Daily Archives: February 21, 2016

DCC infrastructure performance report (30.11.15) subject to ‘internal review’ only #Jun2015flood

Received.

From: Kristy Rusher
Sent: Sunday, 21 February 2016 9:59 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: FW: Local Government Official Information request – 531354

Hi Elizabeth,

In response to the information request – 531354, I advise the DCC did not arrange a formal external peer review of the report you refer to. However the report and modelling was reviewed internally.
[site moderator’s emphasis]

After this report was made public it was scrutinised by external experts (Bruce Hendry and Trevor Williams) who had previously commented critically on the Council’s public statements. Feedback from these individuals was that the report was thorough and the numbers and analysis stood up to scrutiny.
Therefore we are unable to provide you with a peer review in digital format on the basis that the information you have requested does not exist (section 17(e) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

As we have declined to provide information that you have requested, you are advised that you may request that the Ombudsman review our decision. The contact details for the Ombudsman are available at this webpage: http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/

Regards, Kristy Rusher

Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council

The Official Information Form at the DCC website was used to lodge my request, however this removes all document formatting – therefore, and as an official file record, the request was also forwarded by email:

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 12:23 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham
Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531354

Dear Sandy

LGOIMA Request – June 2015 Dunedin Flood
Reference No. 531354

In reference to the news article in today’s Otago Daily Times, ‘April date for report on flooding’
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/370819/april-date-report-flooding
I note the anticipated report is subject to peer review:

“Mr McCabe told the Otago Daily Times the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was “robust”, including an external peer review of its findings.”

I note the earlier council report, tabled at the full council meeting on 30 November 2015 (I attended this meeting):

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553 KB)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event

I request the following information:

1. Was the flood report of 30/11/15 peer reviewed?

2. What was the name(s) of the peer reviewer(s) and their professional accreditation and or relevant work experience?

3. Is the peer review(s) available for public scrutiny, and if so I request a copy in digital format by email.

I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards, Elizabeth

I was informed in person, in January, that the Water and Waste Services department report, ‘Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event’, tabled at the full council meeting on 30.11.15, had been “peer reviewed” and the time taken for review was cause for delay of the report’s release.

We now learn an “internal review” happened at the council, with some external scrutiny. In considerable doubt, since DCC does not provide the evidence in its official response (21.2.16), is the claim that “Feedback from these individuals was that the report was thorough and the numbers and analysis stood up to scrutiny.”

An internal review is a long way short of an independent peer review – peer reviews are typically formally briefed as to scope etc with binding agreement of the parties.

Commonly, in New Zealand, the following is used as a guide to scoping peer review processes:

IPENZ Practice Note 02
Peer Review: Reviewing the work of another Engineer (June 2003)
ISSN 1176-0907 (PDF, 552 KB)

How does the ‘internal review’ stand against the news story,
Flooding: lack of maintenance blamed
(ODT 13.2.16) —where Bruce Hendry is cited: “A man who helped build South Dunedin’s drainage network says a lack of maintenance exacerbated problems caused by last year’s record-breaking flood. […] “Eight months after what has probably been the biggest and most expensive disaster in Dunedin since the 1929 floods, answers relating to the future and safety of those most affected, particularly residents of South Dunedin, have not been given,” he said in the report.” What report? DCC fails to produce it.

What will happen in April with the release of the report from the DCC’s Transport department on the performance of drains and mudtanks during the flood, and which in recent times have been subject to poor maintenance and lack of upgrade?

Related Post and Comments:
● 13.2.16 South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome… #hazardzones
4.2.16 Level responses to Dunedin mayor’s hippo soup #Jun2015flood
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
● 24.12.15 Site notice: posts removed
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *hazard* or *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, South Dunedin