Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/auditor-general-waikato-university-dismissive-of-public-accountability-amid-concerns-about-former-national-ministers-1m-contract/PH4HYSZ5T5HLLBU7MB3EMBZ3RQ/The Stuff Up was by one person - Neil Quigley
So simple really, gthe University stuffed up. Hopefully they have learned.
From that article:
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >>university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and
there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that
Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >>rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >>independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths
to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at
the university, calling it a “present” to a future National
government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and
appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >>December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >>financial pressures.
Media reporting prompted further inquiries from Ryan. The initial
contract was for three years with a total minimum agreed amount of >>$288,000. It was extended in 2022 and by October last year, the
university had paid about $1.1m with work ongoing."
That is what he was quoted as saying in the article! Read it again___________________Unproven slur and probable defamation.
In effect the reason Quigley wanted to use Joyce was because he wanted
to put together a "present" to a future National Government.
He is the one that said he used a million dollars of University MoneyNo that is probably defamation.
The million dollars of university money spent was not to benefit the >>University but to benefit the National Party. Quigley should be
replaced, and the government should cease to employ Joyce or his
company. They have both shown themselves to be amoral and unfit to be >>recipients of public money - either that or between them they should >>reimburse the University for the money spent - it would be good to see
the University take Quigley to court to seek compensation for the lost >>money.
Gee you are desparate.
From that article:So simple really, gthe University stuffed up. Hopefully they have learned. >___________________
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and
there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that
Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths
to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at
the university, calling it a “present” to a future National
government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and
appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >financial pressures.
Media reporting prompted further inquiries from Ryan. The initial
contract was for three years with a total minimum agreed amount of
$288,000. It was extended in 2022 and by October last year, the
university had paid about $1.1m with work ongoing."
In effect the reason Quigley wanted to use Joyce was because he wantedUnproven slur and probable defamation.
to put together a "present" to a future National Government.
The million dollars of university money spent was not to benefit the >University but to benefit the National Party. Quigley should beNo that is probably defamation.
replaced, and the government should cease to employ Joyce or his
company. They have both shown themselves to be amoral and unfit to be >recipients of public money - either that or between them they should >reimburse the University for the money spent - it would be good to see
the University take Quigley to court to seek compensation for the lost
money.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 02:24:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish - that is a typical marxist comment - look for a scapegoat. No it was a systemic failure by the University. Anybody with a tiny knowledge of management would know that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/auditor-general-waikato-university-dismissive-of-public-accountability-amid-concerns-about-former-national-ministers-1m-contract/PH4HYSZ5T5HLLBU7MB3EMBZ3RQ/
So simple really, gthe University stuffed up. Hopefully they have learned. >The Stuff Up was by one person - Neil Quigley
From that article:
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >>>university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and
there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that
Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >>>rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >>>independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths
to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at
the university, calling it a “present” to a future National
government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and >>>appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >>>December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >>>financial pressures.
Media reporting prompted further inquiries from Ryan. The initial >>>contract was for three years with a total minimum agreed amount of >>>$288,000. It was extended in 2022 and by October last year, the >>>university had paid about $1.1m with work ongoing."
He is not the "one" to blame - the uiniversity has a systemic problem, or at least did have - management 101 as the Americans might, and probably would, say.That is what he was quoted as saying in the article! Read it again___________________Unproven slur and probable defamation.
In effect the reason Quigley wanted to use Joyce was because he wanted
to put together a "present" to a future National Government.
above, Tony! You appear to have a 10 second limit on your memory - no
wonder you go wrong so often . . .
He is the one that said he used a million dollars of University MoneyNo that is probably defamation.
The million dollars of university money spent was not to benefit the >>>University but to benefit the National Party. Quigley should be >>>replaced, and the government should cease to employ Joyce or his
company. They have both shown themselves to be amoral and unfit to be >>>recipients of public money - either that or between them they should >>>reimburse the University for the money spent - it would be good to see >>>the University take Quigley to court to seek compensation for the lost >>>money.
Gee you are desparate.
as "a present" for the National Party. Would you support it is a Vice >Chancellor spent that much university money as a "present" to the
Labour Party?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 02:24:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish - that is a typical marxist comment - look for a scapegoat. No it was a
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/auditor-general-waikato-university-dismissive-of-public-accountability-amid-concerns-about-former-national-ministers-1m-contract/PH4HYSZ5T5HLLBU7MB3EMBZ3RQ/
So simple really, gthe University stuffed up. Hopefully they have learned. >>The Stuff Up was by one person - Neil Quigley
From that article:
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >>>>university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and
there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that
Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >>>>rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >>>>independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths >>>>to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at >>>>the university, calling it a “present” to a future National
government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and >>>>appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >>>>December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >>>>financial pressures.
Media reporting prompted further inquiries from Ryan. The initial >>>>contract was for three years with a total minimum agreed amount of >>>>$288,000. It was extended in 2022 and by October last year, the >>>>university had paid about $1.1m with work ongoing."
systemic failure by the University. Anybody with a tiny knowledge of management
would know that.
He is not the "one" to blame - the uiniversity has a systemic problem, or at >least did have - management 101 as the Americans might, and probably would, say.
That is what he was quoted as saying in the article! Read it again___________________Unproven slur and probable defamation.
In effect the reason Quigley wanted to use Joyce was because he wanted >>>>to put together a "present" to a future National Government.
above, Tony! You appear to have a 10 second limit on your memory - no >>wonder you go wrong so often . . .
He is the one that said he used a million dollars of University MoneyNo that is probably defamation.
The million dollars of university money spent was not to benefit the >>>>University but to benefit the National Party. Quigley should be >>>>replaced, and the government should cease to employ Joyce or his >>>>company. They have both shown themselves to be amoral and unfit to be >>>>recipients of public money - either that or between them they should >>>>reimburse the University for the money spent - it would be good to see >>>>the University take Quigley to court to seek compensation for the lost >>>>money.
Gee you are desparate.
as "a present" for the National Party. Would you support it is a Vice >>Chancellor spent that much university money as a "present" to the
Labour Party?
On Wed, 8 May 2024 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich you lttle imbecile. I have never said that Quigley did nothing wrong. You made that up and you are a despicable little turd for doing so.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 02:24:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish - that is a typical marxist comment - look for a scapegoat. No it was >>a
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/auditor-general-waikato-university-dismissive-of-public-accountability-amid-concerns-about-former-national-ministers-1m-contract/PH4HYSZ5T5HLLBU7MB3EMBZ3RQ/
So simple really, gthe University stuffed up. Hopefully they have learned. >>>The Stuff Up was by one person - Neil Quigley
From that article:
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >>>>>university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and >>>>>there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that >>>>>Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >>>>>rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >>>>>independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths >>>>>to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at >>>>>the university, calling it a “present” to a future National >>>>>government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and >>>>>appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >>>>>December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >>>>>financial pressures.
Media reporting prompted further inquiries from Ryan. The initial >>>>>contract was for three years with a total minimum agreed amount of >>>>>$288,000. It was extended in 2022 and by October last year, the >>>>>university had paid about $1.1m with work ongoing."
systemic failure by the University. Anybody with a tiny knowledge of >>management
would know that.
Try reading the Auditor-General's Report:
"A key principle of procurement best practice is that an agency should
use an open competitive process wherever possible, to give all
suppliers the opportunity to compete, unless there is a clear and
documented rationale not to do so.
The University has a procurement policy that sets out the processes it
will follow in its procurements and purchases. The policy in place at
the time stated that “in exceptional circumstances” services could be >procured from a single supplier without a preferred supplier agreement
or considering other suppliers. It also stipulated the justification
for a sole-sourced procurement must be provided to the Chief Financial >Officer (CFO) whose approval must be obtained in writing before the >procurement. Likewise, the University’s tender manual says that a
direct procurement from a single supplier “without inviting
competition from other suppliers … is the exception to the rule and
must be fully justified”. It goes on to say that, in those situations,
a tender plan still needs to be prepared, seeking approval from the >Vice-Chancellor for the procurement.
The procurement policy at the time also had a provision stating that
“only the Vice-Chancellor has authority to waive or vary the
provisions of this policy in individual cases”.1
A direct procurement
In this case, the University has confirmed that the contract was a
direct procurement and there was no engagement with any other
potential suppliers. The Vice-Chancellor negotiated and signed the
contract with the contractor, agreed and supervised the work, and
approved the payment of invoices.
The Vice-Chancellor has also said to us that he used the authority he
had in the procurement policy to waive the provisions of the policy to
carry out the direct procurement, rather than carrying out a
competitive process that the policy would otherwise require for a
procurement of this value."
So Neil Quigley went outside normal guidelines for a contract that
cost over $1m, which appears to have largely addressed the issue of
personal political interest to Neil Quigley. He negotiated and signed
the contract, agreed and supervised the work and approved invoices -
consider the following from the Herald article:
"Regarding the ongoing contract with Joyce’s firm, Ryan believed the >university’s procurement policy hadn’t been properly followed and
there was insufficient evidence to back up Quigley’s claim that
Joyce’s firm was the only suitable option to deliver the services – a >rationale used to justify not considering other firms.
In September, Quigley faced criticism for risking the university’s >independence after documents revealed he went to considerable lengths
to help National develop its policy proposing a new medical school at
the university, calling it a “present” to a future National
government.
In June last year, the Tertiary Education Union was “shocked and
appalled” by the university paying Joyce’s company almost $1m between >December 2019 and December 2022, at a time it was cutting staff amid >financial pressures."
So how do you justify spending over a million dollars of University
money on a "present" to the National Party, Tony. Would you have been
as supportive if it had been intended to benefit the Labour Party?
Also we have: "The university’s policy included the requirement for
the vice-chancellor to approve procurement if it was done without
assessing all options, but Ryan said this hadn’t occurred in this case
with Quigley telling him there was “little point in him writing to
himself”.
“This misses the point that it is through comprehensive recording of >procurement processes that the public can have confidence that good
decisions have been made to spend public money.
“This is even more important where the vice-chancellor is using a
power to put the usual processes to one side.”
"Squeal Nigley" (as I understand he is called by staff and students)
should be sacked . . .has he done enough for the National Party to buy
him an exemption from normal standards?
Tony, I recognise that you do not believe that Quigley has done
anything wrong - but if you want to argue against the evidence, you
will need to provide some substance to your defence of what appears to
most people to be indefensible . . . . the ball is in your court.
He is not the "one" to blame - the uiniversity has a systemic problem, or at >>least did have - management 101 as the Americans might, and probably would, >>say.
That is what he was quoted as saying in the article! Read it again >>>above, Tony! You appear to have a 10 second limit on your memory - no >>>wonder you go wrong so often . . .___________________Unproven slur and probable defamation.
In effect the reason Quigley wanted to use Joyce was because he wanted >>>>>to put together a "present" to a future National Government.
He is the one that said he used a million dollars of University MoneyNo that is probably defamation.
The million dollars of university money spent was not to benefit the >>>>>University but to benefit the National Party. Quigley should be >>>>>replaced, and the government should cease to employ Joyce or his >>>>>company. They have both shown themselves to be amoral and unfit to be >>>>>recipients of public money - either that or between them they should >>>>>reimburse the University for the money spent - it would be good to see >>>>>the University take Quigley to court to seek compensation for the lost >>>>>money.
Gee you are desparate.
as "a present" for the National Party. Would you support it is a Vice >>>Chancellor spent that much university money as a "present" to the
Labour Party?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:39:16 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,416 |
| Posted today: | 1 |