What’s the secret?

In early 2017, having investigated irregularities I identified in the management and governance of the Kerikeri Domain and Pavilion, I wrote to FNDC’s CEO and Mayor seeking responses, and asking if I was on the right track as follows: I couldn’t find any record of the pavilion in the relevant asset management plan, in council’s asset register, or in any annual plan or longterm plan. Nor could I locate any reserve management plan, as required under the Reserves Act.

I couldn’t see any record as to this asset’s value, or calculate how much depreciation had been charged against it, to Ratepayers. I’d asked for info about income from users and running costs, without success.

I received no answers to any of my questions on these matters. In public council talked about insurance and structural assessments, and consultation with affected parties. Later in 2017 it was published that a valuation put its value at $1.6 million.

The Kerikeri Ratepayers’ Association, having listened to all user groups’ needs and concerns, lobbied strongly against demolition (council’s early go-to solution), particularly given insufficient information about options, which we argued must include repurposing it alongside assisting squash to relocate to new facilities (as they wanted to do).

In 2018 council did a U-turn, and agreed to repair it, but there was no consultation

on the future pavilion. Instead, they embarked on consultation to develop a first reserve management plan for the domain. The public was told that the fate of the pavilion was out of scope of that planning exercise. KRA’s submission on the resultant plan explains the vague language used throughout when referencing some facility — was council referring to the urgent do-up of the pavilion or some other new building?

Suddenly, in a public-excluded item in August 2019, council decided again to demolish. A tender was quickly called for that demo job on the Government Enterprise Tender System (GETS).

Now we expect a demo team to arrive, perhaps in the dead of night, with wrecking balls to lay waste to a $1.6 million, allegedly fully insured community facility within a recreation reserve.

Following the KRA’s AGM, at a meet the candidates event, a member quietly asked the Mayor what was up with the pavilion. He replied, “Well, you’ve got to look at the ownership of the building.” The proverbial cat is out of the bag and in plain sight.

Council, on the face of my investigations and dot-joining exercises, appears to have been concealing that it has mismanaged yet another asset, and rather than coming clean, it looks to me like the whole kit-n-kaboodle has been sweeping the facts under the rug.

My last questions to those elected representatives who colluded with staff and a private club to keep all this confidential (i.e. public excluded) is, on what possible public interest grounds have we, the public, been excluded and confidentiality preserved?

This politically sensitive item probably has zero to do with commercial sensitivity. It now must be asked, why is council tendering to demolish a building it does not own, never did manage as a TA should, and, operating like a secret society, hand in hand with a club it looks like you failed to charge a lease the entire time it occupied space on our central reserve? Could it be just to keep up a ruse? And what of the insurer — who was it, and what are they paying out for exactly?

JANE JOHNSTON, HARURU FALLS Chair Kerikeri Ratepayers’ Assn, Chair

Paihia & Districts Residents’ & Ratepayers’ Assn, FNDC candidate It’s normally considered unseemly to kick a man when he is down, but in this case I feel I must correct Leo Leitch’s blatant errors in his letter of July 25, in which he accused me of bigotry and telling “porkies”.

Mr Leitch’s letter was in response to one of mine (July 18) in which I had mentioned the case of Jeremy Gavins, a student at St Bede’s Catholic School in the UK, and who was subjected to electric shock aversion ‘therapy’ every week at a psychiatric hospital as ‘treatment’ for his homosexuality. As a result he suffered years of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Leitch stated that he had “researched the Jeremy Gavins story”. I quote from his letter:

“Jeremy suffered an emotional trauma when the boy he was in love with was about to move away, and he turned to a school teacher for help. He had treatment recommended to him by the headmaster of the Catholic high school he was attending. Jeremy consented to that treatment . . . And, contrary to another of Mr Hanson’s porkies, Jeremy never attempted suicide, although he thought about it, like most of the population do from time to time. Mr Hanson fails dismally to convict the church of causing youth suicides, as if that were related to opposing assisted suicide.”

In contrast to Mr Leitch’s ‘research,” I did some actual research by telephoning Gavins at his home in Ulverston, England, and reading his book, ‘Is it about that boy?’ in which he describes his suffering in graphic detail. So let’s see how Gavins’ first-hand account compares with Mr Leitch’s hearsay account.

First, he didn’t ‘turn to a school teacher for help,’ as Mr Leitch states. Gavins had a breakdown at school, and he says: “The teacher asked me why I was crying. I told him I was in love and he said, ‘That’s all right, everyone falls in love.’ He was considerate and sympathetic, and asked, ‘Why are you crying about it?’ “I confessed: ‘Because he’s called Stephen.’

“I told him about Stephen and my love for him and everything else. I just couldn’t help myself. It all came tumbling out. It was just a relief to talk. He listened for a while, and when he spoke again, his mood had changed completely. He said I was abnormal, sick, and ill, a disgusting, sinful boy. The problem for me was that he wasn’t an ordinary teacher, he was a Catholic priest . . . The priest took me to the Headmaster, a Monsignor, who asked me how I felt about being a homosexual. He too told me that I was sick, that homosexuality was a terrible disease.

“The Head then told me to go home. ‘You must not tell your parents about this. Think of the shame it would bring on your parents to find out they had a homosexual son.’”

Second, treatment was not ‘recommended’ to him by the headmaster. The headmaster said: “I am afraid you only have two options. You can carry on as you are, and in that case we would have no option but to expel you. We will inform your parents why we are expelling you. Think of the shame you will feel when everyone finds out you are a homosexual. We will expel you immediately, and you will not be able to take your A levels.”

Third, Mr Leitch states that Gavins did not attempt suicide, but Gavins told me on the telephone that in 1981 he drank a bottle of whisky and went to sleep in the snow, thinking that he wouldn’t wake up. But he failed; he was found by friends and taken home and put to bed, where he eventually woke up. His suicide attempt is mentioned on page 64.

Mr Leitch accuses me of being a bigot and telling lies. Evidently Mr Leitch’s definition of a bigot must be someone who consistently disagrees with him, and a lie must be a statement that is contrary to his own opinion.

The definition of a bigot is a person with fixed views who rejects even conclusive evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, anything that supports his or her opinion is leapt upon with relish, even if it is only hearsay.

I’m not going to accuse Mr Leitch of being a bigot — yet. It’s possible he was impulsively hitting his keyboard without first thinking things through. So I’m going to offer him the chance to publicly admit that he was wrong, and that I was not telling ‘porkies’.

Over to you, Mr Leitch.

MARTIN HANSON

Nelson

"Mr Leitch accuses me of being a bigot and telling lies. Evidently Mr Leitch’s definition of a bigot must be someone who consistently disagrees with him, and a lie must be a statement that is contrary to his own opinion."