The Dunedin City Council OWNS the Carisbrook Stadium Trust files, note.
Received from Bev Butler
Mon, 8 May 2017 at 1:40 p.m.
Subject: Complaint Dunedin City Council/storage of stadium documents
Message: Attached is the letter from the Ombudsman Office. I have sent a response to the Ombudsman letter.
[screenshot – click to enlarge]
● Download: 0_1-408161-3117439
—
Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.16 Official Information at Dunedin City : Bev Butler maintains pressure
10.7.15 Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
This post is offered in the public interest.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Filed under Baloney, Business, CST, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Hot air, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, SFO, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty
Tagged as Agency, Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, Carisbrook Stadium Trust, Complaint, Contracts, Council agents, CSCT, CST, DCC, DCC GM Corporate Services, DCC GM Strategy and Governance, Deliberately LOST files, Document security, Documents, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, DVML, File storage, Forensic audit, Forensics, fubar stadium, Invoices, LGOIMA, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Malcolm Farry, New Zealand, Ombudsman, Otago Stadium, Public Records Act, Secure storage, Security, Stadiums
What if? Dunedin... 
The dead man removed them on his own in 152+ cars, he drove himself.
I would hate to be the directors of ‘Roslyn Storage’ (see below re Dramble Ltd) – the wolves are bearing down on why they would be storing DCC-owned files for free and not providing DCC with the reference to where the files are presently stored and available for issue to what should be forensic examination.
The date the files were moved to Roslyn Storage does not matter – the Ombudsman if not the DCC is getting hitched on irrelevant (slow-down) detail.
Roslyn Storage has changed its name.
We’re now looking at the registered company DRAMBLE LIMITED.
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/2361529
Previous names:
ROSLYN STORAGE LIMITED (from 22 Sep 2011 to 31 Mar 2017)
MILL STORAGE LIMITED (from 15 Dec 2009 to 22 Sep 2011)
Dramble’s registered office is Deloitte, at Otago House.
The 3 company directors are:
Warren Ross GAMBLE – 33 Doon Street, Vauxhall, Dunedin 9013
Appointment Date: 15 Dec 2009
Trevor Donald SCOTT – 557 Mount Barker Road, Rd 2, Wanaka 9382
Appointment Date: 15 Dec 2009
Stuart Douglas WALKER – 26 Martin Road, Fairfield, Dunedin 9018
Appointment Date: 15 Dec 2009
—
Fri, 31 Mar 2017
ODT: Aust firm buys Roslyn Storage
Australian storage business National Storage REIT has further expanded into Dunedin by buying family-owned Roslyn Storage Ltd.
Roslyn Storage chairman Trevor Scott said the move was a positive one for Dunedin given the Australasian entity has been expanding across Australia and New Zealand. It was pleased to be able to make continued use of the Roslyn Woollen Mill building.
“Now is the time for a growing storage provider to use its economy of scale to further develop and take it to the next level.”
National Storage already operates facilities in Kaikorai Valley and Northeast Valley and has a presence in Christchurch, Wellington and Hamilton.
“This acquisition continues our expansion into New Zealand, driving efficiencies across our operational platform,” National Storage REIT managing director Andrew Catsoulis said.
To make a public moving statement, hire DIDHAMS. At least, they moved the upset and forlorn in the 1970s. Didhams.
In other news, nobody at DCC or DVML is friends with Guy H in Australia, it appears from the reports above.
Been a while since we tracked his moves by Facebook.
*Hedderwick
9.6.14 (post) DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
—
Information received is that the CST person responsible for depositing the files in Roslyn Storage was a woman. We have a missing woman case, in Melbourne or…. ‘Australia’. Or is that NZ. All up DCC’s not trying very hard to check or forward the names of personnel associated with CST/early DVML.
Keeping up with the Joneses, you reckon?
Let’s say DCC knows more than it’s telling meanwhile the Joneses.
Isn’t there something odd about a big organisation – not a disorganised part-time alcoholic plumber with relationship issues – storing records that are presumably important enough to put into secure storage, but not knowing where they are or what records were included in the ones somebody yeah one of the Trevs who drinks at the Crown, or was it the Commercial, or Tipplers, bloody good joker, used to drive a Pajero….. Blew the motor up a couple of months before he went over to Oz. Anyway he knew the joker with the lockup, No, sorry, used to have his email but one of the boys downloaded some stuff with viruses in it. Yeah anyway, nice talking to you, gotta go, it’s 10 past beer o’clock already, I’ll get the girl who does the accounts to text you if it turns up, OK?
Hey, isn’t the council and the Ombudsman dancing on a pin here? Making the issue the timing of when the documents went into storage is nothing but a go slow tactic to bury the issue. The fact of the matter is that Malcolm Farry as CEO of the CST is at the end of the day responsible for all documents of the CST’s affairs and it is he who should be got at. He should be taken to court and an order sought to compel him to produce any document to substantiate the legitimacy of the CST’s activities. It is of importance to the council and the people that this be done, and the matters clarified once and for all. It is of no consequence where these documents are, whether they are paid for or not. The essence is show us, so we can determine the correctness of them all.
—
{Moderated. -Eds}
As an alcoholic plumber with relationship issues, I wish to advise hypo that my papers are all in order my PAYE and GST paid on time and I am insured against climate change, global warming and my South Dunedin floor only being three feet above the high water mark. I have answered every LOGIMA request on time in time and about time. In some matters I reserve the right to consult my spin doctor and my lawyers, Anderson, Lloyd, Jeavons and co have been consulted at every occasion necessary in the last 40 years.
I have spent all of the budget on cars, stolen and purchased and thanks to the council for acting as a provider of stolen goods.
Despite continuous calls to fix sewage lines, waste water and wash water problems I have steadfastly worked on cycleways, fripperies and holidays in China.
What more can a house fixit man do?
One would assume that the seven year individual transaction level document retention rule applies as per the usual IRD requirement. Thus, if one has secrets to keep, one only has to stiff-arm (with help) for this period before the shredders can run and finally eliminate the potential security issue. Given the 2007-2011 time period that appears to be of interest, those shredders could be nearly ready to go – that is if they are not going already.
All this shows that the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust still exists – which is quite remarkable given that its single raison d’etre disappeared years ago. It is still registered as a charity with the same names as trustees. As of this year’s return its stated purpose is:
“The Trust was established to design and construct a high quality multipurpose sporting, community and cultural venue for the benefit of the public of the Region and to provide continuing support for the operation and maintenance of the same.”
Its income and expenditures as recorded on its annual returns make for interesting reading:
Year Income Expenditure
2012 $11,810,252 $11,876,169
2013 $261,216 $366,150
2014 $200,321 $204,815
2015 $200,405 $204,422
2016 $200,453 $206,405
At the end of 2012 as its stated purpose ended with the handover of the FB Stadium and its ‘quiet’ period began, the Trust had equity of $124,729. At the end of 2016 equity stood at $5,342
Last year seems reasonably representative of its four year quiet period. Over the year it employed only one volunteer for one hour each week (is this the legal minimum?). Its revenue consisted of EXACTLY $200,000 described as “Donations, fundraising and other similar revenue”, plus a few hundred in investment income (Is this EXACT $200,000 a single transaction?).
In the same period its expenses consisted of EXACTLY $200,000 described as “Grants and donations made”, plus about $5,400 described as ‘other expenses (Is this EXACT $200,000 a single transaction?)
These figures raise some interesting questions, such as who/what are the ultimate sources and eventual recipients of of these remarkably exactly similar quantities of funds that are flowing through the apparently moribund and purposeless corpus of the CSCT during 2016? The sources, nature and motivation of the substantial and continuing revenue/donations stream are particularly intriguing. In this regard the CSCT and their anonymous single one hour per week volunteer seem to be doing better than they did when they were fully staffed and ‘in action’ so to speak. If the destinations are (is?) not directly FB related, then surely they fall outside the stated purpose of the charity?
Why is this charity still operating, given that the opportunity existed four years ago to wind it up and distribute its $100,000 plus of equity to a related charitable destination as required by law upon the winding up of such a charity?
However, it is only proper to suppose that all this ongoing low level activity within the CSCT is for a good cause, and surely as a charity the CSCT will therefore be delighted to reveal to us the sources and recipients of these charitable funds that are now, after four years, accumulating towards seven figures, and all of the good things that have been done with it.
I therefore cordially invite them to enlighten us all, and to take this desirable opportunity up sooner rather than later. I am sure that the ODT would be very happy to spread the word by a feelgood story based on the information thus provided. They may even be keen enough to contact the CSCT directly for the story.
For the ODT’s convenience, the surprisingly un-donor/recipient friendly contact details given on the Charity’s return are:
Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust C/- AJ MCKENZIE & CO LTD, 265 Princes Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016, Phone: N/A, Fax N/A, Email: admin @ajmck.co.nz.
A careful web search today revealed no other web presence or active contact details for the charity – sorry.
If, strangely, they are not prepared to enlighten us….well….these are questions that might be relevant to parties who are empowered to require an answer from them. The Charities Commission, for instance – and maybe the IRD too, given the tax exemptions enjoyed by registered charities and those who donate to them.
Is there a limit to the amount that can be donated to a charity >> deduction from donor’s tax payable?
Totally unrelated, another tax question that someone might be able to answer for me. Are grants / donations from a charity counted as income (taxable) for the recipient?
I don’t know, but if you were a ‘Mr. Big’ on the top rate of tax (let’s say 30%). Then if you pay $100,000 (let’s say that’s the ceiling) into a charity that you own/control and describe it as a donation, then if that donation is fully tax deductible, you should be able to claim 30% of that back ($30,000). If the charity then paid you the full $100,000 back as a grant or by some other indirect means, then that would leave you with $130,000.
Were any such arrangement to be revealed in any charitable or personal context then it ought to be dealt with exceptionally severely as it is not an example of tax evasion/avoidance, but a direct theft of public money via the refund – $30,000 in this hypothetical example.
Having a group of connected captive charities and controlling individuals might well facilitate any such activity, as ‘donations’ and ‘grants’ could be cross-paid around the ring. The current level of reporting required in a charity return would make such activity undetectable, unless the charity in question is subsequently audited aggressively and the funds fully traced to original sources and final end users via individual transactions.
For this reason, among others, ‘shell’ charities that have significant funds flowing though them, but no apparent charitable activity footprint in the form of significant internal activity or external activities with demonstrable recipients/outcomes and usable external contacts should be of active interest to the authorities – who are the only players with the capacity to forcibly extract the necessary documentation from what appear to be in many cases wholly private and ‘closed’ entities.
Were groups of shell charities to be discovered with a significant level of commonality of owners/trustees, then that interest should be intensified. Were large exactly matched lumps of cash moving in and out of these shell entities in their reported returns, then that interest should be heightened yet further. However, it’s hard to believe that any ‘Mr. Big’ who might be getting up to such things would be so careless/arrogant/confident as to make it that bleedin’ obvious.
However, regardless of how bleedin’ obvious it is, is all that ever likely to happen? – Ask the CTV/Pike River families.
Reading through this and there seems to be a remedy for the future, if not necessarily accountability for the past.
Here: https://www.charities.govt.nz/new-reporting-standards/new-statutory-audit-and-review-requirements/
Quoting: ‘What if our rules say we need an audit, but we’re below the statutory audit and review threshold?
Registered Charities with total operating expenditure of less than $500,000 are not required by law to have an audit or review. However, you may be required by your rules (e.g. trust deed, constitution, or charter) or as a condition of receiving a grant to have your financial statements audited or reviewed. These charities may choose who performs the audit; it does not need to be a qualified auditor unless stated in your rules. (ends)
What if the DCC decided to only do business of any kind in future with Registered Charities (Charitable Trusts) which were required by their rules to have their financial statements audited or reviewed to stringent standards? As you would expect to be fitting for a Registered Charity (or Charitable Trust) which might be receiving money from Council. A suitably transparent provision. Maybe this is something I could add to my growing list of things to remember for next year’s DCC Long Term Plan submission.
(I assume the above did not happen in the case of the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust. Don’t know about any other trusts the DCC might have been doing business with more recently.)
