Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 19 June 2015 at 9:13 a.m.
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson
Subject: Mayor and Councillors/Security of DCC/CST stadium documents
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:50:20 +1200
Friday 19 June 2015
Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors
During my recent DCC Annual Plan submission I requested a full forensic audit of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST). You will recall that preliminary informal investigations found that documentation has been withheld. The CST and the previous CEO of the DCC both attempted via undisclosed legal opinions to ensure that this documentation remained hidden from any investigation or even LGOIMA requests and it is now more than clear that the CST, as an agent of the DCC, have no right to retain ANY documentation that relates to the entire period which the CST were in any way acting as an agent of the DCC. The CST appears to have no other function than continuing to receive donations from private persons as part of the private sector funding so, given that, I do not believe ANY documentation should be withheld from the DCC.
Since my public call for a full forensic investigation I have been greatly concerned about the security of the DCC/CST documents all of which were financed with ratepayer money.
It has now been revealed that the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry has removed most of the documents from the stadium and dumped them in a container. By doing so I believe that he has demonstrated a desire to thwart any investigation into any inappropriate spending of ratepayers money which could be revealed by a forensic audit, but he has also on the face of it, essentially misappropriated the documentation which has been, and remains, the property of the DCC.
On Monday 15 June 2015 I also contacted the Office of the Ombudsman expressing my concern over the security of the documents.
A representative of the Ombudsman Office then rang the DCC Governance Manager on Monday afternoon.
As elected representatives I believe you should be made aware of the situation.
Below is an urgent LGOIMA request I submitted on Tuesday 16 June 2015 followed by an acknowledgement of the request.
Further down the page is the earlier correspondence I had with the DCC CEO requesting the documents be secured.
Kind Regards
Bev Butler
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Grace Ockwell [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
CC: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:17:33 +1200
Tuesday 16 June 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
Given the following:
1. Changes to LGOIMA recently came into force on 26 March 2015.
In light of these changes, and especially the changes to s2(6) which unequivocally states that a local authority will be deemed to hold any information held by an independent contractor in its capacity as contractor.
2. Under section 3 of Schedule 5 of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the CST and DCC it states:
“All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.”
3. DCC Governance staff were told by the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry, that ALL the DCC/CST stadium documents were in a locked room at DVML offices as per the SLA and only Malcolm Farry and his secretary had keys to the locked room.
4. Recently it has transpired that MOST of the documents are not in the DVML offices.
5. Most of the documents are now in a container.
Therefore, given the LGOIMA legislation, the contract between DCC and CST and other information above, I request the following:
1. On what date were the DCC/CST documents removed from the DVML offices?
2. Apart from Malcolm Farry, who else was involved in the removal of the documents?
3. Which other CST trustees were aware of the removal of the documents?
4. Where exactly is the container located?
5. How are the documents stored in this container? Are they in cardboard boxes, supermarket bags, filing cabinets or thrown in piles or some other storage method?
6. Will the DCC report this removal of local government documents to the Police given this was done without DCC permission?
7. Will the DCC now seize these documents as is their legal right under the SLA?
8. The name of the law firm and lawyer who has been providing legal advice to the DCC over the security of the DCC/CST stadium documents?
Given the seriousness of this situation, I am requesting that this request be treated with urgency.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham
To: Bev Butler
CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell
Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:00:11 +0000
Dear Bev
Thank you for your request below. I note that you have requested urgency and we will consider this request. If we decide that we will not progress the request urgently, you will receive a response as soon as practicable or within twenty working days.
I do wish to formally advise that I have sighted the CST files and after conversations with the CST have no concerns about their security. I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham
CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell
Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:30:55 +1200
Dear Sandy
Thank you for your email.
Do the CST still have access to these documents?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler
Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2015 3:47:51 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell
Dear Sandy
Further to your email below where you state:
“I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.”
Can I assume that the DCC will be taking control of the documents by the end of the week as per SLA?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler
Sent: 24 May 2015 4:16 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Subject: Security of stadium documents
Importance: High
Sunday 24 May 2015
Dear Dr Bidrose
I wish to formally request that the DCC secure the CST stadium documents.
Some time ago, I was made aware of a threat by Mr Malcolm Farry, Chair of CST, to remove the documents from the locked stadium room.
I think it is essential to ensure the security of these documents.
Given Mr Farry’s ongoing refusal to release information even with the recent change in legislation to LGOIMA and given the false statements and the malicious attack on me which he made on the front page of the ODT on Friday 22 May 2015 I believe it may be necessary to:
(a) change the locks as I understand Mr Farry has the only key;
(b) secure any external window(s) from possible break-in or access to damage the documents.
(c) ensure Mr Farry is escorted by a security guard at all times whilst in the document room if he does now decide to co-operate.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
PS I think it fair to inform you I will be making this request public in a few days time.
—
From: Sue Bidrose
To: Bev Butler
Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 03:38:28 +0000
Hi Bev
Thanks for the conversation. To just put it in writing, I have had discussions with the CST representative and we are working together to ensure DCC has full access to CST documents pertaining to the stadium build. Most of the documents are not at the stadium and therefore ‘locking the door’ would not only be likely to provoke legal retaliation, it would be counterproductive in our working together to ensure DCC has the documents that we are legally required to have.
Kind regards
Sue
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose
Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:22:51 +1200
Hi Sue
Thanks for the email.
fyi
On reading the Service Level Agreement today on page 20 it states under Schedule 5 – Resources/Administration
3. All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.
Kind regards
Bev
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Bev, keep up the good work, but be aware that no-one will be found guilty. A guilty party in the CST implies a guilty party in the DCC and Dave Cull does not believe in guilty. A new cycleway or a “managed retreat” or the DCC riding in to stop climate change now that is doable.
Governance does not form part of the green mantra.
Green Mantra:
Get elected
Receive income
Tilt at windmills
Do I hear a great sucking in of breaths? Will there be any responses? Who would bet on the first response? The shortest odds will be on Richard Thomson as chair of Finance and knower of all things. One thing is certain, the Stadium, CST and DCC are stuck like Brer Fox in the brambles to this issue.
—
{The DCC standing committee chaired by Cr Thomson is currently known as the Finance Committee; ‘Strategy’ was dropped from the title after the last local body elections. -Eds}
‘Strategy’ was dropped from the title after the last local body elections. -Eds
Because there is no strategy?
The council standing committees are at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/council-committees
Peter, as you know, the Cull council has brought more strategies into being than we will ever want or need (how green is my tie), thanks to influence of the bastard LGNZ – how to keep the ‘servants’ in full-time salary-increasing work with liberal doses of sick pet projects for electioneering purposes….
However, there is still no Strategy for how to seize ORIGINAL DCC-OWNED documents OFF Malcolm Farry (CST board of trustees) – the law is on DCC’s side but it has chosen not to exercise legal prerogative.
It seems to me that the Audit and Risk Subcommittee ought to pay attention; and Elected Representatives MUST tell the council chief executive to stop pussyfooting, operationally (!!!) and get the damned documents pronto or face immediate censure.
CST, as a private Trust under contract to DCC, is subject to LGOIMA and most likely, also subject to Public Records Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345529.html
I don’t think anybody believes the fiction of “arms length” or the fig leaf of “Service Level Agreement” between DCC and trusts any longer.
Yes, the Public Records Act has been discussed.
We can only hope that the current councillors don’t do too much more damage before the next election.
Share that sentiment !! However, I would rather the Council was replaced by a commissioner.
Elizabeth
I’m inclined to agree with you. For some time now, this council has demonstrated that it is not fit for purpose. It is evident in both its administration and governance. But this latest episode as laid out by Bev Butler if it is indeed so, goes much further than the disarray and incompetence we have seen for so long under this council, it smacks of an arrogant dishonesty.
It all stems from the top and permeates to the lowest levels. It can be seen in the day to day discourse with council staff. They are without confidence and it shows. They have been betrayed.
Imagine for one moment if one of us, by one way or another, were in possession of council documents we were not entitled to hold. Do you think the council would or should tolerate this? Do you think we would be taken to court or had a court order delivered to us for their immediate return…or both? Do you think the CEO and Governance Officer would decide to work ‘collaboratively’ with us, at our place, to return them?
This is about power. The power to resist. The abdication of power to uphold the laws pertaining to local government documents.
Peter, the problem is that the DCC CEO and Governance officer have on their desk a huge ‘Gordian Knot’, Where to start without unraveling their position is the conundrum. They know that they are entitled to all the CST documentation, but they also know that if they get it all and disect it the possible implications for the DCC could be immense. That the CST has been so secretive suggests corruption and possibly illegal activities, again tied back to connivance of former DCC officers. We all know that the whole Stadium project was a organised raid on the ratepayers’ coffers by the Rugby fraternity, condoned by the DCC. The record since completion has shown the impossibility of the complex covering its costs let alone being profitable is a large part of that knot. The fact that Bev is determined to uncover the truth while all others are equally determined to foil her attempts only add to the DCC CEO and Governance officers’ dilemma. It is looking like it will take the courts to unravel that knot, and oh, what a tangle it could be. Too many big names in too many positions of power to let this unravel without a big fight. Interesting indeed. Meanwhile the ‘plebs’ are over the moon at the fortunes of their ‘Highlanders’. Of the 25,000 or so at last night’s match I wonder how many were concerned as to where their ticket monies went? One things for sure it didn’t all go into DVML’s bucket.
Well Calvin surely one of the questions must be the following.
What nett profit after all costs did the stadium provide to DMVL last night.
If the stadium cannot show a significant profit on such a Red letter day (first home final since the inception of the Super Rugby competition) then clearly NO event or combination of events can move the stadium finances in the right direction.
A corporation like the DCC cannot afford the following:
Stadium continuously losing $20 million annually
Chinese Garden losing ? annually
Toitu museum losing ? annuallly
Dunedin convention centre losing ? annually
Given that the council is already between $650 million and potentially $850 million in debt given the effect of diminishing interest rates on the swaps debacle.
This council MUST bite the bullet and stop the bleeding as it my well be impossible for future councils to recover from the collective bodyblows of ever increasing costs and losses.
Gurglars I suspect that if the truth be known that DVML get a negotiated lease per event from rugby. That shows by consistent revenue over the years past. No ups or downs influenced by patronage. The windfall is for rugby with most going to the NZRFU coffers being redistributed to the various franchises. So much then for the economic return to the city. It really is a massive export of city money making the lie of claims for the Stadium’s presence. Ask DVML and wait for the stalled reply with b…dust about ‘commercial sensitivities’ and suchlike.
Several issues are now exposed regarding this mess. The first is that there is a very well documented trail over a very long period that shows that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust has been obstructive in releasing information that they were obligated to release immediately. There is a well documented trail that shows very senior DCC staff members spent ratepayer’s money to try and assist with that obstruction via legal opinions without success. There is a well documented trail that shows even when it is absolutely clear that the CST were not entitled to hold documentation but rather the documentation was to be under direct DCC control that the CST retained control. There is a well documented trail that shows that the DCC seems unwilling to enforce the handing over of all documentation of the CST (whose only purpose was to act as an agent for the DCC).
What conclusions can be drawn from these various trails?
The first thought is that there must be something worth concealing in the documentation. If so, what? Only a close examination of the documentation would reveal the answer to that. If there was nothing, why any reluctance to ensure total transparency?
The second is that there was some form of arrangement between the CST and senior members of the DCC to ensure that the CST would remain at arm’s length from the ratepayer’s questions. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I will never forget the meeting I had with Mr Malcolm Farry when he told me that the then $2m loan to the ORFU from the DCC would be “written off”. No-one seriously believes anyone that says that there are no “understandings” or “arrangements” made between the DCC and third parties.
The third is that the CST is exerting some form of control and could be in the position of ensuring that not ALL documentation is in the hands and control of the DCC. If so, why?
The only way forward to demonstrate that there is nothing to hide is to fully comply with the legal requirement and place all documentation with the DCC.
russandbev, a councillor responsible to the citizens and electors cannot gain an unredacted report on theft by DCC staff because DCC staff do not want to be governed by its councillors! What hope does a member of the general public have of obtaining damaging documents to the credibility of DCC staff.
None.
Basically, until the citizens DEMAND accountability from its representatives and more importantly the staff (as the elected councillors are gullible at best and culpable at least) we will be obfuscated by persons whose greatest skill is obfuscation and secondary skill is being highly remunerated for the primary skill (sick).
We understand the process of photocopying the ratepayers’ property documents has started with reaasurances, by the DCC that they are safe. Now. Don’t you think the lot would be even safer in the council’s hands first, not the CST’s, who maybe have much to lose? Don’t you think it would be more than ‘reasonable’ to give THEM the photocopies once that process has been completed? Will the DCC insist on the original copies or do we get the rough photocopies? Does the DCC really have to give the CST such licence?
We have to gather, at this stage, that the photocopying is being done at the storage container (their place)? In winter. In a confined space….in/by a storage container? Or are they ferrying a few boxes at a time backwards and forwards between the storage container and the DCC offices for photocopying? Really? This is controlling behaviour isn’t it? Who is supervising the process? Is it being done by some young junior office worker with THEM deciding what documentation is ‘relevant’….. to quote both the DCC and CST?
Once again the law, that is plainly written, has to be upheld. If it is not, what then? We know the answer to that question, don’t we.
There are no junior office workers, only team leaders and managers.
Of course operating a photocopying machine in an unpowered container is a very dangerous business. Generators or extension cords can both cause the unlooked for spark that creates a tragic conflagration or unexpected gusts of wind can carry off individual documents – so sad.
Working in Ireland at present. Here’s another disgusting example of organised white collar theft off the little people from the land of the little (green) people.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/gene-kerrigan-clerys-is-not-a-department-store-its-an-opportunity-31317622.html
Are we are paying for our much respected gent to stand there hovering and telling photocopy girl this one, not that one? She will know shouting ‘health and safety’, from said sparking photocopy machine, and ‘lawyers’ will not have the same effect as rich people who shout ‘lawyers’ when the DCC quivers and caves in to threats.
Makes you sick, doesn’t it, but the town’s barristers don’t do charity for photocopy girls because rich pricks can’t hire them for big money or they can get a bro or cuzzie to do it for free. They must get a kick out of it.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 at 10:40 p.m.
—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:24:06 +1200
To: Bev Butler, Sandy Graham, Grace Ockwell
Cc: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson
Conversation: Update on Security of DCC/CST documents
Subject: Re: Update on Security of DCC/CST documents
Dear All,
I share Ms Butler’s concerns, as I too have shared her frustration over many years of trying unsuccessfully to access CST documents [especially accounts] to bring some accountability to CST spending.
I have reasons to believe much of the early ratepaid millions spent by the CST supposedly on ‘investigating stadium viability’ was instead spent on stadium promotion, design, and travel and social functions for an ‘in group’ of CST rugby enthusiasts. As early as 2007 I was leaked alleged copies of CST accounts showing such inappropriate spending, but was prevented from confirming the truth of such documents by CEO Harland who falsely claimed that CST documents were not available to me as a Councillor under LGOIMA or any other Act as the CST were an ‘independent of DCC trust’.
‘Relevance’ of CST documents should not be a consideration made by CST or our staff when being requested.
Looking forward to being able finally to learn from past DCC accountability mistakes in making grants to trusts and other such entities.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
—
On 22/06/15 2:35 PM, “Bev Butler” wrote:
Monday 22 June 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
I still have concerns re the safety of the DCC/CST documents.
1. I have just looked up the Carisbrook Stadium Trust Deed and on p3 under section 3 “Objects of the Trust” it lists objects of the Trust, and all of these stated functions are ALL related to the stadium. The CST have no other function according to their own Trust Deed so as far as I can tell they do not have a leg to stand on when referring to ‘relevant’ information. All information is relevant to the DCC/CST Service Level Agreement (SLA).
2. If the CST have been involved in any other ‘activities’ not related to the Stadium then they are in breach of their own Trust Deed.
3. I fear that the CST is still in control of the situation. The documents are DCC property and it is a ridiculous situation and demeaning where the DCC have to go cap in hand to photocopy their own documents. The DCC need to take control of ALL the original documents as these documents have been paid for with ratepayer money. The DCC own them not the CST.
4. I do not consider it a reasonable situation where the CST for many years have had these documents stored in a storage container without informing the DCC, the principal in their special agency role. I consider this another breach of trust in their SLA contract with the DCC.
5. If Farry was ‘fully co-operating’ we wouldn’t have this ridiculous situation where he even questions the relevancy of which documents the DCC can have!
6. If Farry was ‘fully co-operating’ he would hand over ALL the documents now and accept photocopy versions when he needed them. He can’t be needing them too often given the stadium is built and he dumped them in a storage container without DCC’s knowledge or approval.
I wait for assurance that the DCC intend seizing ALL the DCC/CST documents in their original form. The placing of documents in a storage container without informing the DCC shows little regard for anyone who wants access. Given the obstructive actions over a long period of time, I believe the CST had no intention of releasing any of these local government documents. Indeed we now know the intention of setting up the CST was to bypass the normal democratic LGOIMA process. As such, if the CST want access to the original documents then they too should go through the democratic process as I have been subjected to over the last few years.
Sincerely
Bev Butler
—— End of Forwarded Message
Given what Cr Vandervis has revealed here about his attempts to gain information from Harland and what Sandy Graham and Sue Bidrose know about CST spending, which is alarmingly obscene,
councillors only need to ask themselves this question. Why wouldn’t Malcolm Farry want to maintain some control over what documents are handed over and what documents are withheld? Also this simple question. What is there to hide?
Peter, there’s absolutely nothing to say that documents haven’t been destroyed.
And now the chief executive is taking a month’s leave of absence.
I truly hope the GCFO/Acting CEO does the right thing and seizes whatever is left of all original documents. That would be leadership, where others have failed – a make safe.
@Elizabeth
June 23, 2015 at 8:30 am
Peter, there’s absolutely nothing to say that documents haven’t been destroyed.
Of course, Malcolm’s dog ate them.
And-
And now the chief executive is taking a month’s leave of absence.
Oh what a bugger.
And-
I truly hope the GCFO/Acting CEO does the right thing and seizes whatever is left of all original documents. That would be leadership, where others have failed – a make safe.
There is not a S.S.I.H. of that happening.
This is the way things are these days as Gene Kerrigan says about Clerys in the article referred to by Rob Hamlin –
‘There’s no, “We’re sorry that we are unable . . .” There’s no, “We regret it is not possible . . .”
There’s just: Yeah, we got that money, we’ve made the voucher useless, but you’re not getting your money back – bugger off, now, loser. Or words to that effect.
The arrogance of all these players is, in the true sense of the word awesome to behold.
Douglas, I think you’ll find material evidence is in gay abundance – but too soon to make public.
This sequence of recent events and from what has been going on historically cannot, and will not, go away. Like any scandal, with persistence, it cannot be made to go away. Sometimes it takes a while as a record of events, lies, actions and inactions by key players builds a picture. It’s the pressure cooker anomaly. Casualties take place along the way, alliances are tested and finally broken and then the lid comes off.
If, on a far larger scale, the FIFA scandal can break after a long time, what chance has the cesspit of corruption, that has plagued civic affairs in Dunedin for years, in terms of being exposed?
Peter, it cannot be forever kept in the pot under the lid. It just festers until it blows. These things always do, particularly when industrious honest people keep turning up the heat. There is already enough ‘stuff’ out there to implicate the DCC/CST/ORFU/NZRFU cartel, plus any number of persons, if and when this reaches its inevitable conclusions. What we are witnessing currently is a desperate attempt to load up the lid with weights. It won’t work, only prolong the inevitable. Meanwhile the costs to the ratepayers goes on. It is simply not fair. More so because the people who started it have by and large skipped the hoop and taken off. Farry must feel slightly miffed at being left to cover for the rest. But hey! isn’t that what ‘mates’ do?
@Elizabeth
June 23, 2015 at 11:14 am
Well Elizabeth, it is my turn to hope – hope you are right but I am very sceptical that anything will surface that will enable a legal and successful prosecution. The mere fact that the DCC has been prevented from accessing the original data speaks volumes about its collusion and/or incompetence over this as well as the motives of the rest -CST/ORFU/NZRFU and so on. Bryant and Mays are very effective as are those dogs that eat lunches.
Anyway good luck to Bev Butler – she is persistent.
Bev has asked for an independent forensic audit, from that comes further processing….
Nothing happens in 5 minutes. However, there is no statute of limitations in play. If Farry is disguised as a snowman at Coronet then the glasses of Pinot being handed to him, or Screaming Orgasm cocktails, will mark him out. No problem.
Calvin. You say, ‘There is already enough ‘stuff’ out there to implicate the DCC/CST/ORFU/NZRFU cartel’. Too right there is, but information is power and more of it is more powerful. No harm in asking and besides it is the democratic right to know. The CST, and bedfellows, know this. This will tease out a little bit longer, I think. Time to see how people hide…. and play…. then jump.
Another thing. Will the CST consider, for example, Board Minutes as ‘relevant’ for the DCC? Minutes where we can see what money was authorised to whom to be paid and what was received. We don’t know and the DCC isn’t telling us. The DCC will need to have a schedule of the kind of documentation they don’t have. You would hope the councillors jump in FIRST and demand this if they are doing their job properly. Just getting bland, broad assurances that all is hunky dory, don’t worry, is not good enough. Proof, please, councillors. Insist on it.
Another thing. Document shredding. A dangerous game. Leads to greater suspicion of cover up and helps sink the shredder. This delays things for a bit, but bank statements and computers can be seized and if related parties are involved, with the the gaps in documentation that seem to be missing, they can also be approached.
Another thing. You don’t need to uncover everything. I remember a number of years back a judge was struck down for claiming about $800 in travel expenses that he was not entitled to. Chicken feed in the greater scheme of things, but enough to nab him and for him to lose his job and reputation.
Peter, you’re so right. Enough is enough, but more is better, the lot is best. Getting it is the task.
‘Getting it is the task’. Sure is. Takes time, perseverance and logical argument. Not that I take the credit, but I do know someone who is pretty good at it! The process is pedantic…..probably needs to be….and you can understand why people give up with the games played by those who don’t want you to know.
Massive coverup and whitewash by DCC and CST.
RATEPAYERS should very concerned.
The skulking triumvirate – FARRY, GRAHAM, BIDROSE
—
### ODT Online Wed, 24 Jun 2015
Papers safe, DCC says
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council says it has no concerns about the safety of dozens of boxes of documents relating to the Forsyth Barr Stadium project, despite their removal from the stadium by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. Council staff have confirmed the CST moved documents detailing the project’s history from an office inside the stadium to a new secure storage facility elsewhere in the city.
Read more
—
THE EXERCISE IN UTTER BULLSHIT WITH NO SAFEGUARDS FOR FULLY INDEPENDENT FORENSIC INVESTIGATION
Would we believe Malcolm Farry’s asssertion of ‘exhaustive’ sign off and audit processes when there is evidence of appallingly incomplete invoicing where thousands of dollars were handed over to individuals/companies with, in some cases, just a couple of words? At this stage there are just red flags, not fraud. That is why a full forensic audit of these invoices, among other disturbing red flags of inappropriate spending, is needed to clear the air.
If everything, as quoted by Farry is correct, he would have no hesitation to say, ‘go ahead’. Wouldn’t he?
The council is a bit premature to say there are no concerns about the ultimate safety of those boxes when it has not started to do a full account of what is there and what might proven to be missing.Or am I missing something?
Lately, we have witnessed other cockups, with criminal investigations of some very tragic cases, where red flags were alerted to the authorities, but no action was taken. Here, with the CST, we have a golden opportunity to read those red flags and DO something.
What do we have instead? Feeble attempts to cover up red arses and red faces.
Received.
On 24/06/2015, at 3:53 pm, “Bev Butler” wrote:
From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham
CC: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Grace Ockwell, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson, Sue Bidrose, Grant McKenzie
Subject: RE: Update on Security of DCC/CST documents
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:37:18 +1200
Dear Sandy
Thank you for the reassurance which I have been seeking.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham
To: Bev Butler
CC: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Grace Ockwell, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson, Sue Bidrose, Grant McKenzie
Subject: RE: Update on Security of DCC/CST documents
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:24:01 +0000
Dear Bev
I can confirm that the DCC took possession last Friday of 14 boxes of original CST files. These are being stored in the Civic centre. Contrary to what was reported in the ODT today, we do not intend making copies of the files. They represent the first tranche of trust documents with the intention of shifting more in the coming days.
For your information, I was able to select which boxes I wanted in a totally unfettered way. The CST put no constraints on which files I could take.
Regards
Sandy
[Sandy Graham, Group Manager Corporate Services]
Why would the DCC not take all of the files?
Why is not an independent person capable of reading, evaluating each and every document. We know there is a problem, let’s find it.
I am happy to offer my services for free to evaluate every document and then pass those questionable over to an independent panel to evaluate the legality of each and every transaction. In my opinion Bev Butler should be on that panel.
Maybe DCC has no fleet vehicles left and certainly no freight trucks ;)
They only had to ask. I’ve got a vehicle and 2 wheelbarrows.