 7 March 09:11Hi JanetOne of the possibilities that Dean and I discussed was bringing him on in an advisory role for 3 months until the result of the investigation into him is known. He would be invaluable in assisting with the operations manual and the review as he has basically just done the same thing at the Independent Police Complaints Authority. We could then look at an Investigator role after that if the investigation finds no case to answer.Obviously there are budgetary considerations as we would still need tow newInvestigators in the mean time, but it could be a way to mitigate the risk and not lose his expertise.Janet Mazenier to Jon DuffySunday 7 March 11:25Thanks yes Dean mentioned that idea, but I am keen for you and I to explore that first with Steve as he is leading the overall QA piece of work (of which he complaints procedures manual is only one of the outputs). I’ll call Jon for a chat tomorrow."
"Steve – I spoke with Viv Rickard last night and asked for an update. Below is his response. I would expect to receive a formal letter in due course.The file will be sent to the IPCA for review. A letter would normally be sent to the Commissioner advising of the Authority’s review of the matter. I have no idea how long that process might take. That would be the end of it.I will leave this for you to advise Janet.Attached – email from Viv Rickard to Jon Moss (cc Steve Hinds NZ Police)Kia ora Jon
We will catch at some stage in Wgtn.You queried the final outcome of the enquiry.I apologise that I have not responded formally to you in this regard. As you know the enquiry was all but completed, but for completeness, we carried out a further enquiry (out of Auckland with an ex-member) last week. The ex-member has not provided any further/different information.Therefore I can advise that the NZ Police have no cogent evidence that an assault took place in the back of a prison van when [complainant] was present and there is no cogent evidence indicating that you asked her to lie to investigators. Accordingly, I have taken the decision that no further Police action will be taken.Feel free to discuss further. I will try and make contact with you personally.Kind regardsviv"
" I suspected [the Chief Executive] feels that [A’s] experience (without divulging specifics and his name) are not substantially greater than Jon Moss so they are going to run with Jon’s interview today and then make a decision if he is the right candidate or if they need to re-visit others."
"I advised him that the internal candidate was being strongly considered and then they would make a decision if they need to go external again. Unfortunate that in the 11th hour his application came though and without giving full details of his background (and disclosing his identity) I could not demonstrate a greater strength than the internal"
"Whilst disappointing that we could couldn't get A to final interview stage we will talk with him today and manage this. Pending this afternoon's meeting please advise when you would like us to conduct full reference checks on the internal ‐ Jon Moss."
"After withdrawing from the recruitment process for the role of chief executive of DPMC, Ms Thompson applied for the role of Deputy Secretary (Workforce) at the Department of Labour. The process appears to have been reasonably standard, but there were some aspects of the process that departed from good practice. I do not consider that these departures had a significant effect on the outcome of the process. The Department of Labour used a consultant, a contestable process, an interview panel, and reference checks. Although Ms Thompson was interviewed by the panel, her late application bypassed the consultant's usual process without any ocumented rationale for this, and records were not retained by the Department of Labour. The offer of employment to Ms Thompson was made before reference checks were carried out, and the offer was not conditional on the outcome of the reference checks. Even though MsThompson had previous public sector experience, this deviated from my expectations of good practice. However, my findings are limited to this one recruitment process.The then chief executive of the Department of Labour and Ms Thompson's employer, Dr James Buwalda, became aware from Mr Wintringham in 2007 that a question had previously arisen about Ms Thompson's PhD. This was in the context of an external review Dr Buwalda was commissioning into some immigration decisions for family members of Ms Thompson (discussed in Volume 1).At this time, Mr Wintringham was a member of the Department of Labour's Audit Committee. Dr Buwalda did not believe that there was an outstanding issue to be resolved, and so did not do anything with this information. With hindsight, it would have been helpful for this information to have been passed on to Dr Buwalda's successor.Ministers' knowledge of the PhD uncertaintyMinisters were not aware of the PhD uncertainty until just before it became public in May 2008. That is consistent with the norms governing when it is appropriate for Ministers to be informed about employment matters in the public service.Timely reminder for all employers within public entitiesThis case illustrates that it is important for all public sector employers to consider the general and specific approach they take to verifying the information presented in a curriculum vitae (CV). They also need to be aware of the link between these procedural steps in recruitment processes and the broad collective role they play in safeguarding the integrity of the public sector.The extent of checks required is likely to vary depending on the seniority of the role and the nature of the experience and qualifications needed. The applicant's previous work history may also be relevant.However, each entity within the public sector is a distinct organisation, and each chief executive is responsible for their employment practices. Anindividual having previously worked in the public sector cannot be a reason for not carrying out a proper recruitment process with the appropriate checks.It is reasonable to expect a more robust approach to be taken for chief executive and senior positions than for other positions, given the leadership and management role they have in an organisation. Although the checking processes may at times appear mundane, those making senior appointments need to be aware of the risk that incorrect information in a CV potentially raises a question about an applicant's integrity. For senior public sector roles, that is a risk that needs to be scrupulously managed. In fairness to the individuals, it is important to dispel a question if it is unfounded. For the organisation, and for the sector as a whole, it is important to ensure that any integrity risk raised by a credible source is addressed."