—
{Where is this going. Suggest some gardening or collecting of firewood and pine cones on a nice autumn day. I won’t be clearing any further Comments until 9:00 pm tonight. Some of us have to work – not rattle round the blog by smartphone all day. -Eds}
Quite agree with you Diane. The council needs to start with the $10,000 handouts they give to community boards annually. No accountability of how or who gets it. Mosgiel Taieri were a good example where board members went about starting groups, and then allocating the funds to them. Probably took a lead from the CST.
Thank you Rob. I’d never have guessed that such jiggery-pokery was (potentially) such a doddle.
Limpness of the authorities even when alerted that there’s “something nasty in the woodshed” virtually invites this kind of activity.
The only restraint appears to be honesty – good character – which is like common sense, not 100% common.
Here is the relevant passage from the Charity Commission’s own legal guide, available here:
https://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Resources/Charity-Law-in-New-Zealand.pdf (p 74):
“In New Zealand, most entities registered with Charities Services as having exclusively charitable purposes also have “donee status”, which is granted by Inland Revenue. This means that if a person or a corporation makes a gift to such an organisation, they can claim a tax credit for their donation.
It is a common misconception that only gifts to charities qualify for tax relief.
However, “donee status” can be given by Inland Revenue to any entity that is not carried on for the private pecuniary profit of an individual, and whose funds are applied wholly or mainly to charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes within New Zealand. A not-for-profit organisation that does not have exclusively charitable purposes could therefore apply for and receive donee status. Nevertheless, most organisations that are now listed on the Inland Revenue website are organisations that have been registered by the New Zealand Charities Registration Board, although not all charities registered by that Board are on the donee status list. 33
However, such privilege is mainly available to charitable organisations and not to other not-for-profit organisations. This is an important privilege, because not only does the Government not charge any income tax on the revenue generated by the organisation, it also allows a tax credit on donations, up to 33%. This represents a huge contribution from the Government to charitable organisations.”
So there you have it. More loopholes than Queen Victoria’s petticoats.
There is no reason why a court action can’t put the files into discovery.
{This comment was made in reply to one made by Calvin which unfortunately has been pulled after advice received (21.5.17). -Eds}
Rob has clearly pointed out the possibilities of what is/has been going on. We all know just how much the City has been manipulated by the few exalted beings and how much Dunedin is in unnecessary debt by their cynical and selfish attitudes and actions. In the meantime the exalted beings wander round their distant mansions in Qtown and Wanaka – far from the damage they have wreaked on their home towns. The probability of course is that Dave and his colleagues are still in the dark. But they would never want to admit that would they?
—
{Moderated. DCC is leaning hard on strong opinion at this website just now. -Eds}
“DCC is leaning hard on this website just now.” Local version of lacking strong (or any?) basis for claiming untruths have been published.
“Is that a “gotcha” I see before me?” (Macbheath’s catch phrase from the Edinburgh of the South play by ShakesBrecht)
I think an underground or overseas domain is required – since one person defending strong opinion against “OPM” is not terribly much fun.
If parties tried their damnedest to be fully transparent and accountable then no one would be inspired to comment on blogs (plural).
Free speech is virtually dead because not enough people are prepared to fight.
But. Just when everybody thought “someone” had won out over a blog…. the old broken wing trick kicked in at Wif. Some months ago now – a companion ‘independent’ voice has been in play. It’ll surface when it’s ready – right now it enjoys exclusivity and gets a power of work done. Social media takes many forms.
—
About phones and such….
Who you gonna call ?
Transparency International’s NZ chapter. Of course.
As things stand, any public body can simply say the information doesn’t exist as reasonable efforts have been made to find that information.
So easy. That is if they are not made to be forthcoming with HOW they have tried to find that information to the person seeking the information.
Clearly not good enough or transparent.
If this is allowed by the Ombudsman, their existence becomes pointless. Any bureaucrat can come up with that one. The public body is let off the hook.
This business with the storage and retrieval of CST documents has gone on long enough.
The Ombudsman must assert itself.
The public must have faith in the Ombudsman’s Office.
—
{Moderated. -Eds}