Wall Street Mall drops glazing panel to George Street

Late afternoon those of us refuelling at a local café in George St heard a sudden crash of glass across the road – broken glass littered the footpath, parking spaces and north-bound lane outside Wall Street Mall.

The mall’s street facade had suddenly dropped a glazing panel, a section of pretend parapet – from the very top of the (graphic) ‘old-building’ screen.
Luckily, no-one was hurt.

Missing glazing panel.

Panels in situ.

Camera phone not coping too well with the late sun angle but you get the idea.

A well-known woman sitting along from me said she’d never liked that glass design anyway.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Lee Vandervis on DCC Code of Conduct process #emails #naturaljustice

Two emails this evening.

I

Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 at 6:15 p.m.

█ Message: I am forwarding this email to you so that my view of the on-going Code of Conduct process can be made clear, something I can not hope for from the ODT.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:36:37 +1300
To: Mayor Cull, Stuart Anderson [University of Otago], Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Lee Vandervis, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Pam Jordan
Conversation: Complaint to Mayor Cull and potential Code of Conduct Committee members
Subject: Complaint to Mayor Cull and potential Code of Conduct Committee members

Dear Mayor Cull,

By failing to respond to your required justifications under standing orders J1 Accountability [accountable for their actions] and Openness [be prepared to justify their actions] as well as the overarching principle of Natural Justice, you are prejudicing this Code of Conduct process.
If you will not justify your decisions to accept certain code of Conduct complaints with reasons, and your deputy will not justify or give his reasons for rejecting my initial conforming Code of Conduct complaint against you, my legal advice is that it leaves open the question that you can not justify your Code of Conduct decisions and that consequently there are no reasons available for an investigation on which to mount a defence.

The facts are that you have falsely claimed the authority to chose the membership of a Code of Conduct Committee against me, [and that you are again attempting the same under another guise] and you have decided to accept a Code of Conduct complaint that is agreed did not conform, and you now accept another non-conforming similar complaint ex Cr. Wilson and you refuse to give the required reasons for accepting specific claimed complaints.
All this contributes to a process so prejudiced by you that any consequential decision can not be valid.
Cr. Wilson’s second Code of Conduct complaint against me does again not conform under J4.1 for exactly the same reason you have recognised in the first Staynes/Thomson attempt – that it is devoid of any evidence, record, or taking down of words used as required under Standing Orders for a conforming complaint. As with the Staynes/Thomson complaint, it merely offers a damning tone judgement without providing any evidence. The documentary ‘evidence’ presented in only part of the Staynes/Thomson revisited complaint has been tampered with and the untampered evidence actually confirms my objected-to claim.

It is not clear as you claim that I was at any time happy for you to chose members of the Conduct Committee. The complete opposite should be clear to you especially when I wrote as below;
“at what date did you discover that you are not in fact empowered to appoint the Code of Conduct Committee, as detailed in Standing Orders and in the Structures and Delegations manual?
Having discovered this over-reach of your authority, what steps did you then take to remedy imposing your choice of members for the Code of Conduct Committee?”

I still await your answers to these process questions.

On the subject of Committee membership, I can not agree to be any part of any Code of Conduct process that includes Cr Benson-Pope as a Code of Conduct Committee member. Any conduct decision from Cr Benson-Pope would be tainted by his extraordinary long and public history of personal conduct issues [some of which I can list if required]. Any other Councillor of long experience would be preferable, and in Cr Benson-Pope’s case necessary. Never mind his personal antipathy toward me that almost rivals yours.

I also object to item 24 being Confidential and in the non-public part of the agenda. There is nothing in the report apart perhaps from the unnecessary naming of the position of Chair of Audit and Risk Committee that can warrant going against the default spelled out in J4.1 of Standing Orders that “Council will consider the [Code of Conduct] report in open meeting of the Council…” . Additionally, making it Confidential and non-public gives the false impression that as I am the publicly advertised target of the complaints I have something to hide.

In short, for item 24 proposed for Monday’s Council meeting to proceed;
1 – you should redact the unnecessary naming of the position of Chair of Audit and Risk and must move the report into the public part of the meeting.
2 – your recommendation of Cr. Benson-Pope for Code of Conduct Committee membership needs to change to a viable Council member. Preferably you should sit back from making any recommendations yourself.
3 – you need to give reasons for your acceptance of both Code of Conduct complaints for forwarding to the Code of Conduct Committee, and you need to recognise your past failures in appropriately assessing complaints.
4 – written ‘eye-witness account evidence’ that you infer as existing must accompany the original Code of Conduct complaints [as mine does in my complaint of you] and not come later in order for you to even consider it for forwarding for an investigation.

Until these appropriate process requirements are met, I can not recognise the item 24 process you propose for Monday’s non public agenda.

My legal advice is that if these matters are not rectified the purported hearing becomes a nonsense and any subsequent decision will certainly not be enforceable.

Currently my advice is also that if these matters are not rectified I should not attend any Code of Conduct hearing and I should ignore any consequential purported decisions.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 18/02/15 11:01 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Hi Lee,
I am running the process of Code of Conduct complaints as per Standing Orders but taking no other role. It appears that I initially mistated how the Conduct Committee would be appointed. The Council will now do that. However it is clear from your email below that you were happy for me to choose the members of the Conduct Committee.
I will not be responding further to your pseudo legal questions so as not to prejudice the process.

Dave

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:09 PM
To: Dave Cull; Andrew Noone; Andrew Whiley; Chris Staynes; Doug Hall; Hilary Calvert; John Bezett; Jinty MacTavish; Kate Wilson; Lee Vandervis; Mayor Cull; Mike Lord; Neville Peat; Richard Thomson; David Benson-Pope; Aaron Hawkins; Sue Bidrose
Cc: Pam Jordan
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct complaints

Dear Mayor Cull,

Thank you for advising me that you are satisfied “that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a provision of the Code has been breached” as below.
My advice is that you are required to detail what these ‘reasonable grounds’ are under Standing Orders J1 Accountability [accountable for their actions] and Openness [be prepared to justify their actions] as well as the overarching principle of Natural Justice.
I am particularly interested in your reasons, given that you were also satisfied with the initial Staynes/Thomson complaint which is now accepted as being deficient and non-conforming under Standing Orders.

Regarding you verbal claim to me that you are personally authorised to choose the membership of the Code of Conduct Committee against me, and your written claim as below;

“From: Dave Cull
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 03:54:35 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham
Subject: Code of conduct panel

Dear Cr Vandervis,

Following our correspondence re the appointment of a panel to hear the Code of Conduct complaint against you, I have appointed three people as per Standing Orders requirements.”

at what date did you discover that you are not in fact empowered to appoint the Code of Conduct Committee, as detailed in Standing Orders and in the Structures and Delegations manual?

Having discovered this over-reach of your authority, what steps did you then take to remedy imposing your choice of members for the Code of Conduct Committee?

Looking forward to your open clarifying responses.
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 11/02/15 12:28 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Dear Cr Vandervis,
I understand you have been informed that two Code of Conduct Complaints have been made against you by Crs Staynes and Thomson and Cr Wilson respectively. In both cases I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a provision of the Code has been breached. Accordingly I will refer both matters to the Conduct Committee for investigation. I will report the matter to the next ordinary meeting of Council on 23rd February and ask Council to appoint the Conduct Committee members.

Dave

Dave Cull
Mayor of Dunedin

—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

II

Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 at 6:17 p.m.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:00:05 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee
Subject: Re: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee

Hi Chris,

Today Mayor Cull’s second attempt to stack a Code of Conduct Committee against me was successful after his first attempt was shown loudly to be an overreaching abuse of his authority. The acceptance of non-conforming complaints against me without reasons given by Mayor Cull on the back of the refusal, again without his reasons given, of the Deputy Mayor to accept my initial conforming complaint against the Mayor makes the current process a farce. The Mayor may want to try and justify his actions to you but has refused to give the required reasons to me.

Cheers,
Lee

On 23/02/15 5:16 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:05:04 +0000
From: Andrea Jones [DCC]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Hi everyone

Mayoral statement attached.

Regards

Andrea Jones
Communications Team Leader, Council Communications and Marketing
Dunedin City Council

—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hot particulate air from Greenie Daaave #mayoralrace

Updated post Mon 23.2.15 at 1:40 p.m.

—

█ Re: Sustainability Audit Subcommittee

BS ALERT
Mr Cull, who is on the subcommittee, said the targets were partly about following direction from central government and also about being responsible in the face of climate change.

### ODT Online Mon, 23 Feb 2015
DCC aims to reduce emissions
By Vaughan Elder
A target to reduce Dunedin City Council’s emissions 5% by 2018-19 is partly about setting a good example, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says. The council’s draft emissions management and reduction plan was presented to members of the sustainability audit subcommittee last week at its first meeting.
Read more

DCC emissions (via ODT)
• The council emits 30,696 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO2e) per year, roughly equivalent to the yearly emissions from 6500 passenger vehicles.
• That equates to 248 kgCO2e per resident and 560 kgCO2e per rateable property.
• Of the council’s emissions 23,039 tCO2e, or 75%, is from landfilled waste.
• The council’s draft emission target aims for an overall reduction of 5% by 2018 19 and a 20% reduction in non landfill emissions.

—

The Sustainability Audit Subcommittee comprises:
Janet Stephenson (Chairperson), Mayor Dave Cull, Councillors David Benson-Pope and Jinty MacTavish, Gael Ferguson and Brett Tomkins —see previous post and comments Link

Reports to SA subcommittee meeting held 12 February:

Report – SAS – 12/02/20115 (PDF, 69.9 KB)
Members’ Interest Register

Report – SAS – 12/02/2015 (PDF, 68.4 KB)
Delegation to Sustainability Audit Subcommittee

Report – SAS – 12/02/2015 (PDF, 211.4 KB)
Sustainability Background Paper and “Interim” Stocktake

Report – SAS – 12/02/2015 (PDF, 390.4 KB)
Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (CEMARS)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
13.2.15 Daaave Cull keeps SPENDING on #impulse
25.12.14 Daaave stole Christmas from #DUD
[re: Citifleet insurance scam/coverup, losing +152 vehicles and untold cash is REALLY sustainable]

█ For more, enter the term *sustainability* in the search box at right.

****

### investors.com 02/10/2015 06:43 PM ET
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this. At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Read More [564 Comments]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Associated Press (AP) – Christiana Figueres during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014.