Audit NZ making up for previous huge inadequacies over DCC books ?

LONG PROVEN:
Audit NZ as CAVALIER, INCOMPETENT and CORRUPT as DCC with regards to stewardship and protection of Ratepayer Funds —in particular, Harland era to the present

—

### ODT Online Fri, 20 Feb 2015
DCC censured by Audit NZ
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council been criticised by Audit New Zealand after “significantly” underperforming in the delivery of last year’s annual report. The rebuke came in Audit NZ’s annual audit report, which said the council had missed deadlines to deliver last year’s annual report to Audit NZ by “a significant margin”. The quality of the council’s annual report was also “clearly below an appropriate standard”, and internal quality review processes appeared to be lacking, Audit NZ said.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Tony Avery is “somebody’s” pet #gigatown lapdog

Infrastructure and Networks General Manager Tony Avery resigned from Dunedin City Council on 28 August 2014, falling on his sword as a result of the Citifleet/Citipark fraud —something, the Council conveniently brushes under its carpet with ALL BLAME politically attaching (for insurance purposes) to the deceased former Citifleet manager Brent Bachop. Other council staff were clearly involved; one person alone does not dispose of 152+ cars, and related council assets. So Mr Avery, WENT…. But not really.
With all the scandal and corruption appearing, the Council supportively, extended “help” and salary repeatedly to Mr Avery, after initial news that he would work through to Christmas. Then, on Saturday 31 January the Council revealed that: “He would continue working fulltime, assisting [Ruth] Stokes and helping with the transition on key projects, until March 31, [Sue] Bidrose said.” (ODT 1.2.15).

But the latest DCC blinder:

“Tony Avery’s new gig (pun intended)
Helping Gigatown Dunedin secure sources of funding…”

Updated post 16.4.16
15.5.15 ODT: City readies to take advantage of Gigatown
Last month, [the Digital Community Trust] employed former Dunedin City Council infrastructure and networks general manager Tony Avery as interim project manager.

DCC Pets. Pet Projects. NO COUNCIL SHAME.
How do we define corruption, again.

—

Related Post and Comments:
12.1.15 Traffic lights: Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street intersection
29.12.14 DCC gets QLDC talent…. the weft and warp deviously weaves
6.11.14 DCC pals up with Chorus —gigatown and telecoms cabinets
9.10.14 DCC’s Daaave at university bollard, in his twilight
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
22.5.14 DCC Transportation Planning —ANOTHER consultation disaster
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass
29.10.13 DCC (EDU) invents new job! —Gigatown/Digital Office
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *sh88*, *anzide*, *cycle*, *parking* or *riccarton* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Tony Avery tweaked by whatifdunedin

Stuff: Dunedin council CEO won’t resign

Latest at Southland Times by Wilma McCorkindale:
03/09/2014 at 17:03

Dr Sue Bidrose said she would not follow two of her general managers out the door in the wake of the $1.5 million alleged fraud investigation.

█ http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/10456244/Dunedin-council-CEO-won-t-resign

—

We all know it was never a question.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Fraud: Further official information in reply to Cr Vandervis

Following on from the previous post.
DCC has established an Investigation Steering Group (membership unknown).

—

Received from Cr Lee Vandervis
Mon, 1 Sep 2014 at 9:51 p.m.

[begins]

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2014 11:09 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: Re: 8 x LGOIMA requests

Hi Sandy,

Thank you for responding so rapidly on the 8 questions.

To clarify, have the DCC asked for the SFO to investigate the Citifleet frauds and when, or has the SFO only been briefed indirectly by Deloittes as in answer 7?

Also, are your responses public or confidential?

Cheers,
Lee

——————————

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:08:40 +1200
To: Lee Vandervis
Subject: RE: 8 x LGOIMA requests

Dear Lee

I have followed up your question of clarification about the SFO and can provide the following response:
Under the circumstances of a suspected fraud (as per the Citifleet situation at the beginning of the investigation), the normal course of events is that the SFO is informed of issues when they arise. Deloitte did this via a phone-call to the SFO on 12 June 2014, after a discussion with DCC staff at a meeting of the Investigation Steering Group. The steering group were fully aware of the fact that Deloitte was speaking with the SFO and were informed of the outcome of the call. The call to the SFO was us asking the SFO to consider an investigation.

The discussion on 12 June 2014 (which was with a case officer and with Nick Paterson, the GM Fraud and Corruption) summarised the facts and circumstances of the Citifleet issues and sought the view of the SFO.
It is then the SFO’s decision as to whether they commence their own investigation. This is based on the criteria set out on their website (copied below)

● There are multiple victims (usually investors) of the suspected fraud

● The sum of money lost exceeds $2,000,000

● The alleged criminal transactions have significant legal or financial complexity beyond the resources of most other law enforcement agencies.

In the case of bribery or corruption matters, we focus on crimes involving public officials, which could undermine public confidence in the administration of laws

Based primarily on the fact that the main suspect was deceased and that the actions appeared to be those of one corrupt individual rather than fitting within the definition of bribery and corruption, the GM Fraud and Corruption decided that the best course of action was for Deloitte to complete its investigation and provide a copy of the report at the conclusion of its work. During the investigation and with permission from DCC, Deloitte provided an update on the investigation to SFO on 07 July 2014 via letter. A copy of the full report was provided on 21 August 2014. We have heard nothing back from the SFO to date.

As to confidentiality, these OIA replies are all able to be made public and as such they will be published on the website and I will be providing a copy of the information to all Councillors.

Regards
Sandy [Group Manager Corporate Services, DCC]
—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

Note: The auditors that Dunedin City Council has contracted to investigate fraud carry the name Deloitte New Zealand, or simply Deloitte. Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.14 DCC Fraud: Cr Vandervis states urgent need for facts…
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
27.8.14 DCC whitewash on serious fraud, steals democracy from citizens
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
3.7.14 Stuff: Alleged vehicle fraud at DCC
1.7.14 DCC: Far-reaching fraud investigation Citifleet
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.5.14 DCC $tar-ship enterprise
28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
7.2.12 DCC ‘money go round’ embedded

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Fraud: Cr Vandervis states urgent need for facts and the record to be made public

The following correspondence is reproduced in the public interest.

—

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sat, 30 Aug 2014 at 11:30 a.m.

Message: You may be interested in the following email trail, which I believe highlights a serious impediment to the cleansing process which is taking far too long at the DCC.
I am happy for you to publish.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

[begins]

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:36:35 +1200
To: Dave Cull
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins
Conversation: Recent events
Subject: Re: Recent events

Dear Mayor Cull.

Denial is not just a large river in Egypt.
You confirm the urgent need for facts and the record to be made public.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

——————————

On 29/08/14 2:41 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee,
I do not believe that many of your claims below are borne out by the record or the facts and stand by my comments.

Dave

Sent from my iPad

——————————

[conversion code deleted from body text, punctuation restored -Eds]

On 29/08/2014, at 11:16 AM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:

Dear Mayor Cull,

I believe that you have been long aware of my efforts to have Mr Bachop’s and other DCC departments investigated for the kinds of inappropriateness currently evident in Citifleet.
In particular you now know having read the Deloitte report, [and I believe have long known] that I have been calling for and instigated my own investigations into Citifleet vehicle disposals and contracting arrangements since at least 2011. I have been responding politically, then and since, to many business and individual requests and questions from, for example Turner’s Auctions, regarding Citifleet. Answers to many of my questions have been denied or not forthcoming, and the public right to know has been consequently frustrated. Your public claim that CEO Orders began the current investigative and restructuring process [by starting with DCHL?!] does not align with information I have, or with information and requests for investigation that I made to CEO Orders many years ago.

My understanding is that the Police were not moved to investigate Citifleet when contacted by the DCC over 3 months ago, even when the evidence was so tragically overwhelming that Deloittes were contracted by CEO Bidrose [costing us $200,000] to investigate. I am not convinced that Police requests for a further unspecified number of months of ‘no public comment’ is in the public interest, and my discussion with the Crown Solicitor was also unconvincing on this point.
You say below that ‘the investigation is not a process which you as a Councillor (or I) in our governance roles have a right to’, yet you have the right and have read the Deloitte Citifleet Investigation Report and made numerous public comments, and I have been denied seeing it even on a ‘grey papers’ basis and am being muzzled. Your ‘operational only’ claim is generally questionable and in this case fails on all counts.
We will never know all the facts, especially if the withholding of the Deloitte report and more public muzzling continues.
In one of your media statements you say that Council have agreed not to comment until the Police have completed their belated investigation, but this is not true. Councillors have not been given the opportunity to even discuss a further number of months of no comment on Citifleet, leave alone agreed not to comment. I have certainly not agreed and do not agree.

Thank you for acknowledging my long standing demands that DCC ‘heads should roll’. My long political experience is that timely public disclosure will be necessary to ensure that the appropriate heads are dispatched, and that an embedded DCC culture of self-entitlement across many departments is permanently erased.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

——————————

On 28/08/14 5:30 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee,
The investigation that the CEO has contracted Deloittes to conduct into Citifleet is an operational matter involving, among other things, employment and potentially criminal issues. From the outset the Police, Serious Fraud Office, and Dept of Internal Affairs have been kept informed.

The investigation and subsequent internal reviews were instigated within DCC.
However the investigation is not a process which you as a Councillor (or I) in our governance roles have a right to, or responsibility for, interfering in or giving direction on, except as part of a whole of Council directive.

The investigation included the question of whether the problems uncovered at Citifleet had been the subject of previous allegations or questions, and if so, whether those had been responded to appropriately by management, including CEOs. Deloittes will report back on that.

The request not to release the report and the consequential request not to comment came not from the CEO (or me) but from Police and the Crown Prosecutor. Indeed both the CEO and I feel frustrated and disappointed as you do, that the report, which was completed only a week or so ago, must now sit under wraps for a further period.

However it is important that nothing jeopardises the ability of the CEO and police to hold people to account. You often demand that ‘heads should roll’
Your claims and demands, without knowledge of the investigation findings, could do just that: put the aims of the investigation to hold people accountable at risk.

I am not suggesting Councillors do not have the right to ask questions or make requests. What we do not have a right to do is step outside our governance roles, interfere with legitimate operational matters particularly without knowing all the facts, and unilaterally jeopardize Council and ratepayer interests. If we do we should be fully held to account for that.

Dave

Dave Cull
Mayor of Dunedin
—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

Note: The auditors that Dunedin City Council has contracted to investigate fraud carry the name Deloitte New Zealand, or simply Deloitte. Link

—

Related Post and Comments:
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
27.8.14 DCC whitewash on serious fraud, steals democracy from citizens
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
3.7.14 Stuff: Alleged vehicle fraud at DCC
1.7.14 DCC: Far-reaching fraud investigation Citifleet
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.5.14 DCC $tar-ship enterprise
28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
7.2.12 DCC ‘money go round’ embedded

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: leevandervis.wordpress.com

DCC: Tony Avery resigns

Council chief executive Sue Bidrose said in the statement she had “immense respect for the honourable action Tony has taken”.

### ODT Online Thu, 28 Aug 2014
Top DCC boss Tony Avery quits over Citifleet scandal
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council’s alleged Citifleet fraud has claimed another victim with the shock resignation of infrastructure and networks general manager Tony Avery. Mr Avery announced his decision to quit the council in a media statement this afternoon, saying he accepted “the management buck stops with me”. That was despite not being aware of, or involved in, the alleged fraud, or receiving information that alerted him to it, he said. Read more [comments closed, again]

● Today’s cosy news is an ODT/Ch39 exclusive – no other News Media given scoop. Tomorrow’s ODT will feature an exclusive interview with Mr Avery who says ‘he has done nothing wrong’ but he has ‘some strong things to say’ !! (ODT interview given prior to his statement, we hear)

● (Ian Telfer) RNZ News
Council manager resigns over fleet – DCC staff told this afternoon. ‘In a statement, Mr Avery said he was not involved with and did not know about the fraud, but relied on internal financial controls which let him down.’ Link (subtle dig at former CFO ?)

● (Wilma McCorkindale) Stuff via Southland Times
Dunedin council manager resigns amid fraud probe – ‘Avery, with the council since 2000, has fallen on his sword in the wake of revelation the DCC has been the victim of an alleged sizeable employee fraud within its Citifleet unit, which manages the council’s vehicle fleet.’ ‘An investigation by Deloitte was “very clear” there was nothing to indicate Avery was aware of the alleged fraud. Bidrose stressed Avery was not one of the DCC staff currently involved in employment processes resulting from the suspected activity.’ Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
█ The site owner reserves the right to take down or abridge any comment.

*Image: Tony Avery tweaked by whatifdunedin

Stadium: Jeff Dickie on costs

Received from Jeff Dickie
Wednesday, 7 May 2014 11:15 a.m.

Subject: my rejected odt response

DCC’s CEO Sue Bidrose’s response to my stadium costs queries (ODT 15.3.14) are very disturbing. However, I have some sympathy for her as I know from personal experience, former CEO Paul Orders had huge difficulty finding such figures, due to a DCC culture of obfuscation. He did however identify $42M that the audit missed. How much did the audit cost? Why was such a huge amount missed?

Even if we accept Bidrose’s figures of $146M stadium debt, and $9.15M annual cost, which I don’t, the figures don’t add up. Just the interest on $146M, at say 6%, is $8.76M pa. For capital repayment over the 18.5 years the annual figure will be about the same again. Say together $17M pa. Add to this the stadium rates rebate now subsidised by general ratepayers to over $1M pa. That’s $18M. Add to this several more million dollars pa for propping up DVML and you are well over $20M pa!

Remember there was no $45M Private Funding or $10M from Otago University as promised. Apart from the three contributors below, everything is debt funded.

The DCC’s own stadium cost figure is $266M. Deduct $37.5M from ORC, less $7M Otago Community Trust, less $15M from the Government. I make that $206.5M, not Bidrose’s $146M. Funding $206.5M at 6% costs $12.39M pa just for interest, without any capital repayment. Say $25M pa for interest and capital. Add to this the huge annual DVML cost and the scale of the deception becomes apparent.

In summary, my figures point to well over double the official annual cost and around $60M more in stadium debt. In my opinion, neither the mayor, the CEO, or anyone else in the DCC has a clue what the real figures are. Now that’s worrying!

Jeff Dickie
Woodhaugh

[ends]

—

ODT 15.3.14 (page 34) from previous post [click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates

Comment received. See previous post.

DScene’s article today seems to have missed most points.
Feel free to use any of this email.

Cheers,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:26:37 +1300
To: Wilma McCorkindale , EditorDscene
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: FW: Carisbrook offers.

Hi Wilma and Mike,

I have sent and resent this email as below, and still have no response.
The 15 questions I had of the original deficient and leading Carisbrook Property report have been deleted below because they quote extensively from a non-public report.
What has been made public is the original report claim by DCC staff that ratepayers would only lose $100,000 on the proposed deal. This appalling untruth was ‘corrected’ as a result of my questioning of the report in a new set of figures so that we now know that the deal will result in losses of many millions. Just how many millions remains to be seen, and also depends on whether all the costs associated with purchasing Carisbrook and bailing out the ORFU are included.
I sent Bev Butler’s summation of losses as reported to staff for comment [as below] but have had no response to that either.

Councillors have a history of making bad enough decisions without staff giving them false figures and misleading reports on which to make decisions.
Strong evidence of other agendas and insupportable spin in much of our paperwork [the attempted Crematorium sale, and the Citibus sale were memorable examples] worsen a climate of distrust at the DCC and make reading masses of paperwork an exhausting suspicion-laden process.
Significant staff re-structuring is necessary if we are to change what has been a too long established culture of the DCC bureaucratic tail wagging the elected dog.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:55:28 +1300
To: Mayor Cull
Cc: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: Re: Carisbrook offers.

Resent 27/02/13.

On 22/02/13 2:33 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:

Dear Dave,

My extreme disappointment in staff misrepresentation of the Carisbrook offers [see initial questions asked of original leading report below] continues with the daily dissemination of apparently motion 4 “That the CE be authorized to work with the purchaser on a suitable media statement.”

In particular, your statement reported in the DScene that “There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned its a sale” is not factual. At best this agreement is for an option on Carisbrook in favour of Calder Stewart.
An option is very far from a sale.
You go on to add that “Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that”. In fact this option agreement is different from most sales of property in that the purchaser does not have to put up any money, has no obligations and effectively is given 4 months to carry out an on-sale process which ratepayers have already paid [City Property] in the first instance, and Colliers Realtors subsequently to undertake. The 4 month due diligence period with no cash or obligation on the part of the option-holder is very unusual, especially when I have subsequently been advised that Calder Stewart were recently chased for this deal and had not even got round to viewing the property prior. After so many years why the sudden rush?

I have posed many Carisbrook proposal questions, some of which remain unanswered.
In particular, I still do not know if Murrayfield St is part of the Calder Stewart option, despite twice asking Robert [Clark].
I have had no explanation for the nature of the $200,000 value accruing to ratepayers from a rapid 6 month demolition, especially given the years of sales process procrastination.
I do not know whether all Carisbrook holding costs have been fully detailed – eg costs of valuations [I believe there have now been 3 of these] marketing costs etc.
I am still waiting to see all the valuations which ratepayers have paid for, for Carisbrook.

To date I have refrained from correcting public misrepresentations of the Carisbrook offer process, but continuing misrepresentation not only deceives the public but makes me complicit in this deception.
In my opinion immediate public release of all related documents is now necessary, given that most of it has been leaked anyway.
If this is not to happen, I feel duty bound to ratepayers to make correcting public statements and to explain my apparent inaction regarding this unfortunate spawn of misrepresentation.

Looking forward to any suggestions you may have.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:06:17 +1300
To: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook sale?
Subject: Carisbrook sale?

Hi Guys,

Have you all seen this on What If, and can you dispute any of the figures?

Cheers,
Lee

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 8:43 am
The Mayor seems confused over the $2m loan.
Maybe the figures below may clear things up.
They are as close as I can get based on the information in the media – there may be some slight discrepancies give or take a few hundred thousand.

Costs to DCC ratepayers for ORFU loan and Carisbrook
$2m loan to ORFU
$7m purchase of Carisbrook
$860,000 debt servicing, rates, electricity
$480,000 ORFU rent that was never paid to DCC and DVML (includes unpaid bill for ORFU booze up)
$250,000 contamination cleanup of carpark
$60,000 undisclosed?
TOTAL: $10,650,000 cost/debt

Payments received to date
$2m loan repayment
$727,000 sale of half carpark
$692,000 sale of houses
TOTAL: $3,419,000

TOTAL LOSS TO DATE: $7,231,000

It has been reported that a conditional agreement exists for Calder Stewart to buy Carisbrook for $3.3m. It has also been reported that the DCC will be involved in the development and that more money will be required by DCC.
Until details of the conditional agreement are released the public will not know how much of the $3.3m the DCC will eventually receive.

The minimum loss on Carisbrook is already over $4m but potentially may end up over $7m!

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 10:42 am
Four months ago (9/11/12 see link below) it was reported in the ODT that the sale of Carisbrook would cover the $7m+ debt. Robert Clark went further than this claiming they hoped to make a profit. Where things stand at the moment the council has lost over $7m on the ORFU ‘deal’ and depending on how much cash Calder Stewart comes up with the so-called ‘deal’ will not be reduced below a $4m loss. This is why Russell and I have approached the Auditor General’s Office. How can a $7m registered valuation result in a minimum $4m loss and potentially be higher than $7m?

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/233986/hopes-sale-carisbrook
Asked if he [Robert Clark] hoped the sale of Carisbrook, once complete, would cover whatever debt remained, Mr Clark said: “I’m looking to achieve more than that.”

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby

Image: 3news.co.nz

Register to read DScene online at
http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Rant or rave – your say (page 7)
All sport, no balls
DScene (27/2/13) asks: ‘Who will be accountable for ratepayers stumping up $7m to buy Carisbrook when a documented valuation put the historic sports ground’s value at $2.5m?’
The simple answer, according to Mayor Dave Cull, is, ‘no one’.
Dave Cull has no concerns that the later, more upbeat valuation of $7m – designed to eliminate the ORFU’s debt and the burden of owning Carisbrook – was a commercial connivance done, on behalf of the ORFU, by the DCC. Isn’t it the job of the Mayor and his council to protect public money on behalf of all our citizens?
Isn’t it their job not to be cowered by a powerful cabal, protecting its own interests, above those of the whole city? Are we now hostages to threats of causing the financial ruin of Otago rugby, and the stadium, if we don’t provide an open cheque book, ad infinitum?
The council, despite having an observer on the ORFU, and having a continuing role in underwriting the financial future of the ORFU/ stadium, is still not privy to any ‘opening of the books’ by the ORFU, for public scrutiny, under the guise of ‘commercial sensitivity’. We pay up on trust.
It’s about time we all stood up to the council and demanded an end to this ongoing rort. Otherwise we only have ourselves to blame for a deteriorating financial system that ultimately we all pay for through our rates.
I urge Dave Cull and his council to get some testicular fortitude and stand up for us.
Peter Attwooll, City Rise
#bookmark

—

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Questions over Carisbrook (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has demanded satisfaction regarding what he describes as repeatedly unanswered questions surrounding the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis remains livid that figures in a Carisbrook property report to the last council meeting had to be rewritten at the eleventh hour because they were deficient. He said he still had questions around the figures and had submitted them to staff and mayor Dave Cull many times. ‘‘And I haven’t got answers to all of them yet.’’ On top of that Vandervis was concerned about statements Cull was making in the media about the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis disagreed with some of the perceptions Cull was giving. Cull rejected the criticisms. Figures in the Carisbrook report had not been incorrect, rather incomplete, he said.
{continues} #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Cull COVERS UP COUNCIL #massage

National Radio says Dunedin City Council’s debt has increased to $620 million.

@@@@ Actually, the debt is likely to be much higher than this.

Mayor’s shambolic response to botched SH88 realignment:

Asked if heads would roll over the council’s handling of the saga, Mr Cull replied “No”. “I think things in hindsight could have been handled better … Given the circumstances before the World Cup, there was a lot of pressure to get things done in a hurry. A few things slipped, it’s fair to say. At the time, council did not make the best decisions, but they probably made it in good faith, so that is the way it is.” ODT Link

### ch9.co.nz November 22, 2012 – 7:00pm
Nightly interview: Mayor Dave Cull
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull has warned city council cost-cutting will continue next year, as the local authority looks to again cut into the rates increase. He suggested in an opinion piece in the Otago Daily Times debt and economic development were the headline issues. He is here to tell us why.
Video

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Nov 2012
Opinion
Debt reduction, economic development focus
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull lays out what he sees as the challenges facing the city council next year. This year has been a time of challenge and achievement for the Dunedin City Council. Costs and rate rises were substantially contained despite significantly reduced cash-flows. Information flow and public transparency have been enhanced, council confirmed a visionary spatial plan and council company governance has been substantially overhauled and improved.
Read more

—

STANDARD & POOR’S Rating Services
Dunedin City Council
http://www.standardandpoors.com/prot/ratings/entity-ratings/en/us/?entityID=272160&sectorCode=GOVS

S&P Statement:
Outlook On New Zealand’s Dunedin City Council Revised To Negative; Ratings Affirmed At ‘AA/A-1+’
Publication date: 20-Nov-2012 23:07:36 EST
http://www.standardandpoors.com/prot/ratings/articles/en/us/?articleType=HTML&assetID=1245343655677

MELBOURNE (Standard & Poor’s) Nov. 21, 2012–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ said today that it has revised its outlook on New Zealand’s Dunedin City Council (Dunedin) to negative, from stable. At the same time, the ‘AA/A-1+’ issuer credit ratings on Dunedin were affirmed. The outlook on Dunedin City Treasury Ltd. was also revised to negative, and the issuer credit ratings were affirmed at ‘AA/A-1+’.

“The negative outlook reflects our view that there is a one-in-three chance of a downgrade in the coming two years,” said credit analyst Anthony Walker. “This is based on our view that Dunedin may not achieve its financial targets outlined in its Long-Term Plan, with its after-capital account deficits not improving as quickly as forecast. If this scenario were to materialize, we consider that Dunedin would have limited budgetary flexibility to improve its financial position without deferring asset renewals, which may lead to future infrastructure backlogs.”

Further downward pressure could be placed on the ratings depending on the Auditor General’s investigation into the management of Dunedin’s council-controlled trading organization (CCTO)–Delta Utility Services–which may weaken our assessment of Dunedin’s management of CCTOs; or if there was a change in policy direction such as the introduction of a hard rates cap, or a revised capital-expenditure program without an offsetting increase in revenue which would result in Dunedin’s after-capital account deficits not improving as forecast.

“The ratings could be revised to stable if the council’s budgetary performance strengthens as it forecasts, specifically if the council achieves after-capital account deficits of about 2% of consolidated operating revenues in 2014 and beyond, while maintaining its current budgetary flexibility, and a stable political setting,” said Mr. Walker.

Dunedin City Council’s (Dunedin) individual credit profile reflects the predictable and supportive institutional framework available to local and regional councils within New Zealand, plus our very positive view of Dunedin’s financial management, and the council’s modest contingent liabilities. In our view, these strengths are partially offset by Dunedin’s high debt burden relative to international peers, and low debt-servicing ratio.

—

Comments received.

Martin Legge
Submitted on 2012/11/22 at 7:46 pm
The reality is most Government Regulatory Agencies are now filled with academics (usually law graduates) who love writing endless reports but lack the capacity, desire or hard edge to conduct interviews where the hard searching questions now being demanded by the “What if” mob will ever be asked.
The OAG have obviously held a cordial chat with the Mayor over this and I bet boundaries of the investigation have been set. OAG didn’t listen to Bev Butler, but the Mayor of Dunedin – he’s a man of importance so let’s get down there!!!!

Anonymous
Submitted on 2012/11/22 at 9:10 pm
The thing with the Delta transactions is that there is a fairly clear trail of what was purchased, where it was held and where the original money came from. The investigation should have Newtons Coachways and Delta Investments Ltd in its scope. If it doesn’t then it is toothless.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
18.11.12 DCC Annual Report to 30 June 2012 – borrowing and interpretation
12.11.12 Delta purchases | Vandervis OAG complaint accepted

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Martin Legge: DIA audit criticism #pokierorts #coverup

Comment received from Martin Legge
Sunday, 18 November 2012 5:41 p.m.

In 2007, the National Party criticised the Labour Government following a damning report by the Office of the Auditor General into DIA’s regulation of the pokie industry. The boot has been on the other foot for four years, and yet do we hear calls from anyone in the Labour Party, particularly in Dunedin?

—

Press Release [2007]
Auditor-General slams Internal Affairs over gaming says National Party MP

Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker must act now to address the criticisms of his department over its failure to effectively control the operation of non-casino gaming machines, says National Party Internal Affairs spokeswoman Sandra Goudie.

The Controller and Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, today released his report Department of Internal Affairs: Effectiveness of controls on non-casino gaming machines.

The report shows the department’s policies and procedures do not comply with the Gambling Act 2003 and includes 17 recommendations for change.

“The department’s own ‘comprehensive licensing manual’ outlines policies and procedures that do not comply with the Act and shows licensing staff were issuing and renewing licenses without delegated authority.

“The report also found that the department’s audit checklist and manual were not consistent with the Act, and information was missing from the department’s risk profile rating of operators.

“This report shows a department clearly out of touch with its key role and clearly being ignored by the Minister.

“How could the Minister have let his department get into such a state where any old staff member can approve a licence?

“Its [sic] no wonder eyebrows have been raised over the department’s inability to get convictions of operators in breach of the Act.

“It is time Mr Barker gave his department some much needed ministerial direction.”

—

Audit Report from Kevin Brady
14 February 2007

Foreword
Department of Internal Affairs: Effectiveness of controls on non-casino gaming machines.

I felt it timely to review the effectiveness of controls on non-casino gaming machines because of the large amount of money placed in the machines (estimated by the Department of Internal Affairs at more than $8,500 million annually), the potential for the machines to cause harm in the form of problem gambling, the amount of funds from the machines going to clubs and the wider community, and a relatively new legislative framework covering gambling.

The Department of Internal Affairs administers controls on non-casino gaming machines. My review focused on three main areas of controls. These were the controls on licensing of non-casino gaming machine operators and venues, on operator and venue costs, and on the distribution and application of funds to the community including through grants.

I found that the Department of Internal Affairs has extensive policies and procedures for licensing and auditing of venues and operators, and a risk-based approach to compliance. However, there were areas of its policies, procedures, and practice that did not meet all of the requirements of the Gambling Act 2003. These included its procedure for renewing licences and for auditing. I also found that its licensing staff were issuing and renewing licences without the necessary delegated authority. The Department has committed to rectifying this issue, and had largely done so at the time this report was being finalised.

While the Department of Internal Affairs has committed to comprehensively monitoring the outcomes being achieved in the non-casino gaming machine industry, it is not yet doing this in a systematic or comprehensive manner. This limits the Department’s ability to demonstrate the results of its work and refine the way it works to achieve better outcomes.

I thank staff in the Department of Internal Affairs for their assistance, responsiveness, and co-operation during the audit. I also thank people in the industry who generously gave their time and views during the audit.

The Department has been very engaged in, and supportive of, the audit process. Its commitment to implementing the audit findings to make improvements is pleasing.

K B Brady
Controller and Auditor-General

[ends]

—

Recent Posts:
13.11.12 Martin Legge replies to Sunday Star-Times story #DIA #coverup
11.11.12 Department of Internal Affairs #pokierorts #coverup #TTCF

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr