Retired American lawyer, now Tauranga resident Jack Thomas, believes the Tauranga City Council is compelled to uphold its agreement to continue managing Sydenham Park.

The council has decided to slash the $30,000 budgeted for the park's upkeep in the coming financial year as a cost saving.

Kauri trees at Sydenham Park.

The decision prompted a public meeting on Wednesday evening attended among others by Jack.

His opinion that the council can be compelled to uphold its agreement is not supported by trustee for the Guardian Trust, Craig Roebuck.

'He's an American trying to dictate American law in New Zealand,” says Craig.

'He's on the wrong track.”

He wouldn't comment further, saying Guardian Trust is not in a position to give legal advice.

Tauranga Mayor Stuart Crosby and acting chief executive Christine Jones could not be contacted for comment this morning.

The letter from Jack Thomas:
On the 30th of March, 2011, I was invited to attend the public meeting at the Brookfield Primary School then, about the 'Sydenham Park”.

I was given a hand out there that was prepared by the Trust/s and or the TCC, that read in pertinent part: 'In 2005 TCC entered into an agreement with the NZ Guardian Trust. TCC agreed to administer the land, establish a Botanical Park, and keep it maintained and in good condition.” And:

'In July 2009 Council requested that staff advise the trustee of the Frank Sydenham Trust that it wished to continue to administer and maintain the property at 6 Millers Road in accordance with the Trust Deed (subject to the trustee making a declaration that Council shall continue in perpetuity with the use of the Sydenham Property, which was done).” Those agreements and declaration, in perpetuity binds the TCC and all subsequent TCCs to administer, maintain and establish that Botanical Park, and no matter what Trust was involved (or that one of the Trusts is virtually defunct), to the benefit of any member of the public here, as a third Party Beneficiary and or as patria publica, and or in re Tams, etc. And any member of the public or either of the Trusts here has standing and a vested interest and or a fiduciary duty, to enforce and or can enforce those agreements on any TCC by obtaining (an) injunction/s with costs/fees court levied on the TCC. The TCC Member monitor there, said there, that this is a new Council and it did not have to keep the agreements and that it was sovereign and could breach that agreement.

These are not laws but contracts/agreements and if a current TCC contracted with (a) private individual/s to do work for it, and he or they did it and then sent out the invoice bill for it to the TCC; but in the meantime before that bill was due, a new TCC was installed, that new TCC cannot refuse to keep that agreement and not pay. The words 'in perpetuity” there, are not superfluous and have binding meaning, forever. A number of people, at that meeting, based on those agreements, etc, planted trees worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in that park with the TCC's approval, all for the benefit and to inure to the benefit of all the public here. I will be going down to the Council and contacting the Trust/s involved, to get copies of those agreements, and all e-mails, recordings, transcripts, minutes, Trust Deed/s and all documents and that said declaration that relate to those agreements, etc. That monitor TCC member, invited any attendee there to do that and said that the Council would so provide all that.

Also, the said TCC member was told there, that a lawn mower/ cutter has offered to cut the park nine times a year for under $900 a year. Is the TCC going to give up the park, (which it cannot do, as it is always in a binding contract/agreement/obligation to establish it as a botanical one, and to maintain and administer it), for a maintenance bill of less than $900 a year?

It was originally reported that the TCC pays $30,000 a year to have it mowed, but the TCC now says that it is $10,000 and that the other $20,000 is for other maintenance. The said TCC member brought the TCC manager in charge of overseeing and paying out for the maintenance of the park, to the meeting. She was asked what the said $20,000 was for, but she had no receipt, no details, and no specific as to what was paid and to whom, and for what and if it was low bid contracts or not, and when any such maintenance is or was done; and she only could make vague references there about spraying and weed eating. Attendees at the meeting, who live adjacent to the park, for upwards of 25 years and one of whom was a retiree, voiced there that they overlook the park daily and have not seen any spraying or weed eating or any other kind of maintenance there, except for the mowing. That TCC manager is deemed to have known that the public raised the $20,000 expenditure issue and wanted the specifics of it for months per the newspapers here, and that all were expecting details on it, at this meeting; yet she came totally unprepared with virtually no information or answers and she only had vague evasions that were soundly and easily refuted there. One attendee there said that the TCC will not give any of the public, the information that its monitor member at the meeting, said it would give at the Council offices. We will see when I so request that.

From: Jack Thomas, 3A Jefferson Place,
Brookfield, Tauranga