Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses

Dunedin City Council released the following report through the LGOIMA process, in reply to Bev Butler who lodged an information request.

The report by independent auditors Crowe Horwath investigates the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager, then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick.

Download: Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

NOTE: The report is not the result of a forensic audit, which should now take place to provide clarification for Mr Hedderwick and his manager.

QUESTION: Why is Dunedin City Council not seeking requirement for a forensic audit?

—

Related Post and Comments:
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)

Updated post 17.6.14

Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

Dunedin City Council has released a report recently completed by independent auditors Crowe Horwath, into the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick. ODT reporter Chris Morris is covering the story.

—

[Received]

Readers of this site will recall the efforts that campaigner Bev Butler went through to track down the expenditure incurred by Guy Hedderwick while he was the Commercial Manager for Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

After much effort through the LGOIMA process Ms Butler was told that Mr Hedderwick had run up bills of nearly $80,000 during 51 work-related trips since 2010.  

Readers will also recall the reaction by Neville Frost, DVML’s Finance Manager (ODT 22.3.14), who labelled Ms Butler’s claims of this expenditure as “completely inaccurate and ill-informed” while accusing her of “disgraceful” conduct and that she was “lacking in personal integrity”.  

Readers should now be fully informed that the figure of nearly $80,000 was indeed incorrect. The figure arrived at in the report compiled by Crowe Horwath is $144,879 – the amount released by Mr Frost in response to Ms Butler’s LGOIMA request has nearly doubled.

Readers should also be informed that the report found there was almost $4,000 spent by Mr Hedderwick with no evidence of what it was spent on; and a total of over $34,000 with no evidence of any approval.  

City ratepayers now need real answers to some basic questions.

1. Why, when Neville Frost was required to provide accurate information under an LGOIMA request on Guy Hedderwick’s expenditure, did he provide information that was inaccurate and misleading? Readers should not need to be reminded that when Steve Prescott, Manager of Aquatic Facilities at the DCC, did just this recently he resigned.  

2. Now that the full extent of Guy Hedderwick’s spending has been revealed by the Crowe Horwath report, can DVML still maintain as Neville Frost did in his press release, that it was “frugal”?  

3. What is DVML doing to obtain refunds from Guy Hedderwick on those sums incurred where there was no approval, or where there was no evidence of what the expenditure was for? For expenditure where there was no approval, is Neville Frost or Darren Burden at fault for lack of oversight and lack of management, and if so, should they be also responsible for repayment?  

4. What benefit to DVML and the ratepayers occurred from this $144,879 expenditure? Guy Hedderwick seems to have had carte blanche to travel at his own whim and it appears that DVML can’t point to any general or particular benefit from any of it.  

5. What accountability will be enforced by DCC, on behalf of the ratepayers, on the actions of Guy Hedderwick, for Neville Frost’s failure to both financially control this expenditure and to mislead and misinform both Bev Butler as the LGOIMA requestee and the general public by the content of his press release, and on the Board for its failures to contain costs?  

6. A full, comprehensive and public apology must be obtained from Neville Frost for his disgraceful and inaccurate statements made in his press release of March 22, 2014.

Note: Thanks to Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt for these statements.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Councils “in schtook” —finance & policy analyst Larry Mitchell

Received Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:45:37 +1200
Topic ring a bell? We are using DCC and Kaipara as the salutary case studies.

Larry N. Mitchell
Finance & Policy Analyst (Local Government)
PO Box 404 103, Puhoi 0951, Auckland, New Zealand
Phone: 09 422 0598 Mobile: 027 479 2328
Email: larry@kauriglen.co.nz

Read here or scroll to end of post to download this paper.

Councils “in stchook”
… their debt is way too high … it matters … so do proper disclosures

Dealing as I do, with matters of New Zealand Council finances, the one area that produces most comment, sometimes heated debate, is Council debt. Public discussion of Council debt is muddled, an often fractious difference of opinion generating more heat than light.

For example, the most recent (March 2013) Office of the Auditor General’s report of their findings from New Zealand Local Government audits concludes that Councils have their debt levels “within a reasonable range”. Recent New Zealand Local Government Association press releases concur.

Compare these reassuring findings to those of the 2013 NZ LG League Table where the lowest ranked 15% (10 in number) of New Zealand Councils are revealed as exhibiting unfavourable financial sustainability and community affordability issues. Both contradictory positions can’t be right. Unfortunately, the debate over Council debt is complicated by unsatisfactory public reporting-disclosures.

Discussions of Council debt are often compounded by current Council practices. These amount to opaque, imprecise Council debt accounting and “smoke and mirrors” disclosures. It is tempting to suggest that these are deliberate attempts to suppress discussion of Council debt on a “don’t scare the horses” basis.

This is particularly evident for use of the term by Councils of “Internal Borrowing”, a meaningless label, better described as “Robbing Peter”, covering as it does Council treasury management dealings involving a clear misuse (some might say misappropriation) of asset replacement funds.

Add to these sleights of hand a motivation for the more highly indebted Councils to keep their heads down when their debt totals soar, along with a tendency toward misinformation.

Carisbrook sale

### ODT Online Wed, 15 Feb 2012
Sale of Carisbrook poses a million-dollar mystery
By Steve Hepburn
Call it the confusing case of the mystery million. The cash-strapped Otago Rugby Football Union says it received $6 million for the sale of Carisbrook in 2009, and a university academic confirms the sale is listed as $6 million in the union’s books. But the Dunedin City Council, which bought the ground, and two former Otago union officials maintain the figure was $7 million. The union is battling financial problems, with Jeremy Curragh appointed as change manager, and the New Zealand Rugby Union lending it money to keep operations going.

University of Otago professor of accounting David Lont confirmed, after looking at the union’s annual report, the sale of Carisbrook was listed as a $6 million transaction. If indeed $7 million was the sale price, it was not recognised in the initial accounts or subsequent accounts, he said.

Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr