Mr Cull to Cr Vandervis: “You, sir, are a liar. Now leave.” [screenshot]
—
Texts received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 15 Dec 2015 at 7:48 a.m.
█ Message: Feel free to publicly contrast what I said to ODT reporter Chris Morris with what he said I said on today’s front page.
Lee, just checking – you planning on take big any action over the mayors comments today? Chris @ ODT
Not planning any action over Mayoral comments today because action over Mayor Cull previously defaming me as shonky’ finally got an unreserved apology from him but cost a lot of time and ratepayers money as did the farcical Code of Conduct sideshow. Shame that after all the evidence that I have provided especially what has been confirmed regarding my 2011 Citifleet allegations, that our new Procurement Policy still has not resulted in an independent Procurement manager position to oversee all individual managers’ contracting behaviour . Unfortunately my email programme died last Thursday and is still inoperative. Cheers Lee
—
REAL TIME
Otago Daily Times Published on Dec 14, 2015
Councillor Lee Vandervis asked to leave a DCC meeting
—
Exchange erupts on discussion of DCC’s new procurement policy and ‘historical’ kickbacks.
### ODT Online Tue, 15 Dec 2015 Cull, Vandervis cross swords at council meeting (+ video)
By Chris Morris
A furious bust-up saw Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull call Cr Lee Vandervis a liar and order him to leave yesterday’s Dunedin City Council meeting. The extraordinary scene saw both men on their feet, their voices raised as they roared over the top of each other, before Cr Vandervis packed up in silence and left with a parting shot. Read more
O me miserum, O Christmas Tree, WHYYYYY (Santa will look after us, won’t he)
THERE IS NO BULLYING, NOPE
—
The survey showed staff were particularly unhappy about the council’s executive team of five directors and Mr Bodeker.
### ODT Online Mon, 14 Dec 2015 Unhappy at ORC, staff say
By Vaughan Elder
Otago Regional Council’s chief executive has denied there is a “culture of fear” in the organisation after top management were singled out for criticism in a staff survey. Peter Bodeker, who was appointed chief executive in 2012, made the comments after the “2015 Employee Survey”, which was answered by 123 staff (95%), was leaked to the Otago Daily Times. Read more
—
Proposal in response to failed attempts at super councils in the North Island.
### ODT Online Fri, 11 Dec 2015 Councils may share services
By David Loughrey
A proposal to amalgamate some services of the six Otago councils is not a move to a super council, mayors say. […] Under the proposed system, local representation would stay as it is, but areas from payroll to IT, legal services, water, wastewater and roading services could be shared.
—
Steady stream of resignations and redundancies taking its toll.
### ODT Online Thu, 3 Dec 2015 ‘Culture of fear’ at DCC
By Chris Morris
Morale within the Dunedin City Council is taking a hammering as criticism and upheaval fuel a “culture of fear”, staff say. The concerns come from past and present staff, who have told the Otago Daily Times about the impact of constant restructuring, stretched budgets and redundancies. Read more
Following Tony Avery’s departure, a “Ruthless” ‘direct, no-nonsense approach to changeover issues’. Sue Bidrose ‘appeared to lack leadership experience, which she said was “possibly” true’.
### ODT Online Thu, 3 Dec 2015 ‘Culture of fear’ at DCC
By Chris Morris
Morale within the Dunedin City Council is taking a hammering as criticism and upheaval fuel a “culture of fear”, staff say. The concerns come from past and present staff, who have told the Otago Daily Times about the impact of constant restructuring, stretched budgets and redundancies. Read more
So. Staff are at the mercy of the D’urbavilles. There’s a new CEO waiting in the wings if anybody wants to sign out.
RAINS ON CR RICHARD THOMSON’S PARADE . . . .
—HIS “TIMELY” INTERNATIONAL CRICKET LIGHTS MOTION
Received from Lee Vandervis
Sun, 31 May 2015 at 9:56 p.m.
