█ The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin
—
Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.
Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.
You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).
AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS
N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ
1. Introduction
There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.
Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.
Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.
Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.
2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)
This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.
The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.
Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.
The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.
The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.
3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)
The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.
The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:
1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.
Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.
2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.
Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.
3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.
Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*). Continue reading →
### radionz.co.nz 24 June 2016 at 9:23 pm
RNZ News Cycleway truce called as review set up
By Michael Cropp
Wellington’s beleaguered cycleway programme will not be getting the shot in the arm some were hoping for – instead it will be reviewed, refreshed and recommissioned. The outcome of that process – a ‘refreshed cycleways programme’ – would go to the Wellington City Council’s transport committee in August, the council announced today. Meanwhile, Island Bay Residents’ Association had reached a truce with cycling advocates and councillors, and was planning to start on its own consultation. A New Zealand Transport Agency report this month on the council’s ability to implement its programme stated the fallout from the Island Bay project had jeopardised the council’s other cycleway initiatives, and had eroded the public’s faith in the council. It said the council had lost the confidence of officials and ministers. Today’s announcement was intended to provide a pathway to regaining that trust. Read more
### radionz.co.nz 1 June 2016 at 6:44 pm
RNZ News WCC told it let spokes fall off cycleway plan
By Michael Cropp
The way Wellington City Council conducted the rollout of a controversial cycleway in Island Bay has hurt its city-wide ambitions for the bike routes, an independent review has found. The report into the city’s cycleways, which was commissioned by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), concluded people felt the path in the southern suburb was a poor solution that was delivered without proper community engagement and consultation. It recommended it be reviewed and modified after further community consultation. Read more
Meanwhile at Dunedin…. plodding incompetence. A recent series of city council-led (earworms: Spokes Dunedin and NZTA) technical planning and cycleway construction FAILURES, at Exorbitant Expense forced on Ratepayers. All this while South Dunedin core infrastructure maintenance and upgrades received little if no DCC attention, ultimately leading to Council-fuelled multimillion-dollar flood damage. And now, the ODT Editor exhibits gut-wrenching Cheek to devoutly urge DCC to YES, Build Cycleways!
Fri, 24 Jun 2016 ODT Editorial: Learning from cycleway errors
OPINION After a long year of construction, mistakes, remedial work, wasted money and public dissatisfaction the South Dunedin Cycle Network has finally been shunted down the council’s cycleway queue. In an Otago Daily Times report this month council infrastructure networks general manager Ruth Stokes said she could not say when the South Dunedin network would be completed. The new focus, she said, was to employ the limited available resources on fixing the Portobello Rd cycleway and the central city network.
“Build them well, build them smart and build them efficiently.” (ODT)
—
SPOKES Dunedin speaks out for cycling in Dunedin, New Zealand and represents everyone who rides a bike or would like to ride a bike in the city. SPOKES is a local volunteer cycling advocacy group founded in 1996 as an affiliate of the New Zealand Cycling Advocates Network. SPOKES Dunedin is an incorporated society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.
We look forward to working with the Dunedin City Council to develop a real cycle network for Dunedin. (Spokes)
God Almighty! Read this:
█ SPOKES DUNEDIN SUBMISSION ON DRAFT 2016-2017 ANNUAL PLAN
Posted on April 6, 2016 by spokesdunedin
Summary
A change of scope is needed for Dunedin’s cycling network, but it is unclear what the DCC’s change in scope actually means, and higher standard cycleways are only part of the story. Spokes Dunedin has a vision for successfully realising the cycle network. We want everyone to be able to cycle from North Dunedin to South Dunedin, out both sides of the Harbour, and through the tunnels to Green Island and Mosgiel on a connected framework of city-spanning arterial routes that are safe, direct, and convenient to use. This will focus work where there is a clear need for improved safety rather than on streets that are already relatively safe, and will create a solid initial network that can grow and develop in response to future demand. The great thing is that there already exists some cycling infrastructure on many of the routes for this initial network. Several things can be achieved by the end of this year that will help Dunedin catch back up to where it should be.
To do in 2016
1. Support NZTA to begin construction of the SH1 separated lanes by the end of this year.
2. Fix Portobello Road – it’s already been two years. We don’t need fancy landscaping, we just need the median barrier realignment so the road looks like a road and the cycleway looks like a cycleway.
3. Complete the Wharf/Roberts intersection as agreed – it’s already been two years. This intersection presents an identified safety risk on a high demand route.
4. Continue the SH88 path through the rail corridor to the railway station, thereby providing an alternative to the cycle lanes on Anzac Ave (heavy freight route and high risk).
5. Create a separated cycle lane from the intersection of Andersons Bay/Strathallan, along The Oval, to Crawford Street in place of the existing cycle lane between two lanes of fast-moving traffic.
6. Develop plans for a separated cycle lane on North Road and safety improvements for the Opoho intersection to tie in with NZTA’s forthcoming separated cycle lanes on SH1. This route is of very high strategic priority.
Introduction
Dunedin is a pro-cycling city, where a significant proportion of the population regularly cycles for recreation, transportation, or both. Year after year, cycling is one of the most strongly supported and heavily submitted-on topics in the annual plan. One of the biggest public consultation events in Dunedin history was held in 2013 regarding the proposed SH1 separated cycle lanes. In addition to widespread media coverage, NZTA and DCC staff solicited input from the public at information booths in busy locations including the Golden Center, Toitu, and the University. With over 2000 written submissions and roughly 800 survey responses, the SH1 separated cycle lanes received one of the highest response rates of any topic ever consulted on. The result was overwhelming support for the proposed separated cycle lanes. Independently, the AA undertook a survey of their local membership, with over 70% of the nearly 1500 respondents supporting the proposed separated lanes. The overwhelming public demand and support for better cycling in Dunedin cannot be denied.
In response to this demand, the City rightly undertook to develop a Strategic Cycle Network. But the South Dunedin portion of the cycle network has not delivered on the ambitions of the cycle network plan adopted in 2011. Nothing has progressed in the last year, leaving half-finished elements scattered around, with other things ripped out without consultation.
Some might argue that we should throw up our hands in despair, abandoning the possibility of future success under the fear of past failures. But others know that setbacks are par for the course when charting new waters and trying new things. Where would we be if the likes of Cook, Columbus, or Magellan had turned around after the first storm and torn sail? Those leaders stayed the course, their sailors gained experience, and they ultimately changed the world. Read more
“SPOKES, CYCLE-SAIL OFF THE EDGE OF THE WORLD WHY NOT”
█ For more, enter the terms *cycle* and *christmas present* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
*Images: (from top) humancyclist.wordpress.com – fixed track racing | hdwires.in – nails | hbr.org – bike dog jun co-passage | en.wikipedia.org – sail wagon
Douglas Field Published on Feb 7, 2016 Dr John Christy testimony US House Committee 2 Feb 2016
Comparison between local politicians’ opinions on climate and Professor John Christy’s testimony at US senate committee hearing.
—
The full text of Christy’s testimony to the Senate Science committee. It really reinforces the little clip above and is so clear and easy to comprehend.
[begins] I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.
My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why. Cont/
Mayor calls on government for help
39 Dunedin Television 20.11.15
A rising issue for seaside suburbs, a new report shows Dunedin is most at risk of suffering the negative effects of rising sea levels due to climate change. South Dunedin residents in particular are likely to experience flooding from rising ground water. Ch39 Link
Received from John Evans
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 at 7:55 p.m.
Tonight on Fair Go – https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/fair-go/28-10-2015 – we find that the Bike Barn franchise has been in breach of the Sale of Goods Act and is being investigated by the Commerce Commission.
The great shame is that the councillors on the DCC will spend $47 million of your money to advance the commercial interests of a private business group.
When will we get some non naïve councillors – apart from Hilary and Lee.
For Jehovah’s sake Dunedin
WAKE UP.
Your representatives are naïve and being conned by outside interests and inside corruption.
[ends]
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Image: 4.bp.blogspot.com – ScrollCornerJPRfinished, frame added by whatifdunedin
No photograph of Kate in lycra could be found. The Mayor and MacTavish were both camel shackled when our photographer called (say no more).
—
### ODT Online Thu, 22 Oct 2015 Dunedin cycleway cost blowout
By Craig Borley
Building Dunedin’s cycleways could cost “three to four times” more per metre than first thought. That news was delivered to the Dunedin City Council’s infrastructure services committee this morning by the council’s infrastructure and networks general manager Ruth Stokes
The committee voted to continue with the rollout of the network, ensuring the design and finish were of the more expensive, higher quality option.
Sandy Graham advises there is one amended page (item 6 ph 6.8) – a map was altered for clarity. The website copy will be updated with the amended page.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Image: [screenshot] youtube.com – Cycling Training Program – Crashing on a bike
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)
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.
█ Cr Kate Wilson says cycleways will bring myriad benefits to Dunedin.
ODT Online Sat, 25 Jul 2015 Why Dunedin is investing in cycling
By Craig Borley
Dunedin appears divided over the cycle network. Some see it as unnecessary. Others see it as vital. ODT reporter Craig Borley spoke to Dunedin city councillor Kate Wilson, chairwoman of the infrastructure services committee, about why the city is investing in cycle infrastructure. Read more
—
█ The Dunedin City Council is sleep-walking to yet another poorly thought out cycleway project. (ODT)
### ODT Online Thu, 20 Aug 2015 Time to put brakes on cycleway
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION Somehow, the Dunedin City Council has been so beguiled by the gift-horse that is the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) that it seems to have completely forgotten to carry out its proper role of looking after the interests of the citizens of Dunedin in respect of the State Highway 1 cycleway plans. Read more
—
ODT 26.8.15 (page 8)
– shot in a half-lit Dunedin café off the beaten cycle paths
—
█ Proposed: Separated cycle lanes to run along north and south one way routes, between Botanic Garden and Queens Gardens.
### ODT Online Thu, 10 Sep 2015 Dedicated cycle lanes get closer
By Craig Borley
Nationally-funded separated cycle lanes along Dunedin’s one way system are now two steps closer as the project moves swiftly through the New Zealand Transport Agency machine. Read more
NZTA said it had resolved to:
• Incorporate high turnover short term parking for businesses, particularly those reliant on short stay kerbside parking and deliveries
• Incorporate medium term parking close to the hospital and museum.
Updated plans were now being prepared to show where the parking would be included. The plans will be available for public comment at the end of the month.
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.
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
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.
Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Another Busy Year Ahead With Cycleways
This item was published on 10 Apr 2015
Dunedin residents will be able to make the most of safer cycle routes in coming months as the city’s cycleway network continues to expand. Dunedin City Council Infrastructure Services Committee Chair Cr Kate Wilson says cycleways make the streets safer for all road users and hopefully encourage more people to get on bikes.
“For years people have been asking the Council for enhanced cycleways in Dunedin. We have a responsibility to provide networks that give people travel choices, whether that be cycling, walking or taking a bus or car. The more of the network that is completed, the more we can provide for people who want to use cycleways, whether it’s a child cycling to school, an adult cycling recreationally, or anything in between.”
It is also a central government priority to rapidly expand and enhance networks of cycleways around the country, recognising the benefits to health, the economy and the environment. The DCC has received $570,000 from the Government’s Urban Cycleway Fund and the Council has decided the funding will be used to enhance and expand the South Dunedin Cycle Network. The DCC also receives funding from the NZ Transport Agency to build the network.
“Taking advantage of Government funding now is important as we have a limited window of opportunity to capitalise on our position as one of only a few cities with the requisite Strategic Cycle Network Plan. We are a financially constrained Council and the more funding we get from outside sources the less we need from ratepayers.”
In August 2011, the Council adopted the Strategic Cycle Network for Dunedin, which gave the South Dunedin network of routes the highest priority for design and construction. Cr Wilson says 40% of people living in South Dunedin do not have access to a car, which is a key reason for South Dunedin cycle routes being prioritised.
“We understand introducing cycleways to our streets has been a big change for some people, but we’ve got a great opportunity here to improve our city in a very positive way for current and future generations.”
Here’s an outline of what’s happening with South Dunedin cycleways over the next month.
● Portobello Road (between Timaru Street and Portsmouth Drive) – wider consultation on a revised concept plan for this stretch of road.
● Hillside Road/McBride Street – staff are reviewing the proposed cycleway design after meeting with local businesses.
● Neville/Wilkie Streets – a final decision on the type of cycleway for these streets will be made in April. Construction is scheduled to begin in May.
● Harbourside/Roberts Street – the Harbourside Working Group will meet again in mid April.
● Richardson/Coughtrey, Fingall/Tedder, Bellona/New Streets – Construction of these ‘quiet streets’ and dedicated cycleway should be finished in the next couple of weeks.
Residents, businesses and property owners in areas where cycleways are planned will be contacted directly.
█ General information is also available at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/sdcn and more details will be added as projects are rolled out.
Contact Cr Kate Wilson, Infrastructure Services Committee Chair on 027 443 8134. DCC Link
@Peter
February 25, 2015 at 1:57 pm
‘I think this ridiculously childish bun fight is symptomatic when a council is breaking down, where the members, both administrative and political, spend more time undermining and attacking each other as things continue to go wrong.’
They have reduced the council to a farce. I think that Lorenzo da Ponte could have written a fine libretto using Dunedin instead of Seville. Sadly, we would struggle to find a Mozart to provide the music.
But ‘a day of madness’ it certainly is here in Dunners.
Le Nozze di Figaro : The Marriage of Figaro or “A day of Madness”
Opera buffa: Comic opera in four acts
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 – 1791)
Libretto: Lorenzo da Ponte (1749 – 1838)
He could have found a cast as follows:
DRAMATIS PERSONÆ:
COUNT ALMAVIVA baritone – David Cull
COUNTESS ALMAVIVA – soprano – Kate Wilson
SUSANNA – soprano, the COUNTESS’ chambermaid. Jinty MacTavish
FIGARO – bass, the COUNT’s manservant. Lee Vandervis
CHERUBINO – mezzo-soprano, in love with everyone. Richard Thomson
MARCELLINA – mezzo-soprano, in love with FIGARO. Hilary Calvert
DON BARTOLO – bass, previously Rosina’s guardian. David Benson-Pope
DON BASILIO – tenor, previously music teacher. Chris Staynes, now the COUNT’s middleman for his various romantic affairs.
DON CURZIO – tenor, a judge. Prof Stuart Anderson
BARBARINA – soprano, ANTONIO’s daughter in love with CHERUBINO. Aaron Hawkins
ANTONIO – bass, gardener in the COUNT’s gardens, Barbarina’s father, Susanna’s uncle. Neville Peat
Chorus of Peasants. The remaining councillors.
Plot: Three years previously, in the events of The Barber of Seville, Figaro (Lee V) helped the younger Count Almaviva (Dave C) win Rosina (Kate W) away from her cunning old guardian Bartolo, (David BP) and was hired as the Count’s manservant in gratitude. Now tired of his wife, the Count has for some time been looking elsewhere for female company, and his gratitude to Figaro has soured: not least because his eyes have lighted on Figaro’s fiancée, the Countess’ chambermaid, Susanna. Being a young man of the (age of Climate Change), the Count has recently revoked the use of his traditional Mayoral Limo, and is rather regretting it. Bartolo, meanwhile, nurses a grudge against Figaro for his trickery in depriving Bartolo of his ward (and the dowry he hoped to keep by marrying her himself), while his former housekeeper, Marcellina (Hilary C), has her own designs on Figaro….
….we will have to wait until Don Curzio (Prof Stuart Anderson) gets up to speed to untangle this unseemly web of intrigue. What will Kate Wilson do next to divert David Cull from his desires for the fragrant Jinty. How will Chris Staynes teach Kate to sing a different tune and how will he persuade Aaron to change his infatuation.
Lorenzo da Ponte should have chosen Dunedin 2015 for his setting.
‘Twilight’ — Page’s Song, in Marriage of Figaro. Mozart.
[library.duke.edu]
—
### ODT Online Wed, 25 Feb 2015 Threat to boycott hearing on conduct
By Chris Morris
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has threatened to boycott a conduct committee hearing called to hear complaints about his behaviour. […] Cr Vandervis labelled the decision “a farce” and later responded by forwarding to the What If? Dunedin website for publication an email he sent to Mr Cull, councillors and Dunedin City Council staff on Sunday. Read more
Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 at 6:15 p.m.
█ Message: I am forwarding this email to you so that my view of the on-going Code of Conduct process can be made clear, something I can not hope for from the ODT.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:36:37 +1300 To: Mayor Cull, Stuart Anderson [University of Otago], 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 Cc: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Pam Jordan Conversation: Complaint to Mayor Cull and potential Code of Conduct Committee members Subject: Complaint to Mayor Cull and potential Code of Conduct Committee members
Dear Mayor Cull,
By failing to respond to your required justifications under standing orders J1 Accountability [accountable for their actions] and Openness [be prepared to justify their actions] as well as the overarching principle of Natural Justice, you are prejudicing this Code of Conduct process.
If you will not justify your decisions to accept certain code of Conduct complaints with reasons, and your deputy will not justify or give his reasons for rejecting my initial conforming Code of Conduct complaint against you, my legal advice is that it leaves open the question that you can not justify your Code of Conduct decisions and that consequently there are no reasons available for an investigation on which to mount a defence.
The facts are that you have falsely claimed the authority to chose the membership of a Code of Conduct Committee against me, [and that you are again attempting the same under another guise] and you have decided to accept a Code of Conduct complaint that is agreed did not conform, and you now accept another non-conforming similar complaint ex Cr. Wilson and you refuse to give the required reasons for accepting specific claimed complaints.
All this contributes to a process so prejudiced by you that any consequential decision can not be valid.
Cr. Wilson’s second Code of Conduct complaint against me does again not conform under J4.1 for exactly the same reason you have recognised in the first Staynes/Thomson attempt – that it is devoid of any evidence, record, or taking down of words used as required under Standing Orders for a conforming complaint. As with the Staynes/Thomson complaint, it merely offers a damning tone judgement without providing any evidence. The documentary ‘evidence’ presented in only part of the Staynes/Thomson revisited complaint has been tampered with and the untampered evidence actually confirms my objected-to claim.
It is not clear as you claim that I was at any time happy for you to chose members of the Conduct Committee. The complete opposite should be clear to you especially when I wrote as below;
“at what date did you discover that you are not in fact empowered to appoint the Code of Conduct Committee, as detailed in Standing Orders and in the Structures and Delegations manual?
Having discovered this over-reach of your authority, what steps did you then take to remedy imposing your choice of members for the Code of Conduct Committee?”
I still await your answers to these process questions.
On the subject of Committee membership, I can not agree to be any part of any Code of Conduct process that includes Cr Benson-Pope as a Code of Conduct Committee member. Any conduct decision from Cr Benson-Pope would be tainted by his extraordinary long and public history of personal conduct issues [some of which I can list if required]. Any other Councillor of long experience would be preferable, and in Cr Benson-Pope’s case necessary. Never mind his personal antipathy toward me that almost rivals yours.
I also object to item 24 being Confidential and in the non-public part of the agenda. There is nothing in the report apart perhaps from the unnecessary naming of the position of Chair of Audit and Risk Committee that can warrant going against the default spelled out in J4.1 of Standing Orders that “Council will consider the [Code of Conduct] report in open meeting of the Council…” . Additionally, making it Confidential and non-public gives the false impression that as I am the publicly advertised target of the complaints I have something to hide.
In short, for item 24 proposed for Monday’s Council meeting to proceed;
1 – you should redact the unnecessary naming of the position of Chair of Audit and Risk and must move the report into the public part of the meeting.
2 – your recommendation of Cr. Benson-Pope for Code of Conduct Committee membership needs to change to a viable Council member. Preferably you should sit back from making any recommendations yourself.
3 – you need to give reasons for your acceptance of both Code of Conduct complaints for forwarding to the Code of Conduct Committee, and you need to recognise your past failures in appropriately assessing complaints.
4 – written ‘eye-witness account evidence’ that you infer as existing must accompany the original Code of Conduct complaints [as mine does in my complaint of you] and not come later in order for you to even consider it for forwarding for an investigation.
Until these appropriate process requirements are met, I can not recognise the item 24 process you propose for Monday’s non public agenda.
My legal advice is that if these matters are not rectified the purported hearing becomes a nonsense and any subsequent decision will certainly not be enforceable.
Currently my advice is also that if these matters are not rectified I should not attend any Code of Conduct hearing and I should ignore any consequential purported decisions.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
On 18/02/15 11:01 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:
Hi Lee,
I am running the process of Code of Conduct complaints as per Standing Orders but taking no other role. It appears that I initially mistated how the Conduct Committee would be appointed. The Council will now do that. However it is clear from your email below that you were happy for me to choose the members of the Conduct Committee.
I will not be responding further to your pseudo legal questions so as not to prejudice the process.
Dave
From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:09 PM To: Dave Cull; 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 Cc: Pam Jordan
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct complaints
Dear Mayor Cull,
Thank you for advising me that you are satisfied “that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a provision of the Code has been breached” as below.
My advice is that you are required to detail what these ‘reasonable grounds’ are under Standing Orders J1 Accountability [accountable for their actions] and Openness [be prepared to justify their actions] as well as the overarching principle of Natural Justice.
I am particularly interested in your reasons, given that you were also satisfied with the initial Staynes/Thomson complaint which is now accepted as being deficient and non-conforming under Standing Orders.
Regarding you verbal claim to me that you are personally authorised to choose the membership of the Code of Conduct Committee against me, and your written claim as below;
“From: Dave Cull
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 03:54:35 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham
Subject: Code of conduct panel
Dear Cr Vandervis,
Following our correspondence re the appointment of a panel to hear the Code of Conduct complaint against you, I have appointed three people as per Standing Orders requirements.”
at what date did you discover that you are not in fact empowered to appoint the Code of Conduct Committee, as detailed in Standing Orders and in the Structures and Delegations manual?
Having discovered this over-reach of your authority, what steps did you then take to remedy imposing your choice of members for the Code of Conduct Committee?
Looking forward to your open clarifying responses.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
On 11/02/15 12:28 PM, “Dave Cull” wrote:
Dear Cr Vandervis,
I understand you have been informed that two Code of Conduct Complaints have been made against you by Crs Staynes and Thomson and Cr Wilson respectively. In both cases I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a provision of the Code has been breached. Accordingly I will refer both matters to the Conduct Committee for investigation. I will report the matter to the next ordinary meeting of Council on 23rd February and ask Council to appoint the Conduct Committee members.
Dave
Dave Cull
Mayor of Dunedin
—— End of Forwarded Message
[ends]
II
Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 at 6:17 p.m.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:00:05 +1300 To: Chris Morris [ODT] Conversation: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee Subject: Re: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee
Hi Chris,
Today Mayor Cull’s second attempt to stack a Code of Conduct Committee against me was successful after his first attempt was shown loudly to be an overreaching abuse of his authority. The acceptance of non-conforming complaints against me without reasons given by Mayor Cull on the back of the refusal, again without his reasons given, of the Deputy Mayor to accept my initial conforming complaint against the Mayor makes the current process a farce. The Mayor may want to try and justify his actions to you but has refused to give the required reasons to me.
Cheers,
Lee
On 23/02/15 5:16 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:
——– Original Message ——– Subject: Mayoral statement – Conduct Committee Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:05:04 +0000 From: Andrea Jones [DCC] To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Hi everyone
Mayoral statement attached.
Regards
Andrea Jones
Communications Team Leader, Council Communications and Marketing
Dunedin City Council
—— End of Forwarded Message
[ends]
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Own Vision: Princes Street (entrance to Distinction Dunedin hotel)
Own Vision: Vogel Street
Own Vision: Octagon
Own Vision: Queens Garden 1
Own Vision: Queens Garden 2
—
The Central City Plan involves these projects:
(er, thanks again Spendthrift Staff)
● Warehouse Precinct Revitalisation Plan
● Central City Heritage Re-use Grants Scheme
● Street Improvements in Bond and Vogel Streets
● Making Crawford and Cumberland Street Two-way
● Queens Garden Upgrade
● Exchange Square Upgrade
● The Octagon Upgrade
● George Street Upgrade
● Princes Street and South Princes Street Upgrade
● Pocket Parks
● Improved Pedestrian and Cycle Safety in the Central City
●●●● Other Projects and Initiatives
—
What “Other Projects and Initiatives” ?!!
As well as specific place-based projects, the draft Central City Plan outlines other projects and initiatives relevant to the central city area:
● Investigate the location and provision of public toilets and restrooms throughout the central city in a toilet priority plan
● Design a plan for the incorporation of public art in the streetscape
● Investigate opportunities for using a range of public spaces in the central city for events as alternative/additional venues to the Octagon
● Develop a plan to improve the pedestrian experience along the routes from the campus to the ‘warehouse precinct’ (night and day)
● Investigate opportunities for more play equipment in central city spaces, such as the Library Plaza and Albion Lane
● Improve the quality of footpaths, including paving surface, furniture, trees and planting, and making them wider where possible
● Encourage building owners to add decorative lighting to highlight buildings that have heritage/ architectural values
● Improve lighting for pedestrians in some areas
● Improve processes and streamline procedures to help building owners re-use their buildings
● Work on a strategy to overcome procedural and financial barriers to revitalisation in the ‘warehouse district’
● Make District Plan changes to better reflect built form, help and promote quality development, review activity zones and activities, and protect special character in the central city and large-scale retail zone
● Prepare a development resource package telling prospective businesses about the Dunedin facilities, amenities and lifestyle
● Liaise with a building owner/developer to undertake a pilot project to help develop a creative quarter
● Consider the location of key tourist information facilities
● Investigate the desired model for a central city retail management body
● Work on a plan to encourage trucks coming from the Southern Motorway and heading to the port to follow Strathallan and Wharf Streets.
● Investigate the need for the development of a parking building in the light of the vision for a creative quarter
● Work with ORC to consider options for improving public transport flow and provision in the central city
● Assess options to improve pedestrian and cyclist connections across SH1, the railway lines and Thomas Burns Street
● Investigate the need for a transport hub for coach parking, cruise ship passenger drop-off and visitor parking, including campervans
● Improve visitor and information signage throughout the central city
● Build cycle storage facilities in strategic locations
● Undertake detailed investigation of measures need to promote the ‘Western Inner Relief Route’
● Encourage the freeholding of leasehold land.
![bike - fixed gear track racing [humancyclist.wordpress.com] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/bike-fixed-gear-track-racing-humancyclist-wordpress-com-1.jpg)
![nails 1 [hdwires.in]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/nails-1-hdwires-in.jpg)
![bike dog jun co-passage [hbr.org]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/bike-dog-jun-co-passage-hbr-org.jpg)
![Sail wagon [en.wikipedia.org] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/sail-wagon-en-wikipedia-org-1.jpg)
![Cycling [screenshot at YT].jpg](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cycling-screenshot-at-yt2.jpg?w=500)
No photograph of Kate in lycra could be found. The Mayor and MacTavish were both camel shackled when our photographer called (say no more).
![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)
![cycle hero [www.odopod.com]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cycle-hero-www-odopod-com.jpg)
![cycling getty [blogs.independent.co.uk]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cycling-getty-blogs-independent-co-uk.jpg)
![Figaro_opera [operatoday.com] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/figaro_opera-operatoday-com-1.jpg)
![Figaro-opera Mozart [library.duke.edu]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/figaro-opera-mozart-library-duke-du.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 