LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

The following letter has had names removed, except those previously cited by broadcast and print media (public domain). -Eds.

Received from Neil Johnstone
Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 11:41 p.m.

Subject: DCC and the LGOIMA

Message: I have read concerning comments on your site regarding DCC’s apparent failure to comply with its LGOIMA obligations. You may wish to post my account of my recent experience.

[begins]

Dunedin City Council took ten months to produce its second Infrastructure Report, entitled ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure During June 2015 Flood Event Follow-Up’ (Author: R. Stokes). On 28 January 2016 (still three months before the report surfaced), then DCC Group Manager Transport Ian 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”. Mr McCabe went on to emphasise that “the report had been widened from an initial focus only on mudtank maintenance, and now also included a fresh look at the network’s design capacity”. That all seemed fair enough.

When the report was ultimately released in late April 2016, it contained no reference to any external (or other) peer review. However, when interviewed by John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme on April 22, shortly after the Report’s release, Mayor Cull repeatedly referenced “independent” peer review(s) as supporting (“parts of”) the Report’s content. Mr Cull stated that he didn’t know which parts of the report had been reviewed independently. “You would have to talk to her (Ms Stokes) about that,” he said. Presumably, therefore, he hadn’t seen the review(s) either.

On 17 May I sent a LGOIMA request to DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, asking for a copy of the review(s). On 20 May I received an acknowledgement from DCC which rather defeated the purpose of my request but, more importantly, indicated that I would receive a response asap, but within 20 working days. I immediately queried why it should take such a long time to simply send a copy of a recent review, and asked simply for confirmation whether the review actually existed.

This time I received an email from the Group Manager Corporate Services suggesting a “discussion” before they left for overseas. There was no mention of my straightforward query as to whether the review actually existed. I replied immediately, and asked again for a simple yes/no to that question. Again, the question was not answered.

A full month (the maximum allowable period of 20 working days having elapsed since my simple request) later, I received an email from DCC. They were able to report that they had received information from the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks thus: “The response to Mr Johnstone is that we have had a peer review done, however this is still in draft and yet to be finalised (as staff have been focusing on forward work demands, and we have staff away). Once the review is finalised it will be publicly released.” “Therefore we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available.”

I considered that response was unsatisfactory. The review, apparently under belated construction, was clearly not what I had repeatedly requested. I should by then have received the review referenced by Messrs McCabe (“external”) and Cull (“independent”), or received an acknowledgement that it did not exist.

Then on the evening of 6 July I was emailed by the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, a copy of a new review, seemingly hot off the press, and authored by Opus in Auckland. This obviously was not the review that I had requested back on 17 May, as all DCC personnel involved should have known.

On 9 July I wrote to Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, expressing my concerns. I asked the following key questions:

Why, almost two months after my original LGOIMA request, I had still not received an admission that the peer review sought did not in fact exist?
Or, alternatively, if it did exist, why had it not been provided?
Why it took a month after my initial request for me to be merely told (irrelevantly) that a (different) peer review was being prepared, but with no attempt to satisfy my simple, legitimate request?

Almost a week later, a DCC officer returned to the list of respondents. They advised that my (follow-up) enquiry was being treated as a new request, and (you all know the drill) would be dealt with as soon as possible, but within 20 working days of receipt at the latest.

Nineteen working days later I received an emailed response from a Manager Civic and Legal. None of the three questions (above) were answered. They stated that my enquiries had been answered as soon as possible, given the volume of other requests. But the most interesting part of their response reads as follows: “The reported reference in the ODT (Mr McCabe, cited 28 January) to the external peer review was actually a reference to work the Council was undertaking to investigate the performance of the mudtank maintenance contractor…..”

So external means internal in the DCC, and widening means narrowing?

If the manager had been informed correctly, then there was no external review. Why, in that case, was I not told that nearly three months ago? Why did the Mayor apparently believe there was an external (independent, to use his wording) peer review? Furthermore, why did DCC fail to answer my three questions above.

I could, of course, ask these questions of DCC via LGOIMA, but I could then only expect an interim response followed by 20 more working days of inaction and worse.

Instead I have initiated a series of complaints to the Ombudsman, and decided that the public should view yet another example of how our City Hall is operating.

My intent throughout has been to identify the true causes of the June 2015 flood, so that real solutions can be identified and “political” solutions avoided. I have no intention of stopping, despite DCC’s apparent resistance.

[ends]

Neil Johnstone is welcome to publish emails supporting his story; it appears most if not all of the emails he received pertain under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and therefore reside in public domain. However, the Ombudsmen are best to advise on these matters. In the meantime DCC is welcome to correct any factual errors, in the interests of accuracy and balance. -Eds.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

7 responses to “LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

  1. Observer

    Christchurch City Council have become experts in this field. They simply water mark “DRAFT” over their final reviews and then refuse to release them under LGOIMA requests.

  2. Peter

    Very interesting, Neil. The runaround you have been given about this external, independent peer review is familiar for Bev with her stadium LGOIMAs.
    It seems pretty clear it never existed. Did Dave believe it existed, or not, or has an individual within the DCC organisation lied about its existence?
    Keep up the pressure.

  3. Gurglars

    Just how much obfuscation, slithering and just plain scumbag behaviour by our elected officials (the Mayor) and DCC operationals do we the ratepayers have to put up with before a major cleanout gives us a chance for honesty, integrity, truth, and rationality in management and spending? We are often quoted the mantra “we need to provide such and such a salary and employment package to entice the quality and expertise of the right people”.

    From my experience, all of the PERFORMANCE we have experienced since Mayor Chin took over the DCC could be just as easily achieved by going down to the Milton Hilton on a daily basis and hiring the inmates for whatever price the state required.

    In the case of peer reviews and Delta management, no one could do worse and probably even Michael Swann could have done better.

    At least he would have answered the LOGIMA questions (to avoid scrutiny) and he only stole $16 million. [Against Ratepeyers’ interests] Delta is up to $40 million and counting.

    {Moderated. -Eds}

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    There are two possible reasons for not promptly producing reports and other information Neil requested.
    (1) Modesty. They know their work is thorough and in every way excellent beyond compare but are wary of being seen as conceited by pushing it out where it could be seen by members of the public. They hide their light under a bushel so as to avoid cruelly blinding innocent people.
    (2) Sorry, I can’t think of any other reason.

  5. None of us who pay rates should submit queries to elected officials in the full realisation that we may not get a proper reply!

  6. Elizabeth

    Received from civil engineer Neil Johnstone
    Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 4:06 p.m.

    26 September 2016

    The Ombudsman (contact: Letitia Parry)
    P.O Box 10152
    Wellington 6143

    Dear Sir

    Your reference 430649

    Dunedin City Council Obfuscation re Flood Reviews

    Your letter [below] of 16 August has little relevance to my complaints to your office.

    In short:

    1. In May 2016 I requested from DCC copies of peer reviews of the “mudtank” report that had been stated (to a wide audience) to exist.
    2. As there was no interpretation or research needed by DCC, I had reason to expect a prompt fulfilment of my request.
    3. However, being familiar with DCC modus operandi, I suspected that my request might prove “complicated”, and might be subject to delay. I therefore requested an immediate answer (yes or no) as to whether the review(s) actually existed. DCC ignored this simple question. I also specifically pointed out in writing that I was NOT seeking any reviews that DCC might subsequently commission, and choose to substitute. Complicating the simple, in other words.
    4. Despite this, I received from DCC on July 6, two brand new peer reviews (well, so-called), belatedly commissioned by them from OPUS. Everybody in this process should have known that this is not what I requested.
    5. Then in August, DCC informed me that the original peer review only related to contractor performance. So what?

    I hope that you can now see that my complaint has NOT been addressed, and it is regrettable that your Office did not see fit to talk with me directly.

    I have NOT been provided with what I requested, as should have been obvious to DCC. If the answer to my original question was YES, I should have been provided with a copy of the original peer review there and then.
    If the answer to my original question was NO, then that should have been relayed to me, also there and then, and the misinformation could have been immediately corrected.

    My interest in this matter has been professional and pro bono. Innumerable houses were rendered uninhabitable by flooding at a cost in excess of $140 million. People are still disadvantaged, many without a voice. I note that your motto is Fairness for all.

    I believe that you have received other complaints re DCC’s LGOIMA performance in recent times. Perhaps you will now kindly investigate my complaint more thoroughly than just talking with one party. I appreciate that your Office is likely overwhelmed and understaffed. I can imagine how much of your workload is generated by Local Government across the country failing to meet its legal responsibilities. Many give up in frustration. That is not my style.

    Yours faithfully,

    Neil P. Johnstone
    MIPENZ

    [click to enlarge]
    ombudsmens-office-letter-to-np-johnstone-16-8-16
    ombudsmens-office-letter-to-np-johnstone-16-8-16-1

    • Hype O'Thermia

      REPORT: LETITIA PARRY
      SUBJECT: English
      Spelling: Excellent
      Punctuation: V good
      Comprehension: Fair
      Written composition: Fair. Letitia’s difficulties with comprehension result in well expressed compositions that so outstandingly fail to address the topic given that we cannot give her a pass mark. She needs to read the questions carefully, making sure she understands what is being asked, before beginning to compose her answer. If she does not overcome her impatience to get her answers written, and acquire the habit of ascertaining precisely what information is sought, she will struggle at high school.

      M Dalziel,
      St Trinian’s Intermediate for the Daughters of Gentlefollk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s