The 5Ds in Glorious Technicolour Action . . . by Those Who Would Prefer to Remain Faceless At Masterton District Council
Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2025

And so to the next instalment of the Masterton District Council's Malarkey . . .

As I promised to do, hereunder I am publishing (as a sequel to this utter shame) the latest "correspondence" (for what it is worth, which is NOTHING, as far as that which has come) from Masterton District Council.


In a further article I'll follow up with shortly, I will dissect the exchange in a more granular fashion, to demonstrate to readers how Council management is well-versed in using the "5Ds" against its ratepayers, and Councillors, against their constituents.


The below correspondence is, of course, an email trail - so please read it from the bottom of the page upwards, for correct chronological order of the exchanges.


Despite the Masterton District Council's "CEO" pulling the classic line e.g. We've already responded and no further correspondence will be entered into, he obviously worked out from my response back to that standard blocking stunt, that I wasn't going to be ignored . . . one way or the other.


So he deflected (one of the 5Ds) to this Infrastructure & Asset Manager, to repeat a similarly cut-and-paste style version of what some minion further down the line had previously tried to get rid of me with. Again, reading from the bottom of the trail upwards, here's my response - and the reason my response didn't include a salutation, was that, neither had his or hers, or they's, or whatever.


Here we go: 


(NOTE: The fact that all the Councillors of Masterton District Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council are cc'd into the correspondence would appear to be a moot point, since I await any indication of concern from any over the conduct and attitude that is demonstrated in technicolour in the below correspondence.)

________________



I am writing to you, Mr / Ms Koneferenisi, to point out the obvious elements of – and overall disingenuousness within – your email, which does not in any way answer any of the core questions that have now been asked multiple times (and continue to be vigorously evaded).

 

These questions include but are not limited to (I hereby repeat yet again):

 

  • Why did you advise that you (Masterton District Council) would be letterboxing the correspondence that GWRC provided to you for the purpose (i.e. you had your Customer Service Manager assure me in multiple emails across several months of your supposed plans to do so)? You clearly had no intention at all of conducting the letterboxing exercise yourselves.

 

  • You claim that your staff did not lie to elected representatives / a meeting of Councillors. Yet your staff advised Councillors that a Corin Hayes had made contact with me and was waiting for me to respond. No Corin Hayes had ever made any contact with me and thus was certainly not waiting for me to respond. Thus, you lied in the most direct manner possible to your Councillors. (You also told them “the matter had been dealt with”. You had not dealt with anything.)

 

  • You write: “You were contacted by Terri Mulligan, MDC Environmental Services Manager, on 15 August regarding the matter you raised.” Mr Mulligan’s pointlessly insulting, website-cut-and-paste ilk email was sent to me ONLY after I had emailed all councillors of MDC and GWRC about the issue. Mr Mulligan’s brief, nil-value email evaded all my questions. Further, you would have continued to ignore me or gaslight me via your Customer Services Manager, had the Councillors not been alerted to the matter.

 

  • This statement is a disingenuous deflection: “The presence of other heating appliances on a property does not preclude approval of additional compliant installations.” As you well know, this was not my point. My point was that there was a toxic smoke issue related to the same address that you were meant to be investigating and addressing, but instead were ignoring (although were claiming to have been addressing by way of a letterbox drop you did not intend to do) while, in fact, consenting a substantially larger, closer smoke outlet on the same property.

 

 

  • It should be noted that my attempts to have Council communicate (usefully and honestly) with me on this matter started back at the very beginning of 2025. I even offered, several times, to bring in some of the smoke-spoiled clothing in question, so that you could clearly discern for yourselves that the smoke with which it was all irretrievably permeated appeared distinctly that emanating from the burning of household rubbish and/or other toxic materials. Your staff would not accept my suggestion / offer.


  • You write:  “If you experience a smoke nuisance, please contact Masterton District Council on 06 370 6300 to log a service request. Our Environmental Services Team will investigate. Response times are available on our website. If you have a complaint about air quality, please contact Greater Wellington Regional Council on 0800 496 734.”


So, Mr / Ms Koneferenisi, let us deal with the fact that you are disingenuously trying to disconnect the issue of smoke nuisance from air quality, when – in the scenario in question – clearly both are directly inter-linked. If my clothes and linen etc are impregnated with smoke, and I have to discard them and constantly purchase replacements, this is clearly a “nuisance”. Meanwhile, if the toxic smoke / smell carried by the affected clothes and linen etc then transfers to the inside of my home when the clothes are brought indoors, and then to my skin, and then to my lungs, then this is clearly a health issue. 


  • On the above note and regarding your attempts to transfer the responsibility for the issue to GWRC, the Health Act Section 29 states: “Nuisances defined for purposes of this Act: Part (m) – where any chimney . . . of a private dwelling house, sends out smoke in such quantity, or of such nature, or in such manner, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health . . .

 

I await a more useful and honest, and far less evasive and disingenuous, response, please.

 

  Jordan Kelly

 

 _______________


From: Maseina Koneferenisi <maseina.koneferenisi@mstn.govt.nz
Sent: Monday, 8 September 2025 8:38 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: 'Daran Ponter' <Daran.Ponter@gw.govt.nz>; Adrienne Staples <adrienne.staples@gw.govt.nz>; david.bassett@gw.govt.nz; ros.connelly@gw.govt.nz; quentin.duthie@gw.govt.nz; Penny Gaylor <penny.gaylor@gw.govt.nz>; chris.kb@gw.govt.nz; ken.laban@gw.govt.nz; david.lee@gw.govt.nz; thomas.nash@gw.govt.nz; hikitia.ropata@gw.govt.nz; yadana.saw@gw.govt.nz; simon.woolf@gw.govt.nz; Gary Caffell <garyc@mstn.govt.nz>; Rebecca Johnson <bexj@mstn.govt.nz>; Marama Tuuta <maramat@mstn.govt.nz>; Craig Bowyer <craigb@mstn.govt.nz>; Tim Nelson <timn@mstn.govt.nz>; Tom Hullena <tomh@mstn.govt.nz>; Stella Lennox <stellal@mstn.govt.nz>; David Holmes <davidholmes@mstn.govt.nz>; Brent Goodwin <brentgoodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: Fw: Request for Response from CE, Kym Fell


I am writing in response to your email of 3 September 2025 on behalf of Chief Executive Kym Fell, who is currently on leave.


To address your specific points:


Masterton District Council (MDC) processes building consents for compliant woodburner installations under the Building Act and in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment’s list of approved appliances. Each application is assessed against the Building Code and relevant standards. The presence of other heating appliances on a property does not preclude approval of additional compliant installations.


You were contacted by Terri Mulligan, MDC Environmental Services Manager, on 15 August regarding the matter you raised. On the same date, Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) completed a letter drop to affected residents.


Information provided by council officers to elected members accurately reflected the status of actions taken within each agency’s respective responsibilities. Your statement that MDC staff lied to elected members is incorrect.


For absolute clarity, I reiterate the advice you have already received:


  • If you experience a smoke nuisance, please contact Masterton District Council on 06 370 6300 to log a service request. Our Environmental Services Team will investigate. Response times are available on our website.


  • If you have a complaint about air quality, please contact Greater Wellington Regional Council on 0800 496 734.


To clarify: air quality refers to the overall cleanliness of the air and is monitored by GWRC. A smoke nuisance is a specific, localized issue that may unreasonably affect individuals and is managed by MDC. While smoke nuisance can contribute to poor air quality, the two are not interchangeable.


If you have not already done so, it may be helpful to discuss the matter directly with those you believe are responsible.

 

Regards

 

MASEINA KONEFERENISI

Group Manager - Infrastructure & Assets

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz


 ___________________


From: Kym Fell <kym.fell@mstn.govt.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:43 PM
To: ELT Group <eltgroup@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: Fw: Request for Response from CE, Kym Fell

 

FYI


Get Outlook for iOS


____________________


From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:29 PM
To: Kym Fell <kym.fell@mstn.govt.nz>
Cc: 'Daran Ponter' <Daran.Ponter@gw.govt.nz>; 'Adrienne Staples' <Adrienne.Staples@gw.govt.nz>; david.bassett@gw.govt.nz <david.bassett@gw.govt.nz>; ros.connelly@gw.govt.nz <ros.connelly@gw.govt.nz>; quentin.duthie@gw.govt.nz <quentin.duthie@gw.govt.nz>; penny.gaylor@gw.govt.nz <penny.gaylor@gw.govt.nz>; chris.kb@gw.govt.nz <chris.kb@gw.govt.nz>; ken.laban@gw.govt.nz <ken.laban@gw.govt.nz>; david.lee@gw.govt.nz <david.lee@gw.govt.nz>; thomas.nash@gw.govt.nz <thomas.nash@gw.govt.nz>; hikitia.ropata@gw.govt.nz <hikitia.ropata@gw.govt.nz>; yadana.saw@gw.govt.nz <yadana.saw@gw.govt.nz>; simon.woolf@gw.govt.nz <simon.woolf@gw.govt.nz>; Gary Caffell <garyc@mstn.govt.nz>; Rebecca Johnson <bexj@mstn.govt.nz>; Marama Tuuta <maramat@mstn.govt.nz>; Craig Bowyer <craigb@mstn.govt.nz>; Tim Nelson <timn@mstn.govt.nz>; Tom Hullena <tomh@mstn.govt.nz>; Stella Lennox <stellal@mstn.govt.nz>; David Holmes <davidholmes@mstn.govt.nz>; Brent Goodwin <brentgoodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Request for Response from CE, Kym Fell

 

Mr Fell:

 

Why have you consented another (even closer and larger) woodburner / chimney when there are outstanding issues related to the existing woodburner / chimney / emissions on the same property?

 

And why did you advise that you would be letterboxing the correspondence that GWRC provided to you for the purpose (and allow the continuation of email exchanges with me via your Customer Service Manager regarding your supposed plans to do so), when you had no intention at all of conducting the letterboxing exercise?

 

I also require to know why you consider it acceptable for your managerial staff to lie to your elected representatives e.g. about having made contact with me and awaiting my contacting them in return, when no such contact had been made; and also advising a full meeting of councillors that “the matter had been dealt with”, when nothing at all had been dealt with.

 

Telling me you “will not be engaging further on this issue” is spinelessly evasive, and is a continuation of the existing degree of contempt and inflammation of the core issue i.e. refusing to be transparent or accountable.

 

As a ratepayer, I deserve honest and transparent answers, and accountability – starting with who and why the very close proximity second woodburner and chimney were consented while you had advised (dishonestly) that you were addressing the existing emissions issue.

 

I await your answers, and will publish this correspondence trail on The Customer & The Constituent in the interim, for all to see.

 

Jordan Kelly

 

______________________


 

From: Kym Fell <kym.fell@mstn.govt.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2025 9:18 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: 'Daran Ponter' <Daran.Ponter@gw.govt.nz>; 'Adrienne Staples' <Adrienne.Staples@gw.govt.nz>; david.bassett@gw.govt.nz; ros.connelly@gw.govt.nz; quentin.duthie@gw.govt.nz; penny.gaylor@gw.govt.nz; chris.kb@gw.govt.nz; ken.laban@gw.govt.nz; david.lee@gw.govt.nz; thomas.nash@gw.govt.nz; hikitia.ropata@gw.govt.nz; yadana.saw@gw.govt.nz; simon.woolf@gw.govt.nz; Gary Caffell <garyc@mstn.govt.nz>; Rebecca Johnson <bexj@mstn.govt.nz>; Marama Tuuta <maramat@mstn.govt.nz>; Craig Bowyer <craigb@mstn.govt.nz>; Tim Nelson <timn@mstn.govt.nz>; Tom Hullena <tomh@mstn.govt.nz>; Stella Lennox <stellal@mstn.govt.nz>; David Holmes <davidholmes@mstn.govt.nz>; Brent Goodwin <brentgoodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Request for Response from CE, Kym Fell

 

Kia ora Jordan,

 

We acknowledge the concerns you have raised regarding smoke emissions from domestic fireplaces. For clarity, responsibility for regulating air quality, including emissions from woodburners, sits with Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) under the Resource Management Act. Masterton District Council’s role is limited to processing building consents for the installation of approved woodburners in line with national standards.

 

As previously advised, if you wish to lodge a complaint about smoke emissions, the correct process is to contact GWRC directly on 0800 496 734. They are the agency with statutory authority to investigate and enforce in this area.

 

We have provided you with all relevant information, and our position on this matter is now clear. Accordingly, Masterton District Council will not be engaging further on this issue.

 

Ngā mihi nui

 

KYM FELL

Chief Executive

 
 
@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz


 _____________________

 

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2025 6:01 pm
To: Kym Fell <kym.fell@mstn.govt.nz>
Cc: 'Daran Ponter' <Daran.Ponter@gw.govt.nz>; 'Adrienne Staples' <Adrienne.Staples@gw.govt.nz>; david.bassett@gw.govt.nz; ros.connelly@gw.govt.nz; quentin.duthie@gw.govt.nz; penny.gaylor@gw.govt.nz; chris.kb@gw.govt.nz; ken.laban@gw.govt.nz; david.lee@gw.govt.nz; thomas.nash@gw.govt.nz; hikitia.ropata@gw.govt.nz; yadana.saw@gw.govt.nz; simon.woolf@gw.govt.nz; Gary Caffell <garyc@mstn.govt.nz>; Rebecca Johnson <bexj@mstn.govt.nz>; Marama Tuuta <maramat@mstn.govt.nz>; Craig Bowyer <craigb@mstn.govt.nz>; Tim Nelson <timn@mstn.govt.nz>; Tom Hullena <tomh@mstn.govt.nz>; Stella Lennox <stellal@mstn.govt.nz>; David Holmes <davidholmes@mstn.govt.nz>; Brent Goodwin <brentgoodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: Request for Response from CE, Kym Fells

 

Mr Fell:

 

As a ratepayer of the Council district of which you are currently Chief Executive, I would appreciate receiving your (a) acknowledgement, and (b) comprehensive, transparent background explanation as to each of the component issues I raise in my article surrounding the dishonest, contemptuous and highly questionable conduct of your Council staff:  https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/dubious-deceitful-masterton-dc-smelling-very-very-dodgy-so-which-councillors-care

 

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

Ratepayer

Masterton

 

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
Show More