From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Monday, 4 May 2015 3:59 p.m.
To: Chris Morris, Elizabeth Kerr, Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Lee Vandervis, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, News [Ch39]
Subject: Why I continue to vote.
Dear Mr Morris,
Mayor Cull’s ambushed change to the Council Code of Conduct resolution item claims that my apology on which my responsibility for being able to vote apparently hangs “is to be judged by the CEO or her delegate.”
Standing Orders J4.2 clearly says that Council may take Code of Conduct action against a member by means of a three-fourths majority of those present, and the action taken was to demand a genuine apology which I have provided.
I can only genuinely apologise as far as the evidence I am allowed to see permits.
Standing Orders does not empower a CEO’s delegate to rule on the appropriateness of my apology which ruling has the effect of denying my responsibility to vote on behalf of the thousands of Dunedin people that voted for me. That is for Councillors to decide and they have not been given that opportunity.
My legal advice is that there is no legal basis for the Code of Conduct censure being delegated to the DCC chief accountant.
Councillors must vote for such a Code of Conduct action and I believe that Mayor Cull knows he does not have the Councillor numbers to vote for such an action.
Consequently I will continue to vote as before, and it is up to staff whether my votes are properly recorded.
All of this is on the back of a constantly corrupted Code of Conduct process where I have not been allowed to see the evidential statements made against me from Councillors or from CEO Bidrose, and have therefore been unable to defend myself against those evidential statements.
I have obtained consistent legal advice from two different sources in addition to ex-lawyer Cr. Calvert’s opinion printed in the ODT, and these sources do not want the DCC to know who they are as they believe that may prejudice their opportunities for other work in Dunedin. I do not intend to sue Mayor Cull or Council at this stage as I am still hopeful of getting the Deloitte’s information that would be pivotal in any Citifleet fraud cases brought.
I am still not permitted to see the Deloitte Citifleet fraud investigation evidence which would allow me to establish whether Police have in fact, recently investigated appropriately or not.
Time will tell who has been misleading who regarding the Citifleet frauds issue of substance.
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
ODT Online: ‘Gone, deleted, it never happened, Councillor’
Elizabeth @ What if? Dunedin
Submitted on 2013/02/10 at 12:39 pm | In reply to Hype O’Thermia.
This one sent to http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/244913/do-maths-stadium-costs hasn’t aired, thrown into the ghost bucket, I guess:
Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.13 Editorial bias
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Go on share this:
Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design
Tagged as 2013 Local Body Elections, Abridged comments, BIAS, Business ethics, Carisbrook, Clowns, Community, Conflict of interest, Council business, Council debt CRISIS, Councillors, DCC, DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14, DCHL, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, Dunedin Venues, Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, DVML, Editorial bias, Editorial stance, Electioneering, He got off which bus?, Illegalities, Local body elections, Local Government Act, Non publication of contrary views, numbers numbers numbers, ODT, ODT Online, ORFU, Otago Daily Times, Otago Stadium, Pecuniary interest, Property valuations, RANKLE, Ratepayers, Stadium, words words words