The Real Answer Is the Mayor Has No Answer. How Do You Pass Off Active & Overt Ratepayer Discrimination, When that Ratepayer Takes It Up to You So Directly . . . And Publishes All the Evidence, Worse Still?

DoggieMamma readers following this story about local government discrimination won't need any explanation of what's wrong with the email received this morning from the Mayor's PA . . . which is just about everything. Actually, everything. Literally.

But for readers new to this shameful saga of Council staff irresponsibility, ratepayer discrimination, freewheeling, outright antagonism of the members of a community that actually pay their salaries - and an open demonstration of the appalling culture created by the management of the Masterton District Council specifically - I'll provide a commentary underneath the below email from said mayoral assistant:

From: Debra Clark <debrac@mstn.govt.nz> 
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2026 11:29 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Mōrena Jordan

Thank you for your follow up email. 

I have spoken with Mayor Bex and she is not prepared to meet with you regarding a situation that she considers is outside of the scope of her governance role. She has every faith that Council Officers will investigate your complaint appropriately. 

Ngā mihi.

DEBRA CLARK

Executive Assistant to Mayor Bex Johnson
and Chief Executive, Kym Fell

The most fundamental problem with the above "your complaint will be passed back to the staff you're complaining about for them to investigate your complaint" is exactly that. They don't even need to conduct the "investigation" to produce the response they've already decided on i.e.: "We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing."

I've previously written about the Government agency and local government "5D's playbook". Rarely have I seen it deployed with such blatant arrogance, open antagonism, absence of any sophistication and an equal absence of any visible sign of a functional intellect.

That will be obvious to those following the matter.

For the benefit of those new to it, here are the key points:

I formally requested a meeting with the Masterton District Council Mayor, Rebecca ("Bex") Johnson, to discuss discriminatory enforcement of the Dog Control Act.

Council's mayoral and CEO assistant, Debra Clark, has been engaging in the game you will read about here, here, here, and here, about the matter documented in detail, along with my solutions to it (including as kindly provided by an independent, professional dog trainer), here and here.

Today I received the latest response from the Mayor (as above) . . .well, not really from the Mayor, of course. This Mayor doesn't lower herself to engage despite we ratepayers paying her a salary to do so:

As you read:

"Mayor Bex is not prepared to meet with you regarding a situation that she considers is outside the scope of her governance role. She has every faith that Council Officers will investigate your complaint appropriately."

Mayor Bex Johnson's continually relied-upon point of wilful ignorance is that this isn't a governance matter.

But if staff's and management's open and antagonistic discrimination towards a ratepayer is "outside the scope of her governance role" . . . just what is the "governance role" she is being paid by ratepayers to perform?

Or is it just to be advised by glib, self-satisfied Masterton District Council staffers and their up-the-lines that they're handling this unexpectedly pesky ratepayer by way of passing her (governance) complaint back to the same staff who've been overseeing and greenlighting the discrimination in the first instance, and who actively foster the culture of antagonism towards ratepayers that created it?

Discriminatory Enforcement of A Bylaw IS A Governance Matter

The Mayor's role includes oversight of how Council officers exercise their statutory powers. When those officers apply the law selectively — resolving some complainants and denying others — that is precisely the kind of conduct that requires governance-level accountability, not just operational investigation.

But Masterton District Council's Mayor Bex Johnson has been advised to hold a conveniently different view, to justify handing the complaint about council officers back to council officers. That's not investigation — that's self-investigation . . . whether it's a different office-holder or not, because the greenlighting of the conduct, and the culture, is coming down from the top anyway.

How can Gordon Crawley, Gary Hardgrave and Clare Williams (or their up-the-lines who told them to do exactly what they've done) independently investigate a complaint about their own conduct?

Debra Clark, please advise "Mayor Bex" of her statutorily-obligated duties to ratepayers:

Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority is required to make itself aware of, and have regard to, the views of all of its communities. "Mayor Bex's" refusal to meet with a ratepayer raising a formal discrimination complaint appears to be in direct conflict with that statutory obligation.

In the meantime, the following request for a Masterton District Council precedent, that I made on May 15, still stands.

I await whatever they manage to come up with, with great and detailed interest:

From:  Jordan Kelly
Sent:  Friday, 15 May 2026 1:40 pm
To:  'Ruth McEwen'
 cc: 'Animal Services'
Subject: Official Information Act Request - Barking Complaint Precedent

Dear Ms McEwen

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information:

• All previous complaints received by Masterton District Council relating to nuisance barking from dogs, from January 1, 2015 to the date of this request, in which the council required the complainant to provide witness contact details and submit to witness interviews conducted by Animal and Bylaw Services Officers or other council representatives before any action was taken or considered – notwithstanding the prior provision of multiple audio recordings of the barking, the likes of receipts for barking deterrent devices purchased in direct response to the barking in question, signed witness statements, and additional items and instances of evidence as, or similar to, those documented at https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing  , and as in all correspondence and attachments submitted to the council to date in relation to this pre-existing matter.

• For each such complaint identified in item 1: the reason/s for the requirement of this extensive amount of evidence and supporting material in prior complaints;

• The outcome of the council's investigation and any action taken or not taken following those witness interviews additional to evidence already provided in similar volume across multiple months;

• The current written policy or standard operating procedure governing the evidentiary requirements for nuisance barking complaints – specifically, but not limited to, whether witness interviews are a standard requirement before any action is taken, and if so, under what circumstances this requirement applies.

I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly