If I thought sorting out myriad nooks and crannies in my hellhole of a house was bad for my blood pressure, my attempt for relief from that last week was worse.
I foolishly thought it would be good to catch up on one or two things I'd meant to read while I was a daily newspaper journalist.
See if you can guess who this is referring to.
It is "reliant on temporary funding and ad-hoc one-off savings to fund core expenses such as rent, power, communications and some staff positions".
Or, put slightly differently, the amount of money it receives "always minimalist, is now so restricted that potential temporary savings arising from staff vacancies must be relied upon to pay some staff and fund core operating expenses such as electricity".
It sounds a bit like any cash-strapped, not-for-profit organisation, hit hard by the recession, doesn't it?
Sad enough, but this organisation is actually the Ombudsmen's Office and the quotes are from its annual report tabled in Parliament on October 5 (surprisingly enough, during the Rugby World Cup).
Perhaps I missed something, but this appears to have drawn no howls of outrage from anyone.
Why are parliamentarians of every ilk not speaking out?
Did any journalists (and I must admit to my own slackness here) bother to read to page 59 where the Ombudsmen's Office says it is underfunded on an ongoing basis by about 12%, or $1 million a year?
It goes on to say the current funding position, even in the existing economic climate, "is not a proper way to fund the office and risks jeopardising its independence".
As the office rightly points out it must be adequately funded to. -
• " ... contribute meaningfully to the people of New Zealand having enhanced trust and confidence in a fair, responsive and accountable government.
• "Give people confidence in government administration.
• "Contribute to savings throughout the wider public sector arising from improved government administration." Most of the office's $8.863 million budget will go on its two ombudsmen and 64 staff.
This year, the combined cost of the two ombudsmen will be $623,000.
Last year, 14 other staff received more than $100,000, but the highest number of staff - 25 - were in the $80,000 to $89,999 remuneration bracket. Read more about the office and you don't get the impression it is wildly inefficient or frivolous with the taxpayers' money. Salaries for the office's staff have not been adjusted for "market movement" since July 2007.
Last year, the Government Administration Committee heard several senior staff had gone to better-paying employers and more were likely to be head-hunted this year.
The office expects such losses to have an immediate impact on the timeliness of operations and there are several references to people already complaining because investigations are too slow.
As chief ombudsman Beverley Wakem said in the office's statement of intent for 2011-2014, timeliness is critical to complainants and significant failures in this regard carry the risk they will choose not to complain to the ombudsmen or, if they do, the outcomes will no longer be relevant, useful or appropriate.
Knowing the office was under pressure, as a serial complainant, through my work dealing with various public bodies, I chose not to seek investigation of some of my concerns last year because I thought it would take too long. While the investigators might secretly be tempted to breathe a collective sigh of relief at being spared some of my incoherent outbursts, I bet I'm not the only one who's already been put off.
Some temporary extra funding has been allocated until June 2014 to meet basic operational expenses, but the office says this does not address the staff salary issue or what will happen then when basic funding reverts to 2009-10 levels.
None of this makes sense when the office is clearly expecting a heavier workload, particularly with relation to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Pike River mine disaster, the United Nations Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities and the merger or planned merger of various government agencies.
The whole sorry business makes me very uneasy about MPs' understanding of the importance of seeing people in New Zealand are treated fairly.
Letting this office limp along, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not good enough. In recessionary times, when it is probably all too easy for stretched organisations to behave badly, surely the office should be strengthened, not thwarted.
It's depressing enough to send me in search of another drawer to tidy. I'm reasonably sure I'll be spared an inquisition if I despotically throw out the Last Born's year 10 English exercise book.
• Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.
