Tag Archives: Community

Vogel St. Street Party | Saturday 18 Oct 3pm – 11pm

All Welcome – what change, collaboration and vision can do!

Vogel St_Street Party Sat 18 Oct 3pm-11pm[click to enlarge]

████ Download Map Guide for activity locations and booking information at http://vogelandbond.org/assets/VogelStreetPartyGuide.pdf

Building Tours - Vogel St Street Party

Related Post and Comments:
22.6.14 Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13) [photos]
5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact ratepayers | ….council debt
28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation

Photos by Glen Hazelton (Tumblr)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Events, Fun, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, New Zealand, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

DCC: Consulting the Community

DCC (draft) Significance and Engagement Policy (1)Consultation: ‘a decorative process to legitimise a predetermined set of actions’*

The Dunedin City Council’s consultation processes, can they get any worse?
We’re a heavily indebted Community because of lack of meaningful ‘stadium consultation’ and that period of unfettered capital spending during Jim Harland’s reign as chief executive. More of same, Dave Cull’s two-term mayoralty is spendthrift. Feedback through The People’s Panel seems to be misused (a facile process able to be manipulated by council-affiliated lobby groups). Resource consents that set precedents in zones and across the greater city go non-notified. Changes to city parking and the intrusion of cycleways continue to show abysmal council bulldozing. Don’t mention hazard area maps (especially the red bits). Or the current urban design initiatives led by a minority interest. The list goes on…. City finances are less than transparent; council accountability remains fully in question. There’s every instance of major fraud within council activities that won’t be adequately reported or prosecuted – solid evidence is ignored (meanwhile elected representatives and senior management maintain positions and high salaries). In this toxic environment, how much consultation can this Community stand? – why should we write screeds and screeds to Council or attend workshops and hearings, there are much better ways to spend our restricted free time. Because, we can’t trust our leaders. We endeavour then to provide feedback on a limited case by case basis —knowing we’ll be disenfranchised if we refuse to tow the line or not agree with Council’s predetermined actions. Consultation? Yeah right. Hire a Queen’s Counsel instead. [make that a team of QCs] And the Mayor speaks of vitriole.

A draft Significance and Engagement Policy has been developed by the Dunedin City Council to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. The draft Policy provides a framework for determining the significance of decisions; and when and how the community can expect to be involved in the Council’s decision-making.

The draft Policy is based on good practice guidance from SOLGM, and incorporates feedback from Councillors, Council departments and the community. This report seeks approval of the draft Policy for consultation and community feedback.

Report – CEC – 13/10/2014 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

****

### ODT Online Mon, 13 Oct 2014
Focus on consultation
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council is to consult the community on how it consults the community. A draft “significance and engagement policy” will be considered by councillors at the community and environment committee meeting today. If the draft policy is approved, the community will be asked for feedback on the draft.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*When Bad Consultation Leads to Bad Policy by David Crosbie
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2011 – 10:50
Governments around Australia need to really listen to their constituents, and ensure that ‘consultation’ doesn’t become a decorative process to legitimise a predetermined set of actions, says CEO of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie. This article is taken from the CSI Blog.
– See more at http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2011/11/when-bad-consultation-leads-bad-policy#sthash.oW25tTXe.dpuf

The Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at the University of New South Wales brings together the business, government, philanthropic and third (Not for Profit) sectors, in a collaborative effort to build community capacity and facilitate social innovation.

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Media, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, What stadium

DCC Fraud: Further official information in reply to Cr Vandervis

Following on from the previous post.
DCC has established an Investigation Steering Group (membership unknown).

Received from Cr Lee Vandervis
Mon, 1 Sep 2014 at 9:51 p.m.

[begins]

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2014 11:09 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: Re: 8 x LGOIMA requests

Hi Sandy,

Thank you for responding so rapidly on the 8 questions.

To clarify, have the DCC asked for the SFO to investigate the Citifleet frauds and when, or has the SFO only been briefed indirectly by Deloittes as in answer 7?

Also, are your responses public or confidential?

Cheers,
Lee

——————————

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:08:40 +1200
To: Lee Vandervis
Subject: RE: 8 x LGOIMA requests

Dear Lee

I have followed up your question of clarification about the SFO and can provide the following response:
Under the circumstances of a suspected fraud (as per the Citifleet situation at the beginning of the investigation), the normal course of events is that the SFO is informed of issues when they arise. Deloitte did this via a phone-call to the SFO on 12 June 2014, after a discussion with DCC staff at a meeting of the Investigation Steering Group. The steering group were fully aware of the fact that Deloitte was speaking with the SFO and were informed of the outcome of the call. The call to the SFO was us asking the SFO to consider an investigation.

The discussion on 12 June 2014 (which was with a case officer and with Nick Paterson, the GM Fraud and Corruption) summarised the facts and circumstances of the Citifleet issues and sought the view of the SFO.
It is then the SFO’s decision as to whether they commence their own investigation. This is based on the criteria set out on their website (copied below)

There are multiple victims (usually investors) of the suspected fraud

● The sum of money lost exceeds $2,000,000

● The alleged criminal transactions have significant legal or financial complexity beyond the resources of most other law enforcement agencies.

In the case of bribery or corruption matters, we focus on crimes involving public officials, which could undermine public confidence in the administration of laws

Based primarily on the fact that the main suspect was deceased and that the actions appeared to be those of one corrupt individual rather than fitting within the definition of bribery and corruption, the GM Fraud and Corruption decided that the best course of action was for Deloitte to complete its investigation and provide a copy of the report at the conclusion of its work. During the investigation and with permission from DCC, Deloitte provided an update on the investigation to SFO on 07 July 2014 via letter. A copy of the full report was provided on 21 August 2014. We have heard nothing back from the SFO to date.

As to confidentiality, these OIA replies are all able to be made public and as such they will be published on the website and I will be providing a copy of the information to all Councillors.

Regards
Sandy [Group Manager Corporate Services, DCC]
—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

Note: The auditors that Dunedin City Council has contracted to investigate fraud carry the name Deloitte New Zealand, or simply Deloitte. Link

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.14 DCC Fraud: Cr Vandervis states urgent need for facts…
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
27.8.14 DCC whitewash on serious fraud, steals democracy from citizens
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
1.7.14 DCC: Far-reaching fraud investigation Citifleet
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.5.14 DCC $tar-ship enterprise
28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
7.2.12 DCC ‘money go round’ embedded

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

14 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property

DCC Fraud: Cr Vandervis states urgent need for facts and the record to be made public

Lee Vandervis + Dave Cull [photos via leevandervis.wordpress.com] BW (1)

The following correspondence is reproduced in the public interest.

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sat, 30 Aug 2014 at 11:30 a.m.

Message: You may be interested in the following email trail, which I believe highlights a serious impediment to the cleansing process which is taking far too long at the DCC.
I am happy for you to publish.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

[begins]

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:36:35 +1200
To: Dave Cull
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins
Conversation: Recent events
Subject: Re: Recent events

Dear Mayor Cull.

Denial is not just a large river in Egypt.
You confirm the urgent need for facts and the record to be made public.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

——————————

On 29/08/14 2:41 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee,
I do not believe that many of your claims below are borne out by the record or the facts and stand by my comments.

Dave

Sent from my iPad

——————————

[conversion code deleted from body text, punctuation restored -Eds]

On 29/08/2014, at 11:16 AM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:

Dear Mayor Cull,

I believe that you have been long aware of my efforts to have Mr Bachop’s and other DCC departments investigated for the kinds of inappropriateness currently evident in Citifleet.
In particular you now know having read the Deloitte report, [and I believe have long known] that I have been calling for and instigated my own investigations into Citifleet vehicle disposals and contracting arrangements since at least 2011. I have been responding politically, then and since, to many business and individual requests and questions from, for example Turner’s Auctions, regarding Citifleet. Answers to many of my questions have been denied or not forthcoming, and the public right to know has been consequently frustrated. Your public claim that CEO Orders began the current investigative and restructuring process [by starting with DCHL?!] does not align with information I have, or with information and requests for investigation that I made to CEO Orders many years ago.

My understanding is that the Police were not moved to investigate Citifleet when contacted by the DCC over 3 months ago, even when the evidence was so tragically overwhelming that Deloittes were contracted by CEO Bidrose [costing us $200,000] to investigate. I am not convinced that Police requests for a further unspecified number of months of ‘no public comment’ is in the public interest, and my discussion with the Crown Solicitor was also unconvincing on this point.
You say below that ‘the investigation is not a process which you as a Councillor (or I) in our governance roles have a right to’, yet you have the right and have read the Deloitte Citifleet Investigation Report and made numerous public comments, and I have been denied seeing it even on a ‘grey papers’ basis and am being muzzled. Your ‘operational only’ claim is generally questionable and in this case fails on all counts.
We will never know all the facts, especially if the withholding of the Deloitte report and more public muzzling continues.
In one of your media statements you say that Council have agreed not to comment until the Police have completed their belated investigation, but this is not true. Councillors have not been given the opportunity to even discuss a further number of months of no comment on Citifleet, leave alone agreed not to comment. I have certainly not agreed and do not agree.

Thank you for acknowledging my long standing demands that DCC ‘heads should roll’. My long political experience is that timely public disclosure will be necessary to ensure that the appropriate heads are dispatched, and that an embedded DCC culture of self-entitlement across many departments is permanently erased.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

——————————

On 28/08/14 5:30 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee,
The investigation that the CEO has contracted Deloittes to conduct into Citifleet is an operational matter involving, among other things, employment and potentially criminal issues. From the outset the Police, Serious Fraud Office, and Dept of Internal Affairs have been kept informed.

The investigation and subsequent internal reviews were instigated within DCC.
However the investigation is not a process which you as a Councillor (or I) in our governance roles have a right to, or responsibility for, interfering in or giving direction on, except as part of a whole of Council directive.

The investigation included the question of whether the problems uncovered at Citifleet had been the subject of previous allegations or questions, and if so, whether those had been responded to appropriately by management, including CEOs. Deloittes will report back on that.

The request not to release the report and the consequential request not to comment came not from the CEO (or me) but from Police and the Crown Prosecutor. Indeed both the CEO and I feel frustrated and disappointed as you do, that the report, which was completed only a week or so ago, must now sit under wraps for a further period.

However it is important that nothing jeopardises the ability of the CEO and police to hold people to account. You often demand that ‘heads should roll’
Your claims and demands, without knowledge of the investigation findings, could do just that: put the aims of the investigation to hold people accountable at risk.

I am not suggesting Councillors do not have the right to ask questions or make requests. What we do not have a right to do is step outside our governance roles, interfere with legitimate operational matters particularly without knowing all the facts, and unilaterally jeopardize Council and ratepayer interests. If we do we should be fully held to account for that.

Dave

Dave Cull
Mayor of Dunedin
—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

Note: The auditors that Dunedin City Council has contracted to investigate fraud carry the name Deloitte New Zealand, or simply Deloitte. Link

Related Post and Comments:
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
27.8.14 DCC whitewash on serious fraud, steals democracy from citizens
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
1.7.14 DCC: Far-reaching fraud investigation Citifleet
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.5.14 DCC $tar-ship enterprise
28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
7.2.12 DCC ‘money go round’ embedded

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: leevandervis.wordpress.com

23 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property

Heritage New Zealand

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) – and now trading as Heritage New Zealand – is New Zealand’s leading national historic heritage agency and guardian of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national heritage. The environment in which NZHPT operates continues to be characterised by a growing interest in heritage, recognition of its social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits, and awareness of its importance to national identity.

The NZHPT was established by an Act of Parliament in 1954. The NZHPT is established as an autonomous Crown Entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004, and is supported by the Government and funded via Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Its work, powers and functions are prescribed by the Historic Places Act 1993.

Heritage New Zealand – a change of name
In 2010, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage led a review of the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) and as a result of that work the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill was drafted and is currently before the House. It is currently awaiting the committee stage, and its third reading. The Bill includes provisions that will result in some changes to how the NZHPT operates, and to archaeological provisions of the HPA. It also proposes a change in name to Heritage New Zealand. The Bill will complete NZHPT’s transition from NGO to Crown Entity. To facilitate the transition, the decision was made to proceed with the name change ahead of the legislation. From 14 April 2014, the organisation has been known as Heritage New Zealand.

HeritageNewZealand 13 Apr 2014

Welcome to Heritage New Zealand
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) has changed its name to Heritage New Zealand. Chief Executive Bruce Chapman explains the reasons behind the change.

Heritage New Zealand will continue to work in partnership with others, including iwi and hapū Māori, local and central government agencies, heritage NGOs, property owners, and volunteers. We will continue to provide advice to both central and local government, and property owners on the conservation of New Zealand’s most significant heritage sites. We will continue to maintain the national Register of historic places, manage 48 nationally significant heritage properties, regulate the modification of archaeological sites, and manage the national heritage preservation incentive fund.

While Heritage New Zealand receives 80% of its funding from the Crown, like many other Crown agencies it continues to be dependent for the remainder of funding from supporters, donations, grants, bequests, and through revenue generated at the heritage properties it cares for around the country.

Three key things remain the same under the new name:
● commitment to the long-term conservation of New Zealand’s most significant heritage places, including own role as custodian of 48 historic properties
● connection through members (membership benefits are unchanged) and supporters to the wider community
● continued status as a donee organisation, dependent on the goodwill and ongoing financial and volunteer support of the wider community for many of the outcomes the organisation achieves for heritage.

www.heritage.org.nz

Heritage New Zealand Logo

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZHPT, People, Site

DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submissions due by 15 April

### ODT Online Fri, 11 Apr 2014
Draft budget feedback pretty good: council
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council says feedback on its draft budget has been “pretty good” despite some disappointing turnouts at public meetings in recent weeks. The council concluded a series of eight public meetings and drop-in sessions with a discussion of cycleway and road-widening work on Otago Peninsula at the Edgar Centre on Tuesday night.
Public submissions on the council’s 2014-15 draft annual plan were “flooding in now” and had reached 427 by late yesterday, council corporate planner Jane Nevill said. That was well above the 262 submissions received by the council on its 2013-14 draft budget.
Read more

****

DRAFT DCC ANNUAL PLAN 2014/2015
The draft annual plan sets out the Council’s proposed annual budgets and performance measures for 2014/15 and updates the information for the 2014/15 year that in contained in the Council’s ten year plan or Long Term Plan (LTP) which was put in place last year.
Please tell DCC whether you agree or disagree with spending priorities for 2014/15 outlined in the draft plan by making a submission.
The consultation period is your opportunity to “Have Your Say” about what you want to see included in the Council’s plans.

Submissions close at 5pm, Tuesday 15 April 2014.
Timeframes and Meeting times

█ Read more (with downloads):
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/draft-annual-plan-2014-2015

Related Posts and Comments:
30.3.14 Paul Pope on local body annual plans
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

40 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

ODT Public Notice 31.3.14 (page 26)

ODT Public Notice 31.3.14 (page 26)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, Delta, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS