BAD UTTERLY BALD moral decrepitude —roll on corruption/rorts/rorters Delta, Luggate/Jacks Point, Noble Village, Carisbrook Stadium, Otago Rugby Football Union, Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, Town Hall Redevelopment, Wall Street, High Performance Sport NZ, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, et al.
—
In future, property matters could be referred to the new board of Dunedin Venues Ltd, the company which owned the stadium building.
The group would advise council on its $89million investment property portfolio, including Wall Street mall, although council would still make final decisions about the portfolio’s future.
### ODT Online Mon, 21 Sep 2015 Wider advisory role mooted for stadium board
By Chris Morris
A new board being recruited to oversee Forsyth Barr Stadium’s physical requirements could also advise the Dunedin City Council on its $89 million investment property portfolio, it has been suggested. Council staff have been referring significant property matters to the full council in recent years, after an earlier property subcommittee lapsed after the last local body elections in 2013. But a council staff report, to be considered at today’s full council meeting, suggested that could be about to change. Read more
### ODT Online Wed, 16 Sep 2015 Final Citifleet fraud report not finished
By Chris Morris
Dunedin police are still working to finalise a report into the $1.5 million Citifleet fraud, despite announcing in June no charges would be laid, it has been confirmed. The development came as it was confirmed an earlier police report into the Dunedin City Council’s long-running fraud was released to media despite internal concerns from senior police it was out of date, emails showed. Read more
● The Department of Internal Affairs was keeping a close eye on the Dunedin City Council’s handling of the Citifleet fraud investigation, documents show. (ODT)
█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *bachop*, *bidrose* or *vandervis* in the search box at right.
█ Message: Spot the difference – a Maori group gets the SFO while Dunedin Ratepayers get a lowly detective.
—
### NZ Herald Online 3:59 PM Monday Sep 7, 2015 Tertiary funding probe: SFO called in as centre agrees to pay back $7.5 million
By Steve Deane
A senior manager is dead and a Serious Fraud Office investigation has been launched following a probe into an agricultural college that uncovered millions of dollars of unjustified taxpayer funding.
The results of a Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) investigation into funding irregularities at Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre were released this afternoon following investigations by the Herald.
Taratahi’s former chief executive, Dr Donovan Wearing, died suddenly in January – three months after the TEC confirmed it was undertaking a ‘targeted review’ of the organisation.
The Herald has been told Dr Wearing addressed staff at the sprawling campus just outside Masterton about the investigation on January 21. The 52-year-old father of six was later found in a critical condition in a shed on campus grounds. He was taken to Wellington Hospital where he died at 10.30pm.
Dr Wearing’s death has been referred to the coroner. Read more
█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *deloitte*, *vandervis*, *detectives* and *bidrose* in the search box at right.
The detective, who has since left the police force, also noted the council did not supply Bachop’s credit card or fuel card statements as requested.
### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 13:08, August 12 2015 Police raised possibility of others involved in Dunedin City Council Citifleet fraud
By Hamish McNeilly
It had been billed as the work of a sole suspect, but a police file into the investigation of the theft of 152 cars from the Dunedin City Council fingers the “highly suspicious” activity of another unnamed person. Police have released to Fairfax Media their investigation report into the Citifleet fraud. Read more
DCC CULTURE OF ENTITLEMENT
‘Enormously disappointing’ —And Enormously Expected.
‘ONE MAN’ did it. An outright fairytale.
DOLLY didn’t, either. More to come !!
—
### ODT Online Mon, 10 Aug 2015 Further cases of fraud at council
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council says the discovery of five more examples of fraud and theft inside the organisation is “enormously” disappointing. […] Details of the smaller incidents emerged last week, in response to Otago Daily Times questions, a year after the discovery of the Citifleet fraud. Read more
Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 20 Jul 2015 at 10:06 p.m.
█ Message: I am chasing answers to many questions regarding the Noble subdivision. Two LGOIMA ‘answers’ appear below.
Cheers, Lee
—— Forwarded Message From: Sandy Graham [DCC] Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:58:34 +0000 To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Sue Bidrose [DCC], Graham Crombie [DCHL], Grant McKenzie [DCC] Subject: Nobel Subdivision
Dear Lee
I refer to your request for information related to the Nobel Subdivision and respond as follows:
Q1. Can you please supply details and quantify the likely cost of the Delta/DCC exposure to the mortgagee sale of the Nobel Subdivision. There is a very limited risk to Delta/DCC by way of mortgagee sale. There is however some financial exposure related to the subdivision and this was reflected in Delta’s Annual report for the 2014 financial year.
Q2. Can you please confirm the contractual details [preferably provide copies of the original and any subsequent contracts] that have led to our enormous exposure with the Nobel development.
All contractual details are withheld pursuant to section 7 (2)(h) of LGOIMA to protect the commercial position of Delta and further withheld pursuant section 7(2)(i) of LGOIMA to enable Delta without prejudice, to carry on negotiations.
When considering the request, the public interest was considered. This matter is currently before the Court in an effort to minimise any financial loss to the shareholder. We consider that protecting the legal position best meets the public interest at this time.
Given we have withheld information, you are entitled to a review of this decision by the Office of the Ombudsman.
I have cc’ed the original recipients of your request and the Acting CEO.
Regards
Sandy
Sandy Graham
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council
—— End of Forwarded Message
Note: Noble has been incorrectly entered as ‘Nobel’ by Ms Graham and Cr Vandervis in this exchange. -Eds
Further to the contents of an email from Jeff Dickie last month, who was writing from a hotel on Orchard Road at the time:
Supplied. ODT 13.7.15 (page 6)
****
INVOICE FRAUD AND MORE
TWO corrupt council officials and two businessmen who supplied them with cash and hospitality have been jailed with a warning they face “significant” sentences.
### HeraldScotland.com Wednesday 17 June 2015 Corrupt Edinburgh council officials face lengthy jail term
[…] Former local authority employees Charles Owenson and James Costello were treated to dances and drinks in lap dancing bars as valuable Edinburgh City Council contracts were secured through bribery. Ex-directors of Action Building Contracts Ltd (ABC Ltd) Kevin Balmer and Brendan Cantwell provided the rewards over the allocation of work for public buildings including schools, care homes and cemeteries.
Following their earlier guilty pleas a sheriff told them that he would continue their case until tomorrow for sentencing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to consider the information he had been given. But Sheriff Michael O’Grady QC told the four men: “Having regard to the gravity of the offences, it is clear to me the sentences will require to be custodial and require to be significant.” He remanded all of them in jail ahead of sentencing.
Owenson and Costello were provided with hospitality, including corporate seats at Hibs and Hearts football grounds and meals out as well as cash, by Edinburgh-based construction firm ABC Ltd (Action Building Contracts). The contractors even submitted inflated invoices to the local authority for work carried out to cover the costs of the bribes they were paying council officials. Fiscal Keith O’Mahony earlier told the court: “In essence, the council was being charged for the cost of bribing its own officials.”
[…] Police began carrying out enquiries in 2010 as a result of complaints about the statutory notices system and were later informed that senior management had received “a whistleblower letter” alleging that Owenson was showing favouritism when allocating work to contractors. The Crown has raised proceedings to recover crime profits in the case. Read more
Shades of the ‘Screaming Orgasm cocktails’ saga following Dunedin City Council’s decision to build the stadium. That evening, the board members of Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust went out to celebrate, booking their drinks at Alibi Bar & Restaurant to the Ratepayers.
Of course, there have been masses of local big-ticket ‘corruptions’: the stadium land purchases (including for realignment of SH88); the Carisbrook ‘deal’ with Otago Rugby Football Union, and further ‘Otago Rugby’ deals with Dunedin Venues (DVML); the Delta subdivisions and service contracts (Jacks Point and Luggate, and more recently Noble Village); the unravelling Citifleet fraud and insurance scam (substantially greater than 152 fleet vehicles lost off the inventory, allied to ‘traffic’ in car parts, tyres, service contracts, and fluid cash); the Dunedin Town Hall Redevelopment Project (via City Property) yet to be fully detailed; and field lights for Otago Cricket Association…….. et al.
I wish to make a complaint about the Dunedin City Council’s reply to a recent LGOIMA request (copied below) where I ask the whereabouts of the secure storage facility and the date the DCC/CST documents were placed in the facility.
Please also refer to my email to Ombudsman Office dated 15 June 2015 where I express concern as to the safety of the DCC/CST documents.
In the DCC response it states:
“The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information.”
This is not a valid reason to refuse the request because s7(2)(b)(ii) only provides protection for “the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information”. This could be a valid reason to refuse to provide some of the documents, but not a valid reason to refuse to provide the location of the documents.
The other reason for refusing to provide the location was: “pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.”
This is invalid because there are no public affairs being conducted that would be affected by revealing the location of the documents. More importantly, this only applies to “members or officers or employees of any local authority”. Revealing where the documents are, will not create any “improper pressure or harassment” on Council staff or Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) members.
The DCC in their response to the date the documents were stored in the secure storage facility state: “The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.”
The DCC confirmed this morning that the documents were moved with permission of the CST. Therefore, if the documents were moved with the permission of the CST then section 2(6) of LGOIMA applies because the CST are subject to LGOIMA given their special agency agreement with the DCC.
I request the Ombudsman Office investigate the above.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
█ {See previous post for chain of correspondence up to and including Ms Graham’s reply at Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000, provided in full with Ms Butler’s complaint to the Ombudsman. -Eds}
Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 12:32 p.m.
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 1:46 p.m. To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Wednesday 1 July 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
It was recently stated in the media that the DCC/CST documents were stored in a “secure storage facility”.
Also on Monday 29 June 2015, the CST stated: “The CST advise that there is no charge for the storage and as such, there is no invoice.”
I request the location where these documents were stored, the type of “secure storage facility” and on what date the documents were taken to the secure storage facility.
Thank you.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] To: Bev Butler CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility? Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:14:28 +0000
Dear Bev
I refer for your request for information about the CST secure storage facility where you asked the following questions:.
Where are the documents stored?
What type of secure storage facility it is?
What date were the documents taken to the facility?
I provide answers to these questions as follows:
The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The facility is a commercial storage facility. I have already advised that it is not EziStor. Any further details that may identify the facility are however withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.
As we have withheld information you are entitled to a review of our decisions by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sandy Graham [DCC] CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:15:33 +1200
Dear Sandy and Grace
Appreciate clarification before contacting Ombudsman.
In the response it states: “The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia.”
Given the statement above which implies that there is only one person in the world who knows when the documents were moved, is it correct to assume the documents were moved by the “sick lady” without the permission of the CST?
Is it also correct to assume the documents were placed in the secure storage facility without the knowledge of the secure storage facility’s owner, given the “sick lady” in Australia is the only person who knows when the documents were stored there?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] To: Bev Butler CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000
WHY WASN’T THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE CALLED IN RIGHT FROM THE VERY START WHEN CR LEE VANDERVIS ALERTED FORMER DCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE PAUL ORDERS TO CAR FRAUD ???
Then too, think of all the people who had access to the Deloitte reports (plural) – more specifically those without access to the digitised data report. That ‘narrows’ the field of leaks to Deloitte itself, NZ Police, private investigators, counsel, privileged council staff, privileged mayor and (some) councillors, those council staff whose lawyers worked on their ‘resignations’ / exit packages….
Who else? A veritable feast.
No-one named in the ODT today hasn’t been mentioned at What if? posts and comments previously – this includes the names of the car companies.
—
### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015 Questions still unanswered
By Chris Morris
[…] even after reading Deloitte’s full “Project Lewis” investigation report – the Otago Daily Times was leaked a copy – there are still many unanswered questions … [The report] named members of three Dunedin families who, together, bought dozens of council-owned cars … Those names included Wayne McFadyen, Destry Duff and Shayne Perkins and members of their extended families, who between them bought 42 vehicles, Deloitte found. Read more
****
Anngow Motors was sold in 2007 to Armstrong Mazda, which was, in turn, sold to Dunedin City Motors in 2009.
### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015 Long list of car deals
By Chris Morris
Council cars bought and sold within days, and handfuls of cash that disappeared without trace are detailed in Deloitte’s full report into the $1.5 million Citifleet fraud. The report outlines a long list of transactions between former Citifleet team leader Brent Bachop, private buyers and Dunedin car dealers dating back more than a decade. Read more
****
“Mr Bachop or Mr McFadyen kept a significant proportion of the sale proceeds for these vehicles,” the [Deloitte] report said.
### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015 Nothing to hide, says car buyer
By Chris Morris
Wayne “Tubby” McFadyen says he has nothing to hide. Instead, the man identified as one of the main buyers of Citifleet vehicles says the Dunedin City Council should be looking “in the mirror” if it wants to point the finger. “If there’s anyone to blame, it all falls on their heads too. They can blame everyone else for buying vehicles and whatever they want to do, but at the end of the day the buck stops with them.” Read more
█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *conduct* and *vandervis* in the search box at right.
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
Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 19 June 2015 at 9:13 a.m.
—
From: Bev Butler To: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson Subject: Mayor and Councillors/Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:50:20 +1200
Friday 19 June 2015
Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors
During my recent DCC Annual Plan submission I requested a full forensic audit of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST). You will recall that preliminary informal investigations found that documentation has been withheld. The CST and the previous CEO of the DCC both attempted via undisclosed legal opinions to ensure that this documentation remained hidden from any investigation or even LGOIMA requests and it is now more than clear that the CST, as an agent of the DCC, have no right to retain ANY documentation that relates to the entire period which the CST were in any way acting as an agent of the DCC. The CST appears to have no other function than continuing to receive donations from private persons as part of the private sector funding so, given that, I do not believe ANY documentation should be withheld from the DCC.
Since my public call for a full forensic investigation I have been greatly concerned about the security of the DCC/CST documents all of which were financed with ratepayer money.
It has now been revealed that the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry has removed most of the documents from the stadium and dumped them in a container. By doing so I believe that he has demonstrated a desire to thwart any investigation into any inappropriate spending of ratepayers money which could be revealed by a forensic audit, but he has also on the face of it, essentially misappropriated the documentation which has been, and remains, the property of the DCC.
On Monday 15 June 2015 I also contacted the Office of the Ombudsman expressing my concern over the security of the documents.
A representative of the Ombudsman Office then rang the DCC Governance Manager on Monday afternoon.
As elected representatives I believe you should be made aware of the situation.
Below is an urgent LGOIMA request I submitted on Tuesday 16 June 2015 followed by an acknowledgement of the request.
Further down the page is the earlier correspondence I had with the DCC CEO requesting the documents be secured.
Kind Regards
Bev Butler
—
From: Bev Butler To: Grace Ockwell [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC] CC: Sue Bidrose [DCC] Subject: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:17:33 +1200
Tuesday 16 June 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
Given the following:
1. Changes to LGOIMA recently came into force on 26 March 2015.
In light of these changes, and especially the changes to s2(6) which unequivocally states that a local authority will be deemed to hold any information held by an independent contractor in its capacity as contractor.
2. Under section 3 of Schedule 5 of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the CST and DCC it states:
“All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.”
3. DCC Governance staff were told by the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry, that ALL the DCC/CST stadium documents were in a locked room at DVML offices as per the SLA and only Malcolm Farry and his secretary had keys to the locked room.
4. Recently it has transpired that MOST of the documents are not in the DVML offices.
5. Most of the documents are now in a container.
Therefore, given the LGOIMA legislation, the contract between DCC and CST and other information above, I request the following:
1. On what date were the DCC/CST documents removed from the DVML offices?
2. Apart from Malcolm Farry, who else was involved in the removal of the documents?
3. Which other CST trustees were aware of the removal of the documents?
4. Where exactly is the container located?
5. How are the documents stored in this container? Are they in cardboard boxes, supermarket bags, filing cabinets or thrown in piles or some other storage method?
6. Will the DCC report this removal of local government documents to the Police given this was done without DCC permission?
7. Will the DCC now seize these documents as is their legal right under the SLA?
8. The name of the law firm and lawyer who has been providing legal advice to the DCC over the security of the DCC/CST stadium documents?
Given the seriousness of this situation, I am requesting that this request be treated with urgency.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham To: Bev Butler CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:00:11 +0000
Dear Bev
Thank you for your request below. I note that you have requested urgency and we will consider this request. If we decide that we will not progress the request urgently, you will receive a response as soon as practicable or within twenty working days.
I do wish to formally advise that I have sighted the CST files and after conversations with the CST have no concerns about their security. I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sandy Graham CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:30:55 +1200
Dear Sandy
Thank you for your email.
Do the CST still have access to these documents?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2015 3:47:51 p.m. To: Sandy Graham Cc: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell
Dear Sandy
Further to your email below where you state:
“I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.”
Can I assume that the DCC will be taking control of the documents by the end of the week as per SLA?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: 24 May 2015 4:16 p.m. To: Sue Bidrose Subject: Security of stadium documents Importance: High
Sunday 24 May 2015
Dear Dr Bidrose
I wish to formally request that the DCC secure the CST stadium documents.
Some time ago, I was made aware of a threat by Mr Malcolm Farry, Chair of CST, to remove the documents from the locked stadium room.
I think it is essential to ensure the security of these documents.
Given Mr Farry’s ongoing refusal to release information even with the recent change in legislation to LGOIMA and given the false statements and the malicious attack on me which he made on the front page of the ODT on Friday 22 May 2015 I believe it may be necessary to:
(a) change the locks as I understand Mr Farry has the only key;
(b) secure any external window(s) from possible break-in or access to damage the documents.
(c) ensure Mr Farry is escorted by a security guard at all times whilst in the document room if he does now decide to co-operate.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
PS I think it fair to inform you I will be making this request public in a few days time.
—
From: Sue Bidrose To: Bev Butler Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 03:38:28 +0000
Hi Bev
Thanks for the conversation. To just put it in writing, I have had discussions with the CST representative and we are working together to ensure DCC has full access to CST documents pertaining to the stadium build. Most of the documents are not at the stadium and therefore ‘locking the door’ would not only be likely to provoke legal retaliation, it would be counterproductive in our working together to ensure DCC has the documents that we are legally required to have.
Kind regards
Sue
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sue Bidrose Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:22:51 +1200
Hi Sue
Thanks for the email.
fyi
On reading the Service Level Agreement today on page 20 it states under Schedule 5 – Resources/Administration
3. All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.
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.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 at 9:32 a.m.
█ Message: Your readers may be interested in an example of how extraordinarily difficult it often is for Councillors to get information from staff – especially if that information is about staff.
An important example is highlighted in the following email trail – important because as the original Citifleet whistleblower in 2011, I am still getting flack and having information withheld that could help to get to the bottom of DCC frauds.
Thank you for this sudden response after more than 3 months of nothing.
Further follow up LGOIMA requests are as follows;
Why has this multiple LGOIMA request not been acknowledged or decided upon within the required 21 working days?
When you say that this is “our response” who exactly has been responsible for the decisions in the response?
Are you aware that the last time I went to the ombudsman to hurry up an information request, it took several attempts and 11 months to get an answer?
Looking forward to a response by return.
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 11/03/15 4:03 PM, “Grace Ockwell” [DCC] wrote:
Good afternoon Lee,
Thank you for your email of 20 November 2014 and your follow-up email requesting information about the Deloitte Report on Citifleet. Your request has now been forwarded to me to process. It has been considered under the provisions of LGOIMA and the following response is provided. I have repeated your request (or parts thereof) to give context to our response.
a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
The Police have yet to conclude their investigation of this matter and therefore a copy of the full Deloitte report is still withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
The information provided to the CEO in relation to staff is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals and pursuant to section 7(2)(c) as the information provided is subject to an obligation of confidence.
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
All correspondence between the Council and our legal advisors (including correspondence between Deloitte and our legal advisors on the Citifleet matter) is withheld pursuant to s 7(2)(g) of LGOIMA to protect legal professional privilege. Additionally, some but not all of the material is also withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloitte of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
The Police have not yet concluded their investigation of this matter and therefore the preserved electronic copy of information held by Deloitte which the Council controls is withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As you are aware, as we have withheld information, you have the right pursuant to section 27(3) of LGOIMA to have our decision to withhold information reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Grace Ockwell
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
——————————
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:37:03 +1300 To: Sandy Graham [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC] Conversation: Further LGOIMA requests Subject: Re: Further LGOIMA requests
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Can you please update me by return on where these LGOIMA requests have progressed to?
Regards,
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 24/12/14 10:13 AM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
Again I request a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
I can accept that the full report may have to be provided on grey paper.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloittes of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
Ratepayers have paid quarter of a million dollars for the production of this information and I wish to see all of it as a public representative in the public interest.
It is not acceptable to me to have only been provided with the public redacted report along with the public at such a late pre-Christmas stage.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
——————————
On 13/10/14 10:32 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
You have not answered the question as to why one elected representative [the Mayor] seeing the entire Deloitte report [and parts of the report appearing in Audit and Risk Subcommittee agendas] is not likely to “prejudice the maintenance of the law including the investigation and detection of offences.” but that this is still an excuse for not showing the entire report to other elected representatives like myself. Especially given the number of comments the Mayor and CEO have been making to the media regarding the subject of the Deloitte Report.
Your claim that the Stadium review is not yet completed and is still in draft form directly contradicts the advice of the quoted Audit and Risk agenda of 7/10/14 which plainly says that the Stadium “external review has been completed”. If the former, since it can’t be both, why can’t I see it anyway? And why have we then been misled in the A&R agenda?
Being “of course entitled to have that decision reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsmen.” is a farcical affront, given the last response from this dysfunctional excuse for a government department took ELEVEN MONTHS to reply to my request to see the faults list for the long completed Town Hall redevelopment, which you also refused.
This systematic stonewalling of this elected representative by DCC staff is unacceptable to me.
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.
![Yaldhurst Village Mortgagee Tender [realestate.co.nz - Harcourts]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/yaldhurst-village-mortgagee-tender-realestate-co-nz-harcourts.jpg)
![Yaldhurst Village contact information [villagelife.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/yaldhurst-village-contact-information-villagelife-co-nz.jpg)
![Yaldhurst Village location map [villagelife.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/yaldhurst-village-location-map-villagelife-co-nz.jpg)
![Sue Bidrose - timeline of managerial responsibilities 2010 - 2013 [screenshot]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sue-bidrose-timeline-of-managerial-responsibilities-2010-2013-screenshot.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 