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 08:44:52 +1200 To: Sue Bidrose [CEO, DCC], Grant McKenzie [GCFO, DCC] Conversation: Timing of announcement of budgeted $2m not spent – LGOIMA info request Subject: Timing of announcement of budgeted $2m not spent – LGOIMA info request
Dear Sue and Grant,
The timing of our CFO’s announcement of the budgeted $2m not spent half way through our last week’s LTP discussions was independently questioned by myself, Cr. Calvert, and DCC watchdog Calvin Oaten.
This overbudget was characterised by Cr. Thomson as an “underspend” and by Cr. Bezett as “a fortuitous fund to dip into”, and was promptly dipped into to fund Cr. Thomson’s moved $1million for International Cricket lights.
I asked CFO McKenzie in the following break why he had chosen that time immediately prior to Cr. Thomson’s International Cricket light’s motion to make the $2 million announcement and he replied “Because I was asked to”, which raises the further questions:
1 – Who it was that asked our CFO to make that $2 million announcement?
2 – When did that person ask our CFO to make that $2 million announcement?
3 – Whose decision was it to make the announcement at that particular time during our funding decision discussions?
Kind regards,
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
From: Cindy Ashley [DCC] Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 04:13:12 +0000 To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: Timing of Announcement at LTP of $2 million Unspent
Dear Councillor Vandervis,
I refer to your email of 24 May 2015 sent to both the CEO, Dr Bidrose and Group Chief Financial Officer, Grant McKenzie.
Your request has been considered under the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and the following response is provided.
I have repeated and numbered your questions to give context to our response.
1 – Who it was that asked our CFO to make that $2 million announcement?
Finance staff were asked by the Chair of the Finance Committee to get an update on the current year’s underspend. Earlier estimates of the level of interest underspend had been supplied to all Councillors on a number of occasions previously. Most recently prior to the Long Term Plan (LTP) this information was provided through the monthly finance reports that went to the Finance Committee on the 4th of May (page 4.6) where the underspend on interest expense for the nine month period to March was $1.606 million. In addition, the underspend was also referred to in two reports that were provided to Council as part of the LTP process, specifically in report 9 – paragraph 12, and in report 22- paragraph 10.
An update was requested at the LTP process as another month had passed since the March update figures had been prepared, and the Chair of Finance wanted to know if the April result could be made available.
2 – When did that person ask our CFO to make that $2 million announcement?
Because the Chair of Finance had asked if the updated result was available and it was, the Mayor asked the update be provided as part of the deliberations for that day so that all the Councillors had the updated information. Mr McKenzie then wrote an additional memorandum explaining the underspend in the current financial year, following a request from Councillor Calvert to Dr Bidrose for this information.
3 – Whose decision was it to make the announcement at that particular time during our funding decision discussions?
As Chair of the meeting, the Mayor asked that the information be provided, as it was available, in order to ensure that all Councillors had access to the latest updated figures of interest underspend, as had been provided in the earlier reports referred to in our response to question 2.
If you have any questions or require further information please contact Mr McKenzie.
Yours sincerely,
Grace Ockwell
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 9:02 p.m. To: Chris Morris [ODT], Nicholas George S Smith [ODT] Cc: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Follow-up questions
Dear Mr Morris,
There are serious DCC issues underpinning the Code of Conduct process.
DCC Bureaucracy has run many months of self-investigations costing quarter of a million dollars, which this Councillor has not been allowed to see the results of.
Unbelievable claims that the acknowledged $1.6++ million worth of fraud was all perpetrated by one man only, now dead.
Months of Police investigation leading nowhere, with no prosecutions because they only looked at missing vehicles and anticipated that all receivers had to say was they thought the dead man had authority to sell in the way he did. And they all did. This despite many assurances from CEO Bidrose to me from the beginning that there would be a full and wide investigation.
My requests to the Serious Fraud Office [including discussion of 3 year plus investigation of Landfill frauds by local Police] to do the job local Police are seem not to be up to. CEO Bidrose claims SFO had been asked to investigate but SFO have no knowledge of this when I ask them to investigate.
Police investigation only claimed to be widened by Police management after my exposing of their very narrow investigation. Still no prosecutions, or Police interest to date in my offered evidence of Citifleet maintenance contract fraud, credit card fraud etc.
Mayor Cull and CEO Bidrose saying that no public comment allowed while investigations ongoing, but commenting themselves that it was all down to just one man and that the public can have confidence in the living remainder of the DCC organisation.
Mayor Cull accepting non-confirming [devoid of any evidence] Conduct complaints against me.
Crs. Thomson and Staynes add tampered evidence to one of their complaints but not the other – both immediately accepted again by Mayor Cull.
Mayor Cull falsely claims it is within his authority to choose the membership of the Code of Conduct committee against me. Is defeated.
Mayor Cull chooses again, this time with majority Councillor rubber stamp.
CEO Bidrose fails to ensure proper meeting and Code of Conduct processes over many weeks, fails to read my related email, finally culminating in hallway loudness. My full apology should have been printed and still should.
Audit and Risk committee fails to address major DCC problem of contract fraud, identifying 17 types of fraud but not including contract or tender fraud which I have been complaining of repeatedly.
Audit and Risk chair refuses ultra vires to allow any discussion or debate on 40 page pivotal financial report confirmed agenda item which I had previously indicated in the meeting I wanted to speak to.
Cr. Calvert also wished to speak to it but the Chair abused her authority and shut it down. This along with a history of other A&R suppression was the cause of this loudness and my final exit from this committee.
These are all real issues with stories you should be interested in Mr Morris, but instead you bypass the reasons “Whatever the reasons for your frustration…” miss the important issues and ask 5 inane questions about my behaviour.
These are the actions of a gossip columnist, not a reporter.
Cr. Vandervis
{Draft text deleted at Cr Vandervis’s request. -Eds}
On 24/04/15 4:11 PM, “Chris Morris” wrote:
Lee,
I’m following up on this morning’s story. I tried to include as much as I could of your comments, where they addressed the issues being raised in the conduct committee’s report, but I’d still far rather talk through it all point by point, in detail.
Failing that, can you respond to these specific questions about where to from here:
1. Whatever the reasons for your frustration, do you now accept that your behaviour (as reported by witnesses in the report) was bullying, aggressive and intimidating and included swearing (which you initially denied)?
2. If you do, what changes (if any) will you make to modify your behaviour, other than the previously mentioned plan to raise concerns with council staff only by email?
3. What is your reaction to the comments by Richard Thomson, who said your approach was counter-productive and your talents wasted?
4. What is your reaction to the comments by Cr Thomson and others suggesting a genuine apology might be the best way forward? Will you consider this, or do you plan to offer one at Tuesday’s meeting or at any other time, or do you maintain that you have already offered one?
5. Do you think your behaviour (as described in 1) is in any way appropriate for an elected public representative? If not, and given the limited sanctions available to the council, will you be considering your position, including whether or not you should resign?
From: Sandy Graham Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 4:16 p.m. To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Sue Bidrose, Elizabeth Kerr Subject: RE: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Lee
Please find attached the information you have requested about the responsibilities of Dr Bidrose.
It took a few days to collate as I wanted to ensure accuracy.
The information will also be forwarded to all Councillors for their information.
From: Sandy Graham Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 8:45 p.m. To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Re: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Lee
I will get this information on my return to work on Monday.
Regards
Sandy
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council
————
On 17/04/2015, at 4:12 pm, Lee Vandervis wrote:
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Thank you for correcting my overestimation of the time Sue was senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming DCC CEO.
I sincerely apologise for my inaccuracy.
To avoid future inaccuracy on my part, can you please clarify which departments Sue was in a managerial position over and for what periods in the years Sue was at the DCC prior to be coming our CEO.
Kind regards,
Lee
The overestimation was made in Cr Vandervis’s open letter found at the highlighted link below (15.4.15). -Eds
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 6:22 p.m.
█ Message: Your readers may be interested in this email exchange below.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:58:40 +1300 To: Sandy Graham Cc: Stuart Anderson [University of Otago], 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, Sue Bidrose Conversation: Code of Conduct public announcement Subject: Re: Code of Conduct public announcement
This does not answer my governance question Ms Graham, as to why I was not advised that this was coming out.
There has been nothing standard about any of this Code of Conduct process.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
————
On 23/04/15 11:48 AM, “Sandy Graham” wrote:
Dear Councillor
The report formed part of the public agenda that was delivered to all Councillors last night in advance of Tuesday’s meeting.
The media receive a copy of the agenda at the same time as per our standard process.
Regards
Sandy
————
On 23/04/2015, at 10:34 am, Lee Vandervis wrote:
Code of Conduct public announcement
Dear [as in expensive] all,
I have been rung by media this morning wanting my comment on the outcome of the Code of Conduct claims against me.
Nobody has had the decency to inform me of what these outcomes might have been, despite the exceptionally long time the production of these outcomes has taken.
Can anyone advise me why the media seem to have this information well in advance of me, or is it just standard process for a show ‘trial’, in which I have not even been allowed to see 2/3 of the ‘evidence’.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
—— End of Forwarded Message
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 7:12 p.m.
Re: Code of Conduct decision
I have sent my response to today’s Code of Conduct decision just sprung on me to you since I can not rely on ODT reporter Chris Morris to accurately present it.
Fortunately most interested parties read your blog anyway.
I am innocent of the Code of Conduct claim that I have misled the non-pubic Audit and Risk committee regarding the Citifleet fraud investigations.
The guilt lies with those DCC staff and some elected representatives who for years failed to act on my Citifleet fraud and other whistle-blowing allegations despite the DCC records evidence available to them. Some of this evidence has recently emerged in the Deloitte reports which I continue to seek.
If my allegations and evidence had been appropriately acted on, many matters of grave concern would have been dealt with when the record shows I raised them as early as 2011.
DCC staff refusal even now to let me see the full main unredacted Deloitte Citifleet Fraud report, or the Deloitte staff report, or the digitised relevant DCC records evidence, further increases my suspicion of a cover-up.
Questions regarding the role of new DCC CEO Bidrose as senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming CEO, and of what she knew of my allegations in the years prior are some of the many questions yet to be answered.
What has been shown is that the Police investigation was certainly very narrowed up until my complaint of this narrowing to CEO Bidrose and the Police investigating officer, some six months after the Citifleet manager’s sudden death. Subsequent claims by Area Commander Jason Guthrie that the investigation has been widened have not been supported by Police following up on the evidence I tried to interest them in: the Citifleet maintenance contract fraud, DCC credit card use fraud, etc. or by any convictions, or other widened investigation action that has been visible to me.
The two loudness claims, evidence of which I have not been allowed to see and therefore defend, both come back to the shutting down of the wider DCC contract fraud debate, and the resulting multiple abuses of Code of Conduct process to try and shut me down.
The four prescribed penalties suggested in the Code of Conduct report are:
1 -Censure
– the Mayor has already done this on pubic and non-public occasions.
2 -Request Apology
– I already apologised for loudness at the time
3 -Suspension of voting right only in Committees, not Council
– abuse of my representative function, but a wet bus ticket given my continuing right to debate
4 -Dismissal from positions of Deputy Mayor, Chairperson or deputy chairperson of a committee
– Mayor Cull already did this at the beginning of the triennium.
The Mayor’s recommended members of the Code of Conduct Committee have run an expensive Kangaroo Court with only my loss of two months committee voting rights to be recommended. It will be interesting to see if enough Councillors will vote for that.
It will also be interesting to see what the voting public think – do they want wide investigation and full disclosure or do they just prefer good news stories from the DCC.
Kind regards,
Cr. Vandervis
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 7:17 p.m.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:15:55 +1300 To: Chris Morris [ODT], Nicholas George S Smith [ODT] Conversation: Code of conduct report Subject: Re: Code of conduct report
Chris,
I have sent my response to the What If site, as I can not rely on you to accurately present it.
I was out last night, and the first I heard of the Code of Conduct decision today was radio media wanting comment.
Cheers,
Lee
————
On 23/04/15 3:34 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:
Lee,
I’ve sent you a text with a very basic outline of the key findings. Happy to hear from you at any time today or tonight for a detailed response once you’ve read the report in full. I understand it was hand-delivered to your house last night.
Updated post Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 6:45 p.m.
Correspondence from Lee Vandervis in reply to Sandy Graham and Sue Bidrose; and forwarded note to Code of Conduct Committee – entered below last update to post.
Updated post Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 1:46 p.m.
Correction received by email from Sandy Graham, DCC General Manager Corporate Services entered below Open Letter.
—
Received Wed, 15 Apr 2015 at 11:24 a.m.
█ Message: I have forwarded this Open Letter to the DCC Code of Conduct Committee in an attempt to debunk the many misleading claims around the DCC Citifleet fraud investigations.
I am happy to provide supporting email evidence for anything stated below that your readers may find questionable.
Cr. Vandervis
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 22:48:00 +1300 To: John Bezett, David Benson-Pope, Stuart Anderson Conversation: OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE
OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE
Dear Sirs,
Three separate Code of Conduct issues have been raised against me this year following my Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Cull which Deputy Mayor Staynes decided, without giving his reasons to me, not to refer to you.
There has been an uncomfortable mix of assertions and facts in the limited evidence that has been presented regarding the claim that I misled over Citifleet investigations, which I would like you to consider.
Provable facts include my long mostly non-public attempts to clean out dysfunctional management at the DCC since I was first elected in 2004. Partial success keeps me going.
I never expected whistle blowing to be popular, but neither did I expect such personal attacks for my trouble on behalf of our ratepayers.
Regarding the Citifleet frauds, my records show my many 2011 complaints to senior DCC management of: inappropriate DCC vehicle disposal, Citifleet manager selling vehicles to himself, credit card fraud, vehicle maintenance tender fraud, and tyre fraud are all well documented.
What is equally clear is that nothing was done to seriously investigate these complaints which all turned out to have substance until almost 3 years later when the Citifleet manager’s ‘sudden death’ resulted in new CEO Sue Bidrose ordering the DCC accountants Deloittes to investigate.
Dr. Sue Bidrose had been the most senior manager in charge of Citifleet and many other DCC departments prior to becoming CEO. It is my view that whatever evidence she might have given is not only inadmissible in terms of process because I had not been advised in advance of her evidence or her intention to give evidence, but that Dr. Bidrose is compromised because of her years as the senior manager of Citifleet prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death.
In the month following the Citifleet manager’s sudden death I repeatedly urged CEO Bidrose and head of Governance Sandy Graham to resist the temptation to minimize the frauds’ fallout by narrowing the investigation or by blaming it all on the dead manager. Although later admitting that the initial request for investigation related mainly to missing vehicles, CEO Bidrose gave me assurances from the beginning that Deloittes and then later Police would conduct a wide investigation. This provably did not happen with the Police, and I have no evidence other than yet another management assurance that it has or will really happen.
CEO Bidrose also gave me assurances from the beginning of the investigations that if I could provide hard evidence of DCC staff stealing even one dollar she would ensure prosecutions followed. Unfortunately the DCC records evidence which I have sought to complete hard evidence cases against both DCC staff and those involved outside the DCC has been denied me by CEO Bidrose, despite my making LGOIMA requests for it last year, namely: both the full unredacted Deloittes report, the Deloittes staff report, and the digitised evidential files which Deloittes collated for their investigation.
In that month following the Citifleet manager’s death I became very concerned when CEO Bidrose did not achieve a proper Police investigation apparently ‘because Police lacked the resources’, and that only the accounting investigation by Deloittes was to take place. I was relieved that Deloittes’ investigator Kyle Cameron seemed to have a good grasp of the many Citifleet complaints that had been made to me during his detailed interview of me, and that subsequent to the Deloitte reports Police were to investigate fully after all.
My concerns about Police having a belated investigation three months later are recorded, as are my concerns that Police requested that no public statements be made about Citifleet while their belated investigation was in progress. This despite Mayoral and CEO public statements that the Citifleet frauds were all the work of one now dead man.
I have highlighted with evidence to the SFO and CEO Bidrose the extreme slowness of a previous Dunedin Police investigation into DCC Landfill frauds that took more than three years before one individual was finally prosecuted, and I have written to the Serious Fraud Office unsuccessfully urging them to have an outsider’s independent investigation into the Citifleet frauds because local Police seem unable to do the job. CEO Bidrose claimed that the SFO had been contacted re the Citifleet frauds, but curiously the SFO’s Sara Morris said to me that no request from the DCC to investigate had been received by the SFO prior to my request for them to investigate.
My worst fears for the hoped for DCC investigation were realised when the Police investigating officer Detective Mathew Preece interviewed me at my home six months after the Citifleet manager’s tragic death, in what he described as the last week of his investigation. Detective Preece said that the scope of his investigation was only the missing vehicles and that he had already interviewed all other people he intended to interview. He said that all those he interviewed regarding missing vehicles offered the defence that they thought the deceased Citifleet manager was authorised to dispose of the vehicles in the way that he did, and that subsequently there would be no prosecutions of anybody.
I told Detective Preece that I had received many Citifleet complaints for years regarding not only vehicle disposal but fraudulent Citifleet credit card use, tyre supply, fuel supply, and fraudulent Citifleet maintenance contracts and that I had a motor trade business owner and others prepared to give evidence on these issues.
That night I wrote the following email to CEO Bidrose, Head of Governance Sandy Graham and to Detective Preece voicing my concern at the very limited scope of the investigation, and the investigating officer’s understanding that he could not investigate anything else because he did not have any wider complaint from the DCC to act on.
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:57:31 +1300 To: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, “PREECE, Matthew” Conversation: Police Citifleet Investigation Subject: Police Citifleet Investigation
Dear Sue,
An hour and a half spent with Detective Matthew Preece and another Policeman called Regan has left me with deep concerns regarding the Police Citifleet investigation.
Mr Preece has informed me that the scope of his investigation has been limited by the complaint the DCC has made to the Police, and that this complaint only concerns missing or inappropriately sold DCC vehicles.
Mr Preece says that because Police have not had a complaint from you or the DCC regarding;
– fraudulent Citifleet tender processes,
– fraudulent Citifleet tyre supply contracts,
– fraudulent Citifleet maintenance contracts
– fraudulent use of DCC Citifleet vehicle fuel
– fraudulent DCC accounting of Citifleet credit cards and other payment methods used and Citifleet managerial oversight
– and fraudulent use and conversion of DCC Citifleet vehicles [eg the conversion of a DCC-owned vehicle by Mrs Bachop]
and that consequently none of these fraud areas is being investigated!
Mr Preece did say that if you as CEO were to request that he broaden his investigation to include these other areas and not just the missing cars, that he would broaden his enquiry to include them. He insisted that he would have to have a broadened complaint from you as CEO for this to happen, and implied that a complaint from me as a City Councillor would not be enough to act on.
I have highlighted to Preece and Regan the urgent need to use the Citifleet manager’s tragic death to investigate and prosecute all Citifleet fraud areas, as a failure to do so will result in the loss of an unprecedented opportunity to clean out the culture of entitlement at Citifleet and in other DCC departments.
Can you please with urgency broaden the DCC complaint to include the 6 areas of potential Citifleet fraud listed above, so that Mr Reece can broaden his enquiry to include them.
Can you please also now with urgency, forward to me all instructions to Deloitte regarding the Citifleet investigation as previously requested in my email of 26/10/14 as below.
Is it possible to meet with you at any time tomorrow at your convenience to learn whether you have broadened the DCC Police complaint or not?
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:23:41 +1300 To: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham Conversation: LGOIMA requests Subject: LGOIMA requests
Hi Sue,
Further to my verbal requests of a week or two ago please forward copies of all original correspondence and or other direction given to Deloittes in regard to their investigation of Citifleet.
I wish to have the original brief stating the terms of reference, the subsequent brief where the investigation needed to be extended, and any other direction written or otherwise given to Deloittes regarding the Citifleet investigation.
I am deeply disturbed by what I have seen in parts of the investigation conclusions appearing without covering page or any details identifying them as parts of the Deloitte findings in non-public parts of the Audit and Risk subcommittee meetings.
I note a severe slowing on responses to my recent LGOIMA requests, and hope this has been a temporary frustration.
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
Subsequent email from Police Area Commander Guthrie claimed as follows:
From: GUTHRIE, Jason [mailto:Jason.Guthrie@police.govt.nz] Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2014 10:48 a.m. To: Sue Bidrose Cc: COSTER, Andrew; INGLIS, Malcolm Subject: RE: Investigation Update
Hi Sue.
I can confirm that DCC staff did not (and have not) in any way attempted to restrict, curtail, or limit the scope of the Police investigation stemming from the Deloitte report either at the 1 September meeting or at any other time.
At no stage has any undue influence been exerted by DCC staff on Police as to what should be investigated and what should not be investigated.
At the 1 September meeting it was agreed that the focus of the enquiry would be limited to activity around the 152 vehicles as this was considered to be the most likely aspect to potentially lead to a criminal prosecution.
To avoid any confusion, from the outset the Dunedin City Council has been clear in it’s desire that Police investigate matters arising from the Deloitte report independently, fully, and thoroughly as Police sees fit. The DCC has also been very clear in it’s desire that if any individual(s) are identified as being involved in criminal activity linked to the matters within the Deloitte report that those people be held accountable for that criminal activity.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
regards Jason.
Inspector Jason Guthrie
Area Commander | Dunedin Clutha Waitaki | New Zealand Police
Dunedin Central Police Station, 25 Great King St, Private Bag 1924, Dunedin, www. police.govt.nz
Safer Communities Together
Area Commander Guthrie’s response above says that “DCC staff did not (and have not) in any way attempted to restrict…the Police investigation”, but then goes on to say that …”it was agreed that the focus of the enquiry would be limited to activity around the 152 vehicles…”!
Commander Guthrie’s subsequent claim that the Police investigation would be widened has thus far failed to result in my being contacted to provide the further evidence I have already tried to give Detective Preece regarding credit card fraud, vehicle maintenance contract fraud etc. The lack of any prosecutions after so much time adds to my concern.
This seems to me to be another example of management claiming one thing but investigating officers doing another.
I am yet to be convinced either by Police taking an interest in my offered evidence or by any Citifleet related Police prosecutions that a serious Police investigation has really been effectively widened despite stated intention to widen, even at this now very late stage. I do not dispute Police management intentions, but see them as quite different to actual Police investigating actions, which seem to me to be more interested in sidelining me as a critic of their investigation than getting to the bottom of Citifleet fraud.
Regarding the two other loudness Code of Conduct claimed complaints, I do not recognise them and I remain far from content that CEO Bidrose and Cr McTavish at least have made ‘loudness’ statements to your Code of Conduct Committee [Cr. McTavish read hers] but not provided these statements to me in advance so that I could defend them. I see these loudness complaints as politically motivated attempts to ambush me outside of proper Code of Conduct process, and I do not accept that they can have any force.
The two staff that might have had reason to complain of my loudness, namely CEO Bidrose and Sandy Graham, have made no complaint and both have independently assured me that they did not make any complaint, CEO Bidrose with a hug, and Sandy Graham with an eye-roll.
I particularly resent the swearing allegation that no Councillor has admitted to claiming, despite Mayor Cull’s publicly repeatedly saying in the ODT that my swearing had been claimed by a Councillor. I note the irony that when Code of Conduct complaining Cr. Thomson left an earlier Audit and Risk meeting in a huff using the ‘F word’, that no complaint was forthcoming from anybody.
I take this opportunity to register my complaints regarding the running of this Conduct hearing.
1 – That the loudness complaints should never have been recognised as complying by the Committee for want of evidence.
2 – That I was not permitted to record the public part of the hearing in which I spoke, but that Media were allowed to take short-hand and thus given the opportunity to misquote me with impunity.
3 – That no reason was given when asked for, for not being able to record the pubic hearing.
4 – That parts of the hearing evidence were in public, but that apparently some evidence parts were non-public.
5 – that I have been given an extract only from your draft report, on grey paper marked confidential, ensuring that I can not as a result comment on it. The claim that “This is to ensure that the principles of natural justice and due process are observed.” is absurd, given that natural justice and due process have been absent throughout.
Looking forward to having this wasteful exercise in enmity drawn to a conclusion.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
—— End of Forwarded Message
[ends]
*Email addresses, phone numbers and web links removed. The company referred to above is “Deloitte”. The councillor surname is “MacTavish”. -Eds
—
CORRECTION
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 1:31 p.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr [What if? Dunedin] Subject: Correction
Dear Elizabeth
As discussed, I wish to correct a statement made by Cr Vandervis in his “Open letter to the Conduct Committee” which is published on your website.
The statement that the CEO Sue Bidrose had “years as the senior manager of Citifleet prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death” is incorrect. Sue had Regulatory Services (which included Citifleet, Building Control, Environmental Health, Parking Services) added to her General Manager portfolio for less than five months in 2013, immediately prior to being appointed CEO. This is clearly not “years” and needs correcting. Cr Vandervis’ assertions that Sue’s evidence to the Conduct Committee was therefore compromised is not supported by the facts.
Regards
Sandy
Sandy Graham
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council
—
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 5:01 p.m. To: John Bezett, David Benson-Pope, Stuart Anderson Subject: FW: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet
Dear Code of Conduct Committee,
Please accept my apology for ignorantly overstating the length of time Dr Bidrose was most senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming our CEO.
‘Years’ should read ‘5 months as the senior manager of Citifleet and then 6 months as CEO’ prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death.
Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:12:33 +1300 To: Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose Cc: Elizabeth Kerr [What if? Dunedin]
Conversation: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager Subject: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Thank you for correcting my overestimation of the time Sue was senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming DCC CEO.
I sincerely apologise for my inaccuracy.
To avoid future inaccuracy on my part, can you please clarify which departments Sue was in a managerial position over and for what periods in the years Sue was at the DCC prior to be coming our CEO.
Kind regards,
Lee
—— End of Forwarded Message
—— End of Forwarded Message
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Mr Cull to Cr Vandervis: “You, sir, are a liar. Now leave.” [screenshot]![xmas - charlie_brown_christmas [westword.com] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/xmas-charlie_brown_christmas-westword-com-1.jpg)
![sue bidrose [whatifdunedin]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sue-bidrose-whatifdunedin-e1449099268211.jpg)
![Sue Bidrose - timeline of managerial responsibilities 2010 - 2013 [screenshot]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sue-bidrose-timeline-of-managerial-responsibilities-2010-2013-screenshot.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 