Readers will be aware of how WCC set up an inquiry into allegations a Councillor had leaked information to the media about the proposed corporate welfare deal with Reading Cinemas.
Many months later it was revealed that the anonymous source who sparked the inquiry was Nadine Walker, the Chief of Staff to Tory Whanau (both are former Green Party staffers).
But it gets far worse than that. Documents just released under the OIA reveal that the person who came up with a shortlist of people to conduct the inquiry was also Nadine Walker, and that this was based on talking to Green Party staff in Parliament. Then she helped select the reviewer.
So Nadine Walker was the anonymous whistleblower. She also did the short-list of reviewers, helped select the reviewer and then presumably got interviewed by the reviewer in her capacity as the anonymous whistleblower.
This is beyond belief. The conflicts of interest are huge. There is no criticism of the reviewer (whom I have considerable respect for in terms of her ability and integrity), but with WCC who poisoned and politicised the Code of Conduct complaint process as an act of political utu. How could they allow the anonymous complainant to be the person who shortlists the reviewer?
The post A huge conflict of interest first appeared on Kiwiblog.
