STS postpones general meeting due to own constitution!

As received:

From: [] On Behalf Of Stop the Stadium Announcement list
Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2009 2:17 p.m.
To: sts mailout

Important notice to all STS members.


The general meeting to have been held this Sunday has been postponed until Sunday, 15th November.

The venue and time remain the same: Pioneer Women’s Hall, 362, Moray Place (near Dick Smith’s), at 3:00pm.

It has been decided to adopt this later date because some of our members were not given adequate notice for this Sunday. (Our constitution stipulates seven days notice, and, despite the inconvenience, we must abide by this requirement).
The proposed changes in direction and objectives for STS are included below. These will be moved and debated on 15th November. Please put this date in your calendar, and come along to have your say on the future of your city.

Proposed Changes to the Constitution


• Objects
The objects of the Society are:
– To ensure through effective action that the construction of a publicly funded stadium at Awatea Street is prevented from happening
– To ensure that the views of the members of the Society are communicated effectively through all means at the Society’s disposal to the wider community
– To provide an asset base for associated research and communication in line with the Society’s aims

Proposed change (i)
To ensure through effective action that the adverse impacts of the construction of the publically funded stadium at Awatea St are contained as far as possible.
To promote due democratic process in Dunedin City and Otago.

Proposed change (ii)
The management team may at any time and shall within fourteen days after the requisition in writing of at least 10 (CHANGE TO 20) convene an extraordinary General Meeting for any specific purpose or purposes.

Proposed change (iii)
That the name “Stop The Stadium” be changed to “SORT THE SYSTEM”

President and Committee, STS.

Latest notice at Stop The Stadium! website…

Join Us

Most councillors in the DCC appear to have lost the plot.

They ignore the desires of the majority of their rate payers and push forward with their plans irrespective of the opinions of experts. One bit of democracy they can’t ignore are their local-body elections.

Help us send them on their way… Join us!


Since STS have every intention of footing candidates at the 2010 local body elections, the good people of Dunedin should seriously consider the kind of peril the election of these individuals would bring to the council, the local economy, business development, community relations and the position this region occupies in the national and international contexts. We can’t afford to take their risk.

Other links:
11.10.09 STS meanders to justify calling special meeting
13.10.09 STS. What’s the point.
14.10.09 The dreadful laughing stock

Post by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Politics, STS

23 responses to “STS postpones general meeting due to own constitution!

  1. meg55

    Do you have that on good authority Elizabeth? Dave Witherow has said repeatedly they aren’t going to field candidates but simply support candidates who agree with their aims. Mind you, the executive have changed their minds over some big issues recently – like whether to fold if costs were awarded against them. (In deciding to remain I can only assume they think the 1500 strong membership list is worth $10,000. In effect they are asking their members to pay $10,000 for the privilege of continuing to be members of STS. Why don’t they fold and form a new society and invite members to join the new society? Because they know they wouldn’t.)

    It behoves all STS members to attend the meeting to have their say – although having once again hired the Pioneer Hall I suspect the executive are hoping the ‘silent majority’ will stay at home.

  2. Elizabeth Kerr never fails to disappoint. Whenever something on STS appears in the ODT/D- Scene she has to comment in a bitchy way. For your information, Elizabeth, it has been repeatedly said STS is NOT fielding a team of candidates for the next local body elections. Once again, your information and/or predictions are pompously incorrect. Your comments here need to be put into context of your own possible political ambitions and the fact that you were pressured to resign from the STS committee because of your obstinate behaviour- ie raising pointless and time consuming points of order and staging walkouts when you didn’t get your own way.

    {The learned gentleman should know (pompous enough?) I resigned from STS early of my own volition once it was clear the committee did not want to hire an independent resource management planner – I had been coopted by Bev to advise and coordinate planning matters, without that mandate continuing there was no need to stay on committee or remain as a subscription member of the organisation. I take great pleasure in being a free agent. I’m most surprised PA Esquire has sprung out of the network to comment here. May he know he does so safely. Elizabeth}

  3. Meg, you are not in touch with the facts. It has been said that it is up to the membership to give a lead on court costs. If you believe STS should fold and a new group reform, that’s fine. However, I’m curious to know why you don’t just pack up your bags now and vote with your feet. Leave those who want to stay get on with the job of putting some positive input into the next local body elections. Your campaign to shut down STS has to be seen in the same light as Elizabeth- ie a disgruntled ex committee member who didn’t get her own way in a majority vote.

    {Those heading the committee fouled business considerably due to ignorance of standard committee procedure, having to resort to a small handbook, badly – the utmost highlight of my short education at the committee. Should’ve written that with great pomposity, sorry. Elizabeth}

  4. meg55

    Peter, why do you always have to get so personal? Your attacks on Elizabeth relate to events a whole year ago now. As for me, please explain what my ‘campaign’ to shut down STS consists of?
    By the way, presumably you’re not the same Peter who posted here that STS will have to get a bit less vitriolic in its pronouncements if it wants to make any headway at the next elections.
    Are you questioning that Dave Witherow said unequivocally at the AGM that STS would fold if costs were awarded against it? Such a move does have to have the support of the membership of course, but that was not mentioned. He said it as a statement of simple fact. Costs = no STS.

  5. Peter B

    No Meg, most definitely not the same Peter.

  6. Meg
    Your first paragraph does not equate with the second. Quite clearly you know which Peter I am, but, of course, you are playing games again. Not very well either.
    Of course if STS can’t pay court costs it will probably have to fold. That’s self explanatory. But who has said we will not, or cannot, pay?
    My comments about you and Elizabeth are also self explanatory. They give a clear understanding of where you are both coming from with your recent comments concerning STS since you resigned from the committee over a year ago. You both have ‘history’ with STS, which I am quite happy to consign to history, but I will not stay quiet with the kind of erroneous nonsense Elizabeth has posted here. If you don’t like what I have said because you now feel the heat- and all of a sudden you feel exposed then you should think more carefully about what you say and stick to the facts.
    I am amused by your defence of Elizabeth given the nature of your ‘friendship’ with her over time. We have even been entertained by this friendship, on this forum, when things get sticky. (A bit like watching Oprah Winfrey or two cats fighting over a dead mouse!)
    Your campaign? Dumping on STS to the media in order to cause maximum damage, attending the recent public meeting with your spokesman, Malcolm McQueen, to do your best to scuttle STS from even considering any possible future (failed), ingratiating emails to new committee members to try and get them on (your) side (failed), criticising and thereby undermining other committee members in emails to STS supporters, while you were still on the committee, when you couldn’t get your own way. Enough said?

    {Peter refrains from giving fair dues to debate and debaters, and any mood or heynonny jostle they may wish to convey. Instead, a conspiracy. Looking ahead, can STS can sort a?? system unless it fields candidates? It may be said, perchance (pompously), that the court system gave STS fair consideration at appeal – as shows in the decision, an excellent piece of penmanship from the judiciary, in no way denying the professional integrity of STS’ legal representatives. In the matter of appeal, STS had a moment with the system that indeed held hope for many, nevertheless that hope was dashed by the DCC win and costs ordered against STS. The STS general meeting in November looms for reasoned argument by STS members of how that debt can or can’t be settled. Alas that’s not quite what the agenda says. Elizabeth}

  7. meg55

    Oh Peter, what utter nonsense. Feeling the heat? Hardly. If all the abusive, libellous and jaw-droppingly inaccurate emails and phone calls you’ve sent Dunedin people over the years were gathered up and published it would be a best-seller – but not because any of it is true. Reminds me more of the YouTube clip that got lots of hits a while back – of a Chinese woman having hysterics at an airport because she’d missed her flight.

  8. Meg
    A classic case of deflection here by not responding to the specifics of what I have said. Understandable really.In fact, there is nothing specific here. Just a broad brush statement which we know is untrue. Observable actions by you count for so much more.

  9. meg55

    Peter, you and I have been over most of these points several times before. I think we will just have to agree to disagree about where the truth lies. Because of the seeming impossibility of reaching any common vision of the truth, I am not prepared to enter into any debate about your new additions to my list of crimes.
    Perhaps we could finally just concentrate on the future of Dunedin – which is all I care about. Convince me at the general meeting that the actions of a revamped STS would benefit the city I love and I will support it. I have tried and failed to get sensible answers – or indeed ANY answers – from the executive for nine months now. Perhaps that will change. I hope so.

  10. Meg
    If you were more upfront about your intentions you would get a personal response from those who now lead STS- or its successor.I’m afraid some of your questions have not at times been clear as far as content is concerned nor your motives behind asking such questions which has lead to suspicion- and for good reason.
    I hope you can now loyally support the new leadership and if you can’t be ‘convinced’ of its new direction I think your next best move would be to resign your membership. Fair enough?

    {Reminder: STS committee comprises Dave Witherow (president & media contact), Gavin MacDonald (vice-president), Pat Johnston (treasurer), Carol Sawyer (secretary), Rolf Feitscher, Lyndon Weggery, Darryl Ostrer. Peter Attwooll is not a committee member and has no speaking rights for STS.}

  11. Elizabeth
    You opened this thread with your comment about STS and thus I entered the debate on this site for the first time. Your comment was not couched in jolly bonhomie terms as far as debate was concerned. Hence my right of reply.
    Excellent use of penmanship by the judiciary? Really? Was this really the clincher, for you, as to why STS lost despite Len Andersen’s valiant attempt to fight for justice?How about the role of the DCC with its skilled snow job over the judiciary.
    Why can’t STS or its successor ‘sort the system’ by supporting worthy candidates instead of fielding its own? No organisation can really pretend its own candidates are the only ones worthy to vote for- though of course political parties try to claim as such. Personally I want councillors who safeguard ratepayers’ money with wise spending decisions and don’t see the city treasury as a lolly shop for their own egotistical ideas or as a conduit for vested interests to spend.
    I would appreciate it if you refrained from petty comments about STS and its committee. You are very good with your devoted advocacy for our built heritage, but spoil yourself with such comments, as above, in the intro to this thread.

  12. Who said I did have speaking rights for STS, Elizabeth? I’m speaking for myself as an STS member. Once again, a pompous statement made by yourself as if you are some kind of ultimate authority on such ‘procedural matters’.

    {have a relaxing weekend Peter Attwooll, may god have mercy}

  13. meg55

    Peter, you say my questions to the executive were not clear and nor were my motives. My questions were crystal clear.

    The first was a request for the executive to explain how some of their actions and utterances could further the organisation’s sole aim – that of stopping the stadium. The second was a request for copies of the minutes. That was denied in toto. In fact, Bev responded – finally – that the minutes would not be released automatically to ANY ordinary member of STS for fear they might become public.

    This is fairly astounding admission from the executive of an incorporated society, that even its members aren’t allowed to see the minutes or know why the executive is doing what it is doing. The executive serves the membership, not the other way around in the same way as the council serves the citizens.
    If STS wants to ‘promote due democratic process in Dunedin and Otago’ it would be great if it could start with itself. I value transparency and accountability as much as you and the executive of STS do, Peter.

  14. Meg
    You were told there were good reasons for not making the minutes public. Also, why on earth would we release such minutes to a person like you who dumped on us to the ODT last year. We didn’t want you to create further mischief by muddying the waters as you have done in the past.
    I have to add we have always adhered to our constitution and have always taken advice from the Incorporated Societies body when unsure.

  15. meg55

    Sigh. Back to the old arguments. STS has done more damage to itself than I could ever do – and Peter, why would I want to when I cared so much about stopping the stadium? I continued to support STS’s initiatives while there was any chance it might prevail – which it might have if the executive had managed things better. I always had hope.

    I can’t help wondering – if you don’t want all this stuff in the public arena why do you keep bringing it up?

  16. meg55

    Peter, the whole story will come out in the fullness of time. There’s enough material there for a whole thesis if some psychology student ever cared to look into it. I imagine most of it will end up in the Hocken. If you’re lucky, with a time limit before it can be accessed.

  17. {Edit: This has been edited and removed at the request of Elizabeth, as it is hearsay, not to mention biased and possibly inflammatory.

    This forum is not the place for folk to air dirty laundry for the sake of one-upmanship. Considering I had every single post I made to the StS website deleted – I doubt the StS has any grounds to complain about said action.

    You will notice that this site has been concerned with anything but the StS of late, however the above post is valid, as it’s in the public domain.

    The StS in any incarnation is no longer of concern for those supporting – or even opposing the stadium development.

    I would respectfully request that this post cease being posted, or if you must, find a way in which the hearsay and speculation is removed.


    Another point. Yes, I have ‘sprung out of the network’ to comment now as I ‘feel safe to do so’ as you suggest. While on the committee we were restricted from defending ourselves from the likes of yourself as any public spat would be seized on by the ODT. Now I am just another STS member free to express myself. Sometimes it takes a while for the full story to come out.

  18. Elizabeth,
    Oh dear! how will you answer that? As you surely must.

    {Edit: Elizabeth or anyone else is not beholden to you or anyone else to reply – Paul}

    • Elizabeth

      Calvin – I didn’t see Peter’s post prior to Paul’s message. Thanks Paul for exercising editorial discretion. Paul kindly moderated posts while I was out round the traps today. How STS goes forward is probably more important, for those who support it, than a historical rehash by any of us. Although it’s tempting.

      Main business of STS as a society concerned with stopping (reducing extent of public funding for?) the stadium really only got under way after I left the organisation and before the plan change hearings commenced last year. After resigning I had no real clues what STS was up to except through media news and people sending us stuff, as happens.
      All the best with your meeting in November STS.
      What more can anyone say until history is writ.

      Of course, history takes many voices – particularly a history of what will be a successful building project (let’s face it the stadium’s project management team is honed and astute) despite the initial period of public strife it has caused.

      I rather like Meg’s reference to Hocken’s services, where files from local societies and organisations can be deposited, if that’s the will of the individuals concerned so to do.

      Today’s word is “persona”. What’s a blog – a bible of true stories…yeah right.

      • Elizabeth

        If anyone was really set against the stadium, as a political protest (other than posting here) they would be off down to Aotea Street every day picketing at the entrance gate. Maybe that’s what they’re doing – I haven’t checked – but ODT has better things to do than report it. Like treesitters. True visibility and stamina.

  19. {Peter, thought I might frame your little set piece as a main post later in case anyone misses it. If Paul elects to delete it he can, as owner of the site. Mind you everyone will have glimpsed it by now, if they haven’t developed epilepsy at the flashes. The art is in the framing. Yours, Elizabeth}
    {ps Peter is not a spokesperson for STS – and with each new post, many of which he cuts and pastes to try and defeat deletion, he is doing the STS no favours. We always thought it was the stadium Peter was against, instead it is people whom he thinks don’t love him. We love you Peter!}

    October 20, 2009 at 8:41 pm
    Interesting how this post was removed as well.
    October 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm
    Hasn’t my last post caused a flurry of damage control which has now been removed three and a half times now (the first three times very very quickly so, hopefully, no one noticed). Hearsay? Does Elizabeth now deny what I wrote? Come on, Elizabeth. Fess up. Meg 55 can confirm it was not hearsay.
    The only ‘dirty washing’ has been the bile served up against STS by Elizabeth Kerr and Paul le Comte since this website was started. Not to mention your contributions, Paul, as the abusive Buckmeadows on the skyscrapercity website. How about your efforts there, Elizabeth?
    Well, well, well. The ‘anti stadium’ Elizabeth is now full of praise for the project. See Elizabeth’s post above. Seems you have an even worse credibility problem now as someone, till now, who claims to have been against the stadium and its on going consequences for Dunedin.

  20. And yet everyone else had moved on – so sad.