Received from Bev Butler
Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:27 p.m.
MESSAGE TO MEDIA WATCHING THIS BLOGSITE
Malcolm Farry has been misinforming media about the CST being subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).
Farry is incorrect when he states that the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST) is not subject to LGOIMA.
Attached are two legal opinions which both state that the CST is subject to the provisions of LGOIMA.
These were released to me by Paul Orders, former CEO of the Dunedin City Council (DCC), after I made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
In July 2008 I was making requests under LGOIMA about the stadium and was informed by the then CEO, Jim Harland, that the CST was not subject to LGOIMA. What Harland failed to tell me was that he had sought two legal opinions both of which state that the CST is subject to LGOIMA.
When I produced Harland’s email to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council release these opinions to me. Hence the attached legal opinions. It is not often that legal opinions are released because of legal priviledge but I guess in this case I had proved I was misled. It was part of the deceipt of withholding vital information from the public so that they could push the project through against the will of the community.
They lied from start to finish with this project and filled their pockets along the way –that’s why myself and others will continue to expose what happened. The whole process was so bloody cynical.
Returning to Farry, CST and LGOIMA, it is also clear under the Public Records Act 2005 that the Council is required to maintain full records etc as outlined below:
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 2005
Requirement to create and maintain records
(1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.
(2) Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act or required by or under another Act.
(3) Every local authority must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all protected records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act.
————————————————
From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Letitia Parry @ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:50 +1300
Subject: Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012.pdf – Adobe Acrobat Professional
Dear Bev
Please find attached the information regarding the LGOIMA peer reviews.
Regards
Sandy
—
Full download: Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012 (PDF, 949 KB)
• Cover letter from Paul Orders 14.2.12 (1 page)
• Letter from Anderson Lloyd 18.9.08 (3 pages)
• Letter from Simpson Grierson 25.9.08 (5 pages)
[ends]
For more, enter the terms *cst*, *csct*, *carisbrook*, *stadium*, *farry*, or *harland* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Can anybody think of a good reason to trust Harland, Farry and the rest of that lot? Their utterances will be the thing that will, at last, bring some form of accountability. And it will be entirely due to what Mayor Cull calls “obsessive” behaviour. Well, more power to the elbows of those that are determined to ensure accountability – unlike those wanting to be “going forward” and “letting it go”.
I had a similar experience with Harland as Bev Butler did.
During an Environment Court pre hearing, Harland was ordered by the judge to release certain documents to me.
During the hearing the Judge found out that Harland who thought he was god, had not delivered to me the documents as ordered. Harland, when questioned by the Judge on why he had not carried out the order, could be held in contempt of court, having overruled the Judge’s order. Harland tried to blame legal advice. That raised the hackles of the council lawyer, who was present in the court. Harland was like an opossum trapped in the headlights of a car. He didn’t know which way to jump. The Judge came to his rescue, and called for an adjournment until the next day. That gave Harland and his legal advisers time to sort out an answer to grovel to the judge with. The judge was quite upset to think that Harland could overrule his order, and gave Harland quite a lecture, but unfortunately that is as far as it went. Harland should have spent the night in the cells, it may have done him some good.
Harland has treated Bev and myself in this fashion. I wonder how many others Harland has got away with treating the same?
Poor Jimbo Harland had to wear two criminal convictions in his name care of New Zealand Historic Places Trust taking DCC to court over damage to archaeological sites at (dare I say) the site now known as Wall Street Mall. And dare I say… the full set of conditions set down at the High Court are still not met. Yet there seems to be money to help F&P, rather than meet legal requirements imposed by the High Court.
They are still filling their pockets. How much is the replacement person for Burden getting paid to ‘make it work’? $200,000? And very soon there will be crocodile tears from stadium stakeholders crying out that it is so sad, what a shame, but we must sell assets to pay for (their) mistake.
The key issues are
1. The cost of the legal opinions to avoid the public being aware of the nature of the shonky deals
(Ratepayers have to fund the thieves and pay for their defense!)
2.That the council is not the elected council that obfuscates in general but the council employees.
It may be true that the council employees are protecting their elected “masters” in some cases, but in most they are covering their own butts to protect their jobs. The sooner some of them are fired for working against ratepayers’ interests the sooner a better culture will develop.
Whilst Dave Cull protects the guilty there will be more obfuscation .
The analogy is that if you do not shoot the foxes, they will continue to raid the henhouse.
Harland was the guy who believed in “perceptions”, but he also filled a governance vacuum created by Chin who, if not actually asleep at the wheel, was in a moribund condition. Harland was also known widely by Council staff as Osama Bin Harland – hardly seen, but capable of incredible damage when he was. A good CEO is one with the City’s interests at heart, but Harland had different priorities and he got away with creating visions for the Harbourside that should never have been within his domain, and with pursuing his own interests.
John Evans is correct in pointing out that the ratepayers footed the bill for seeking legal opinions that were not in their best interests, but were simply in the interests of the stadium score (the 20 or so people that caused it to be built), but he is only partially right in laying the blame at the feet of Council employees. I hold people like Neil Collins as culpable as any because he, like others, had a deadly combination of inertia, laziness and sheer inability to even see what was going on, let alone do anything about it. Acklin is another that springs to mind in that regard.
And that is what Cull doesn’t yet figure along with Thomson and Staynes. Unless those that are responsible for messes are held to account, then they will repeat the messes. There is also the basic tenet of law and society order to consider. Is it appropriate or good that those in positions of trust can get away with widespread failure of duty? I don’t think so, but sadly too many seem to think it is.
Ex Auckland colleagues often say to me what brought Harland to the DCC CEO position. What went on when he was at North Shore City. I like their slant.
Russell, you say above:
“Unless those that are responsible for messes are held to account, then they will repeat the messes.”
Very soon information will be released to show how true this statement is.
Chin had other reasons for being overloaded, other than, I mean, a brain too tiny to cope with complicated issues pushed by determined and devious people. He is, I believe, a basically good man with a long record of being involved in community activities. Such people often stay on out of a sense of duty – not wanting to let the company/voters down – when changes in their family, health or other circumstances indicate (esp in hindsight) that they would have been better to step down. The rest of council could, I believe, play a more constructive role. Were they to concentrate on the city’s needs they would put pressure on the seriously overloaded and the demonstrably unfit councillors not to stand again, despite their appeal to voters for reasons like coming to our afternoon tea meetings, entertaining at the works “do”. The members of Densa, no matter how much they enjoy the savouries, or how delightful the music they make, are not fit for decision-making at council level. If the council as a whole does not want to be drag-achored by incompetents they need to be tactfully unkind-but-firm to a few, in order to do their duty by the many – the people of Dunedin.