Tag Archives: Audited accounts

Larry Mitchell: 2012 Local Govt League Table Summary

Press Release
Councils continue to struggle and spend … May 25th Release of the League Table

2012 Local Government League Table Executive Summary

• The 2012 LGLT covering all 67 New Zealand territorial local authorities ‘fits’ neatly within the Government’s recent announcements of local government reforms and validates (from its data) public concerns of some poor Council performance. No Council scores higher than 36 out of 50 for the financial and economic metricated measures of the LGLT;

• The bulk of Councils score only ‘Fair’ results (with scores of from 23 to 30 on the 50 point metric scale) and are ranked in a range from 31st to 57th out of 67 compared to their peers;

• Auckland Council has yet to provide meaningful public information on its financial performance improvement programmes. No useful Auckland Council comparisons with the pre-amalgamation financial and economic status of its seven predecessor Councils has been provided by which the Auckland Council’s comparative post-amalgamation performance could be gauged;

‘At risk’ Councils – the ten poorest performers – whose ‘stats’ indicate a combination of unsustainable Council finances and/or unaffordable rates or charges include the Kaipara District (whose present difficulties are well known). Kaipara is the biggest downgrade dropping 49 places to 65th out of 67 for its metric results – plus it receives a double red traffic light downgrade warning;

• Hauraki and Upper Hutt have regressed, the latter has dropped 15 places to 58th … in spite of recent announcements that the Mayor and Council have declined their increased salaries! Kaipara and Tararua have yet to file audited accounts;

• The ‘Southern Scots’, Clutha and Southland Districts have swapped the top two places at the head of this (parsimonious) League Table;

• The LGLT uses financial and economic assessment ratios closely allied to the measures that by law will soon be introduced for all Councils relating to their financial management performance and public reporting;

• The 2012 League Table indicates little overall performance improvement in 2011-2012;

• The metric measures have scarcely moved from an average of 30 out of 50 last year to 29 out of 50 in 2012. The consistency of these results over the three or more years of the assessments suggest a reliability and robustness of the methodology;

• Two Councils – Queenstown and Carterton are the biggest improvers both making the top 10 for the first time.

All enquiries to Larry.N.Mitchell, Finance & Policy Analyst (Local Government)
Phone 09 4220598, email larry at kauriglen dot co dot nz or see website www.kauriglen.co.nz/larry select BASE STATS WITH TRENDZ/LEAGUE TABLE.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management

Donations – the quest for clarification

The following correspondence was received from Bev Butler today.

ODT 28/2/07 front page as follows:

Man offers $1 million donation
By Allison Rudd
One person has offered a $1 million donation towards a multipurpose stadium to replace Carisbrook, the chairman of Carisbrook Stadium Trust, Malcolm Farry, says.
He told a public meeting, attended by about 120 people last night, he had received “very significant news today about one huge donation and two others in the wings” which could help meet the $188 million cost.
After the meeting, he said the $1 million donation was from a man whom he could not yet name.
The man had indicated he had associates who were also prepared to talk to the trust about making similar sized donation.
Mr Farry said he was “very excited” about the level of support being offered for the proposal, particularly yesterday’s development.
“Let’s say it made my day.”

Letter to editor (published 22/02/10 Otago Daily Times). The italicised parts were abridged.

Friday 29th January 2010

Dear Editor

It is now nearly three years since it was reported in the ODT (28/2/07) that Malcolm Farry, Chair of Carisbrook Stadium Trust, told a public meeting he had received “very significant news about one huge donation ($1 million) and two others (similar size) in the wings”. Mr Farry said the $1 million donation was from a man whom he could not name yet. Mr Farry said he was “very excited” and it had “made my day”.
Maybe it is now time for Mr Farry to reveal the identities of these alleged donors and let us know if the money has been banked.
Maybe Mr Farry could also give us an update on all donations received for the stadium.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Macolm Farry’s response in today’s ODT:
“As at February 2010, Carisbrook Stadium Trust has secured private-sector funding in excess of $30 million in memberships and sponsorship. The trust does not publish the names of its members, sponors [sic] or donors without their agreement. Last year, we announced the head naming rights sponsor, Forsyth Barr, and we will announce further sponsors in future when they elect to do so.”

National Business Review (3/03/07) by Mark Peart
“Two individuals had pledged about $1 million each to the project since learning of the release of the trust’s feasibility report and “master plan” on February 19.
Several other potential donors had also expressed interest in making major, but unspecified, contributions to the project, should the trust’s preferred option be accepted, Mr Farry said.”

From: bev butler [mailto:bevkiwi@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 22 February 2010 11:19 a.m.
To: mfarry@farrygroup.co.nz
Cc: murray kirkness; david loughrey; chris morris; craig page; michelle sutton; Mike Houlahan (DSC); david williams; robert smith; nbreditor; nbrnewseditor; emma lancaster; katrina bennett; pete hodgson; clare curran; john key; rodney hide; bill english; metiria turei; michael woodhouse; mark hotton; darren burden
Subject: Dunedin Stadium alleged donors: Serious Questions left unanswered (Note change in Mr Farry’s email address)
Importance: High

{private address and phone number deleted -Eds}

Monday 22nd February 2010

Dear Mr Farry

Your response, after three weeks, to my ‘letter to the editor’ (copied below) is completely inadequate.
Firstly, you have avoided responding to the reasonable request for an update of donations. It was revealed in October 2008 (Sunday Star Times) that the donations total was $30. That was the last update we received – upon inquiry.

You have also avoided responding to my query as to whether the several $1 million alleged donations have been banked.
Remember we are not talking about ‘products or sponsors’, but ‘donors’. That is what my query was about and that is what you avoided responding to.

I believe the public have a right to know if the donors actually existed to begin with and if so, do their promised donations, which you so excitedly announced in March 2007 (ODT and NBR), still stand? And if so, why haven’t the donors been happy for their names to be made public now that the stadium is being built? Surely their excitement would be as great as yours and they would proudly want their names out there supporting the project and thereby assist the marketing programme for the stadium.

If these alleged donors have withdrawn their promised donations, why have the public not been informed?

I note in the DCC’s recent media release (19/02/10) the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust’s (CSCT) responsibility is quite clear, namely:
“CSCT will continue to operate as a charitable trust to solicit and receive donations and distribute them in accordance with the purposes of its trust deed.”

Also would you please confirm or deny that these alleged donations were used to help secure the $15 million ‘gift’ from Central Government for the shortfall in private funding?

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
Former President
Stop The Stadium Inc

From: mfarry@farrygroup.co.nz
To: bevkiwi@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Dunedin Stadium alleged donors: Serious Questions left unanswered [Note change in Mr Farry’s email address]
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:33:44 +1300

Good Afternoon Ms. Butler,

While you have a series of questions we have not, however, conducted the fundraising in the manner that your enquiries would suggest.

There is no difference between donations, sponsorships, sale of product and funds raised. All have a donations component included. Your wish to distinguish between donors, sponsors and purchasers of product indicates a misunderstanding on your part as to the manner of our fundraising

There are several amounts in excess of $1M. As stated in earlier communications, acknowledgements of the individuals and organisations will be made public on the agreement of the parties to so do.

Parties involved have been very supportive of and excited about the project and to have gathered in excess of $30M under the circumstances and in the time involved is quite remarkable. I am sure this has never been equalled in our region and perhaps not even in New Zealand.

It seems unfortunate that you consider it necessary to continue your onslaught against the project when, surely, it would be in the interests of Dunedin and Otago if you put your energies into ensuring the project is a success.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Farry
Chair,
CST.

NB The report of $30 being received was in error.
The claims that the Stadium would be paid for from private funds is incorrect and mischievous.

From: bev butler [mailto:bevkiwi@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 5 March 2010 9:56 a.m.
To: malcolm farry
Subject: RE: Dunedin Stadium alleged donors: Serious Questions left unanswered

Friday 5th March 2010

Dear Mr Farry

You have stated in your reply the following:

“There is no difference between donations, sponsorships, sale of product and funds raised. All have a donations component included. Your wish to distinguish between donors, sponsors and purchasers of product indicates a misunderstanding on your part as to the manner of our fundraising.
There are several amounts in excess of $1M.”

I agree with you, Mr Farry, I do not understand the manner of your fundraising as outlined above. Would you please be so kind as to clarify what is the percentage of the donation component which you claim your products and sponsorships contain? A good definition of donation is as follows: A payment is a “donation” if the payer receives no direct benefit in return.

I would also appreciate a direct answer to my original questions as to whether the several amounts of $1m are in fact ‘donations’ and have these ‘donations’ been banked? This shouldn’t be difficult to answer directly. Quite simply: Are the several amounts of $1m actual ‘donations’? Yes or No. Have these donations been banked? Yes or No.

I also note that you have not responded to this question either: “Also would you please confirm or deny that these alleged (ie $1m) donations were used to help secure the $15 million ‘gift’ from Central Government for the shortfall in private funding?”

My continuing interest in the project is purely to keep everything as transparent as possible. Surely you have no objection to this? Surely this could not be perceived as ‘mischievous’ – a word you have used more than once when faced by close questioning by people of the CST/DCC’s affairs.

As for the $30 donation you now say is in error, Mr Hedderwick did confirm to me back in 2008 in an email that the $30 was not a mistake. Mr Hedderwick, Commercial Manager of CST, and Mr Ewan Soper, former CEO of CST, both acknowledged the $30 donation and it was reported in both the Sunday Star Times and then the ODT. The CST have also reported it to the Charities Commission in their Financial Statements.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

From: mfarry@farrygroup.co.nz
To: bevkiwi@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Dunedin Stadium alleged donors: Serious Questions left unanswered
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:04:28 +1300

Good Afternoon Ms Butler,

I have provided you with the answers to your questions Any further elaboration would be unproductive.

Monies announced publicly are secured by legal contracts and payment protocols are a part of those agreements.

We have publicly documented the quantum of funds. They are in excess of $30 million at this stage These amounts have been verified. I fail to understand how we can be more transparent than that. Attempts to do that in the past have resulted in misunderstandings such as the thirty dollars you mention. I am sure that nobody could possibly believe that we have only raised this amount

For the record and as I have stated previously there are amounts contracted where the quantum is for $1M and greater

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Farry

From: bevkiwi@hotmail.com
To: mfarry@farrygroup.co.nz
Subject: RE: Dunedin Stadium alleged donors: Serious Questions left unanswered
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:19:54 +1300

Dear Mr Farry

You have not answered my questions about the $1m donations you personally announced, very excitedly, through the media three years ago.
Your persistent avoidance in confirming whether the $1m donations exist is unproductive and can only lead me to one obvious conclusion that the donations do not exist and they probably never did.

Your description of the original $1m ‘donations’ has transformed to ‘amounts’ then to ‘quantums’.
I find this latest description quite apt considering that in Quantum Physics a “quantum is the minimum unit of any physical entity involved in an interaction” (Wikipedia) ie virtually non-existent in the physical world. Note that donations are physical gifts involving the transfer of actual money from one or several sources to another.

Now that you have confirmed that the several $1m donations are not donations, you must realise you are now in a moral quandary.

Your plea below for me to put my “energies into ensuring the project is a success” is curious. You have always asserted that the stadium will be an unqualified success.
I take it that even you now have doubts.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, CST, Design, Economics, Media, People, Politics, Project management, Stadiums