Updated post Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 1:22 p.m.
Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 12:32 p.m.
—
From: Bev Butler
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 1:46 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Wednesday 1 July 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
It was recently stated in the media that the DCC/CST documents were stored in a “secure storage facility”.
Also on Monday 29 June 2015, the CST stated:
“The CST advise that there is no charge for the storage and as such, there is no invoice.”
I request the location where these documents were stored, the type of “secure storage facility” and on what date the documents were taken to the secure storage facility.
Thank you.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:14:28 +0000
Dear Bev
I refer for your request for information about the CST secure storage facility where you asked the following questions:.
Where are the documents stored?
What type of secure storage facility it is?
What date were the documents taken to the facility?
I provide answers to these questions as follows:
The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The facility is a commercial storage facility. I have already advised that it is not EziStor. Any further details that may identify the facility are however withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.
As we have withheld information you are entitled to a review of our decisions by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:15:33 +1200
Dear Sandy and Grace
Appreciate clarification before contacting Ombudsman.
In the response it states:
“The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia.”
Given the statement above which implies that there is only one person in the world who knows when the documents were moved, is it correct to assume the documents were moved by the “sick lady” without the permission of the CST?
Is it also correct to assume the documents were placed in the secure storage facility without the knowledge of the secure storage facility’s owner, given the “sick lady” in Australia is the only person who knows when the documents were stored there?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000
Dear Bev
Your assumptions are incorrect.
Regards
Sandy
—
Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Would a bank safe or something along those lines not be a much more secure environment?
Ouch. That has feck off stamped all over it. Somebody must be feeling a bit against it in that longdrop of a council.
Apparently though only one person can account for the date the material was transferred. Because, let’s see, that one person made the decision alone? Apparently without discussing it, emailing about it or raising it in any formal business? Moved all the boxes too? Or maybe the moving company didn’t invoice or has placed its paper/digital records into a “secure facility” too?
Suuuuuurrrrre.
The dead guy did it, and the only person he told was the sick woman who can’t be questioned, right?
What an amazing charade. The whole affair has reignited. Who has told lies? Who is desperately trying to now cover up?
Yes, first we had the dead guy, now the sick lady. What next? The deaf, blind and mute guy?
Peter: Don’t give up yet. The reasons given for refusing to disclose the location of the documents seem to be defective. The LGOIMA has no reasons for keeping secret the location of information.
The DCC say – The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information . This is not a valid reason to refuse the request because s7(2)(b)(ii) only provides protection for “the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information”. This could be a valid reason to refuse to provide some of the documents, but not a valid reason to refuse to provide the location of the documents.
The other reason for refusing to provide the location was: pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment. This is invalid because there are no public affairs being conducted that would be affected by revealing the location of the documents. More importantly, this only applies to “members or officers or employees of any local authority”. Revealing where the documents are, will not create any “improper pressure or harassment” on Council staff or CST members.
Giving invalid reasons for this request shows a degree of desperation. That desperation could mean that all sensitive documents have been destroyed.
I think that the same logic that brings the CST into the LGOIMA also makes the CST a DCC agent here.
But you know that letter comes very close to libel – implying that Bev would apply improper pressure or harassment – without any evidence – or do they expect her to dress up in ninja-black and go over the wall into the storage locker with a photocopier in the middle of the night ….. when it’s them who should be doing that in plain daylight
One really has to wonder what they’re going to such lengths [for].
Mike,
No offence taken. My relationship with DCC governance staff is a professional relationship where I have very patiently worked through the democratic official information process, as slow and tedious as it sometimes has been.
The governance staff know that my modus operandi has always been to consistently follow the democratic process and as such would never indulge in harrassment.
I think the recent LGOIMA response which expresses fear of pressure and harrassment may however apply to Malcolm Farry and the CST. They have shown on many occassions to blatantly breach legal statutory requirements to release information and are still continuing to do so. This is despite recent reassurances that they are co-operating fully. I see no evidence of this in terms of long standing information being released.
Malcolm Farry and his fellow trustees find the democratic process intimidating because, I believe, there is plenty they want to hide. The CST tried to circumvent the LGOIMA process by asking me to contact them directly. I declined their offer for obvious reasons.
The Ombudsman Office acts as an intermediary and as such has the power seek onformation under oath and to prosecute. To date, they have chosen not to prosecute the CST for obstruction. However, their patience may soon run out.
I predict: Saturday next week the files (or some of them) will be leaked to the ODT who will do a write-up exonerating the CST and probably blaming Bev for the $100m overrun.
That deaf, dumb and dead kid, sure played a mean stonewall!
Apologies to Tommy
Updated post at top of thread.
Boomer email by Bev! She’s a logical lady with a way with words.
Updated post – more supplied correspondence added.
Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 10:41 a.m.
—
From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:38:45 +1200
Dear Sandy and Grace
Thank you for confirming my assumptions are incorrect.
1. On what date (exact or closely approximate) did the CST give permission for the DCC/CST documents to be moved to the secure storage facility?
2. On what date (exact or closely approximate) did the CST first become aware the documents were moved to the secure storage facility?
3. On what date (exact or closely approximate) did the owner of the secure storage facility become aware that the DCC/CST documents were placed in the facility?
Kind Regards
Bev
I wonder how the sick lady is today. I was planning on sending her a Get Well card, but I don’t know where she is in Australia.
I’m sure you can LGOIMA the DCC every 2 weeks to ask if she’s available until she is.