Tag Archives: Cr Chris Staynes

Member of the public lays Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Cull

Received.
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 at 11:41 p.m.

From: Chris Staynes
Date: 18 December 2015 at 8:23:07 PM NZDT
To: Diane Yeldon
Cc: Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose, Lee Vandervis
Subject: Code of conduct.

Dear Ms Yeldon,
I refer to your email to me on 17 December 2015 making a Code of Conduct complaint about Mayor Cull. I provide the following response.

The Code requires that any alleged breach involving the Mayor is reported to me in the first instance. In receiving the complaint as Deputy Mayor I then have to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that a provision of the Code has been breached”.

I have reviewed the Code and Standing Orders and have concluded that there are not reasonable grounds for thinking a provision has been breached and as such I will not be progressing the matter. I now outline my reasons for reaching this conclusion.

The Code of Conduct (section J2.2) requires that the Mayor is responsible for ensuring the orderly conduct of business as determined in standing orders. There is also a requirement that the community have their concerns listened to and deliberated on in accordance with the requirements of the Act (section J 3.3). Therefore, the principles of the code of conduct may apply to the conduct of speakers at a public forum.

Standing Orders (section F7) provides that the Chairperson has the discretion to decline to hear speakers at the Public Forum where the number of speakers exceeds the time allocation for the Public Forum.

On Friday afternoon, Ms Jordan was advised by the Mayor that given the size of the Council agenda to be considered at the meeting, the public forum was fully subscribed. He instructed that no further speakers were to be taken. At the time of that advice, you had not indicated you wished to speak.

You advised an interest in speaking by email on Sunday, 13 December 2016. You were telephoned and advised on Monday morning that the public forum was fully subscribed. You withdrew your request to speak at the public forum during this conversation. You subsequently arrived at the public forum requesting to speak. There was no additional speaking time for the public forum period (as all speakers had used their maximum time) and at the meeting the Mayor declined your request to speak.

It is not a breach of standing orders to decline the opportunity for a speaker to speak at a Public Forum, even though the request was made within time and standing orders provides for the opportunity to extend the Public Forum (section F2). It is not mandatory for the Chairperson to have a resolution of the meeting to extend public forum as the discretion sits with the Chairperson before the meeting commences to accept or decline speakers. As regards the prioritisation of public forum speakers for those talking to agenda items, the priority of speaking is set at the time the public forum content is confirmed.

For the reasons above, I have concluded that there has been no breach of the Council’s standing orders and that therefore no breach of the code of conduct has occurred in this case.

Agenda papers are available on the Council website on the Wednesday evening prior to the Council meeting (in this case on 9 December 2015) and I would encourage you to give earlier notice of your wish to speak to ensure that you do have an opportunity to speak to agenda items at future meetings.

I have copied the original recipients of your email in my response to you.

Regards,

Chris Staynes.

Sent from my iPad Pro

———————————————

Dear Ms Yeldon,
This email is to confirm that I have received your Code of Conduct complaint and I am considering the matters raised, once I have completed this I will get back in touch with you.

Regards,

Chris Staynes.

Sent from my iPad Pro

———————————————

On 17/12/2015, at 6:30 AM, Diane Yeldon wrote:

Dear Cr Staynes, I wish to make a Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Cull. At the last full meeting of the council (14th December, 2015), I had given notice to Pam Jordan (Governance) that I wished to speak at Public Forum. When she told me that the meeting was heavily booked I said I would withdraw because my topic (support for alternative transport modes) was not time dependent. Then at 9.00 am I attended the continuation of the adjourned previous council meeting and saw the agenda for the meeting of the 14th. It is a matter of record that I made an official information request about the Procurement Policy which was being developed by the Risk and Audit Subcommittee with virtually all meetings and all meeting content in non-public. Grace Ockwell responded by telling me that the proposed policy would be public when it went to a council meeting. So the morning of 14th Dec was my first chance to see this proposed policy (although I could have seen it a few days earlier when the agenda became public if I had known to look but Grace never told me WHICH meeting it would be going to).

So [I] asked Pam Jordan if I could speak at Public Forum to that agenda item because it was the only chance I could possibly get. What I wanted to ask the council was for the policy to be open to public submissions because the whole process had been totally non-transparent. There had been considerable public comment on Mr Epere with his criminal background getting a council contract after asking at a public forum (surely not in the first place an appropriate use of a council public forum to ask for personal advantage!). There had also been considerable public interest in the [Citifleet] fraud with the main question being, “Where is the independent oversight of in-house council activities to prevent fraud?”

There had been further public interest in the issue of the contracted out mudtank cleaning with the public revelation that the contracted service had no sucker truck in Dunedin so clearly could not have been doing the work all the time. Then there was further public comment from an arborist who [publicly] said that the tree felling at Logan Park cost the Council far too much. Then a local painter, Dean Kelly, publicly said he was unfairly deprived of council contracts because they always went to the ‘big guys’.

This last comment raises the issue of whether the council should prefer local contractors over outsider to the city to stimulate the local economy and, further break up contracts into smaller chunks so that smaller local businesses can get a look in (when times are hard, the odd council job may stop them from going under). Further to this, there was the Public Forum submission of Ms Annaliese de Groote who asked that the DCC have a policy of giving work opportunities to people with disabilities.

All of the above matters are in the public interest and warrant discussion by the community they affect.

Standing Orders require councillors to value participation and engagement in council matters from members of the public. Standing Orders also provide for setting aside 60 minutes of a council meeting for public forum speakers. If the 60 minutes is used up, then Standing Orders allow the meeting chair to put it to the meeting that public forum be extended. I was the only further speaker at that meeting (14th Dec). Mayor Cull knew I wanted to speak to the agenda item (17) of the Proposed Procurement Policy. He also knew it was the only possible opportunity I or any member of the public would be able to comment on it because it was not going to be open for public submissions and was going to be decided at that very meeting.

Other Public Forum speakers who were not speaking to an agenda item preceded me. I am sure if the question of whether public forum might be extended (only by five minutes) to allow me to speak to an agenda item had been put to the meeting that the meeting would have agreed.

So the conclusion I come to is that Mayor Cull does not value input and engagement from members of the public. He does not do what he can to promote it. And so by his actions towards me at the last council meeting he has not upheld the Council’s Code of Conduct.

I have read the procedure for Code of Conduct complaints in the Appendix to the Dunedin City Council’s Standing Orders and I await your further instructions on carrying out this process.

Sincerely
Diane Yeldon

Dunedin City Council – Standing Orders (PDF, 856 KB)
28 Oct 2015: The Standing Orders set out rules for the conduct meetings of the Dunedin City Council and includes the Code of Conduct for Elected Members, as adopted at the inaugural Council meeting Oct 2010.

Committee Structures and Delegations Manual (PDF, 557 KB)
21 Apr 2015: This document details the constitution of the Council, Committees and Subcommittees, and the delegations to the Chief Executive.

Tabled at the full Council meeting on Monday 14 December:
Report – Council – 14/12/2015 (PDF, 143.8 KB)
Procurement Policy (Proposed), December 2015

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

21 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Name, Ombudsman, People, Politics

Message to Daaave from Santa Al

ODT 9.12.15 (page 14)

ODT 9.12.15 ODT Letter to editor Broad p14 (1)[phone shot]

Posted with unbecoming tinge of green by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Hot air, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Tourism, Urban design

DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY

2GP banner

Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

ODT hasn’t treated the following “Opinion piece” with due deference, it’s something to miss —no link at ODT Online. Mr Pickford probably forgot to ask that his propaganda be broadcast. Ah well.

ODT 12.10.15 (page 7)

ODT 12.10.15 Opinion Pickford p7 (1)

The PROPOSED 2GP at 1600 pages is the biggest TURN OFF in Dunedin Planning History, ever.

The 2GP is the second generation district plan; and YOU, THE COMMUNITY, OWN this regulatory document once it is fully operational. Unfortunately, City Planning thinks THEY own it for your own good. Forget that. Eyeball the bastards and be prepared to defend your realms. Expect to meet with senior management of DCC, get past the desk staff. Most important —go straight to the top: group and general managers, and the chief executive. Avoid lower pond life. Cut to the chase.

Make no mistake, your property if it lies in the City Rise will be GREATLY AFFECTED. There’s very serious stuff going on if you live in a natural hazards zone. But what about your business, read very carefully. Buy a Resource Management specialist if you want to truly defend your property, its use and its value – or if you seek something different, time to stop writing invective just DEAL to the 1600 pages before the submission deadline in November. Write further submissions. Appeal the 2GP to Glory at Environment Court. Go to the High Court if you must. Etc. Etc.

Start your submission with the fact that the hearings panel is not INDEPENDENT and you protest this – councillors should not be sitting on the panel – at the moment Cull’s followers have a voting majority to push their green agendas through. STOP THE ROT. Already, you haven’t been served natural justice. Demand experienced independent commissioners from out of district that DCC hasn’t got to.

The DANGER is, if you’re a Ratepayer and you think you can deal with the 2GP through a DCC-produced summary you are BARKING MAD, you will sign your life away immediately. Wise up.

Related Posts and Comments:
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

54 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Staynes: no plans to relinquish duties as deputy mayor

“You have to take responsibility for your own health….”

Chris Staynes [DCC EDU 14.9.14] 1

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Aug 2015
Staynes ‘getting on with life’
By Chris Morris
Dunedin deputy mayor Chris Staynes has a taste for politics and wine. But after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, and undergoing his first round of chemotherapy, Cr Staynes is having to make some adjustments. Cr Staynes (64) yesterday confirmed to the Otago Daily Times he had been diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of prostate cancer in April.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Chris Staynes, DCC Economic Development Committee 14.9.14

1 Comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

Code of Conduct show trial

Updated post
Fri, 27 Nov 2015 at 11:17 p.m.

Recently, Daaave Cull – he who cannot keep a true and proper Council minute record (as the Ch39 videos demonstrate) – ran an evil-illegal ultra vires punitive Code of Conduct campaign against Cr Lee Vandervis.

code of conduct cartoon (30-6-15)Mad Hatter 30.6.15 [click to enlarge]

Douglas Field Republished Aug 17, 2016
Mad Hatter’s ‘Show Trial’ of Lee Vandervis revised 10 7 15

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Events, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Pics, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO

Cr Vandervis replies to local newspaper

Updated post Sun, 26 Apr 2015 at 2:44 p.m.

Meeting of the Dunedin City Council on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 at 1:00 PM, Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers

Agenda – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 96.6 KB)

Report – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 172.7 KB)
Conduct Committee Report to Council

Updated post Sat, 25 Apr 2015 at 3:00 a.m.

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?

Chris.

SICK QUOTES
—care of whatifdunedin

Richard Thomson Facebook - ODT 24.4.15 Cr Thomson on Cr Vandervis 1Mayor Cull on Cr Vandervis - ODT 24.4.15

ODT articles:
Penalty urged for Vandervis
Voting rights loss ‘punishing wrong people’

█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO

DCC re Dr Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager

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.

Regards
Sandy

[click to enlarge]

Sue Bidrose - timeline of managerial responsibilities 2010 - 2013 [screenshot]

█ Download: SUE BIDROSE RESPONSIBILITIES (PDF, 16 KB)

————

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.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO