Batch #2 being 11 of 21 emails
Received from Cr Lee Vandervis on Sun, 24 Apr 2016 from 08:45 AM
See Batch #1 here.
A small number of emails considered objectionable have been withheld.
Where appropriate, all contact information has been removed.
The original emails have been archived by What if? Dunedin.
Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds
_____________________________________
EMAIL 6
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:25:01 +1200 To: David Loughrey [ODT] Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested” Subject: FW: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:40:32 +1200 To: Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose [DCC] Cc: Tony Avery, Doug Hall [DCC] Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested” Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Hi Sue and Sandy,
Further to my previous email please note that, contrary to the response below, several suburbs of Dunedin have again become mini-lakes districts as a result of the 5pm rain we have had yesterday.
In one drive to Calvin’s place, many blocked mudtanks creating mini-lakes were evident in Hilary st, Orbell st, Fea st and Ramsey st with rivers running from these mini-lakes all over the roads, proving widespread failure of our mudtank structures.
The claims below that 95% of mudtanks have been properly cleaned or that this might have been due to a particularly severe rain event, high tide, or a lack of capacity down-stream are obviously not the case.
Unpleasant options beckon.
Regards,
Lee
On 15/01/14 3:52 PM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee
Please find below information from staff about the operation of the mudtank structures with specific reference to the rain event on 16 December 2013 as per your enquiry to Sue and Tony of 17 December 2013. Sue has asked that I respond on her behalf noting that Tony is still on leave. In summary, the note explains that there was not a widespread failure of the mudtank system on 16 December 2013. It also details how the system is inspected and maintained. The issue you raise about debris on the roads is also addressed.
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:31:57 +1200 To: David Loughrey [ODT] Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested” Subject: FW: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:31:01 +1200 To: Sandy Graham [DCC] Cc: Sue Bidrose, Tony Avery, Doug Hall [DCC] Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested” Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Dear Sandy,
A DCC department is not a ‘who’.
Can I please have the names of those people who supplied you with the ‘information’ in the response to my mudtanks questions, from both Transportation Operations and Water and Waste.
It is important for me to know who produces such information.
Can you please also advise who is the person in Transportation operations who is ultimately responsible for the audit of contractor performance?
The difficulties I regularly experience in discovering who authors or produces information to Councillors is becoming a serious issue.
Cheers,
Lee
On 17/01/14 12:03 PM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee
In answer to your questions:
1. The response of 15 Jan 2014 was the result of information supplied by staff from both Transportation Operations and Water and Waste. The response is on behalf of the CEO under my signature – I wrote the final response.
2. Staff in Transportation Operations are responsible for the audit of the contractor performance.
Cheers
Sandy
From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Friday, 17 January 2014 10:21 a.m. To: Sandy Graham [DCC] Cc: Sue Bidrose; Tony Avery; Doug Hall [DCC] Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Dear Sandy,
I think that you are missing the point that there are blocked mudtanks everywhere in Dunedin.
Again,
Can you please let me know;
1 – who wrote the mudtanks/flooding response below?
2 – who is responsible for the accuracy of the monthly mudtank audits?
Cheers,
Lee
On 17/01/14 9:15 AM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee
Staff will check the Pine Hill areas that you list below today. If following inspection, there is a blocked mudtank it will be remedied. FYI, this is the standard process we follow when we receive advice from a member of the public that there may be an issue with mudtank(s) in a particular area.
Regards
Sandy
EMAIL 8
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:32:22 +1200 To: David Loughrey [ODT] Conversation: More mudtank misery. Subject: FW: More mudtank misery.
—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:40:58 +1200
To: Tony Avery [ODT]
Cc: Sandy Graham [ODT]
Conversation: More mudtank misery.
Subject: More mudtank misery.
Hi Tony,
I have had a verbal and written complaint from the owners of Davies Heat ‘n’ Cool over the flooding of their 1 Donald st premises, and the DCC failure to address the issue of future flooding.
In the past flooding has been so severe that a complete evacuation and insurance claim cleaning of all carpets was necessary.
This because the camber Kaikorai Valley on the intersection with Donald st is so flat that water streaming down the road from the east side of Kaikorai Valley road during extreme rain events crosses the road at the intersection and it all ends up in the two mudtanks on Donald st, which routinely do not cope.
These Kaikorai Valley mudtanks would appear to be have the same problem as those I have previously identified in Roslyn, Pine Hill, central city, and anywhere else I have been in a heavy rain event – namely that they have not been cleaned to the 150mm below outlet pipe as required under the DCC contract.
The ongoing failure of contractors to do the mudtank cleaning for over a year now has escalated to utter abysmal farce.
Both Donald st mudtanks need to be properly cleaned, and a raised subtle berm of asphalt needs to be added to the middle of the Donald st intersection to prevent storm-water from east Kaikorai Valley crossing the intersection at this point and flooding west Kaikorai Valley road/Donald st.
Please let me know how soon both of these issues will take to be addressed.
Batch #1 being 5 of 21 emails
Received from Cr Lee Vandervis on Sun, 24 Apr 2016 from 08:45 AM
A second batch will be posted shortly; a small number of emails considered objectionable have been withheld.
Where appropriate, all contact information has been removed.
The original emails have been archived by What if? Dunedin.
Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds
_____________________________________
EMAIL 1
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:45:35 +1200 To: EditorODT, Vaughan Elder, Tim Brown, Nicholas GS Smith [ODT] Conversation: Flooding Mud-bath Subject: Flooding Mud-bath
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
Perhaps Mayor Cull only takes showers and does not realise that a bath won’t empty when the plug hole is blocked.
As the Councillor who was filling hundreds of sandbags into the early hours of June 4th in the tremendous community effort to fight back the floodwaters, I had first hand experience of the high water remaining long after the rain had stopped, and well into the next day. Hundreds of South Dunedin and other Dunedin residents took an appalling bath, followed by further property value damage from Mayor Cull ludicrously suggesting sea-level-rise greenwash as requiring a ‘managed retreat’ from South Dunedin. South Dunedin has great investment potential which should be realised, beginning with a big pump that works.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
EMAIL 2
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:03:40 +1200 To: Ruth Stokes, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Laura McElhone, 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 Conversation: Questions re June 3rd 2015 floods. Subject: Questions re June 3rd 2015 floods.
Dear All,
In the interest of Tenders transparency, last month I enquired of staff whether FH had bought City Care, as City Care’s new ownership remained a closely kept secret and rumours circulated.
Given the City Care appraisal of mudtank maintenance in our Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda, knowing the new ownership of City Care now takes on increased importance.
Who are City Care’s new owners, and do Fulton Hogan have any financial or other interest in or influence over City Care?
In Item 5 a number of other questions arise:
1 – why is there no mention of Mayor Cull’s claimed contribution to flooding from sea-level-rise? Has this been contribution been assessed as nil? If not, why not?
2 – Is it true that City Care applied to do screen clearing prior to the June 3rd flood event, but were not authorised by DCC staff to do so in time for the flood? [28]
3 – Does the statement “a proactive maintenance regime is important to manage and maintain overland flows into the storm water system” mean that without this proactive maintenance, flooding effects will be more damaging due to the restricted ability to drain? [38]
4 – What is the contract specification for cleaning of the mudtank outlet lateral pipes which are compromised when mudtank debris has not been kept “at least 150mm below outlet”? [39]
5 – where/when is the FH ‘30% full proxy’ first recorded in DCC files? [41]
6 – If 26% of draining mudtanks were totally blocked, and a further 36% partially blocked, would this drainage blockage not mean that flooding effects would be made worse as a result? [52]
7 – Does 230T [52] mean 230 tonnes of debris was removed from mudtanks? When was this removed, and by whom, and at what cost to whom? [52]
8 – which ‘water’ “would have been unable to enter the network even if all mudtanks were clear”. Why would this ‘water’ not be able to enter the network? Is this because network screens were blocked or pumps not working adequately? [55]
9 – Was water below road level [57] a major contributor to flooding and damage of houses? Viz, how many houses’ floor levels are below road level in South Dunedin?
10 – What alternative internal management regime is being considered? [61] is an updated resident cellphone-photo-text-alert monitoring system being considered to replace our old fixagram system?
11 – Who have been the successful tenderers for the new separable portion of the Mudtank maintenance contract? And who were the businesses that tendered for this separable portion?
Looking forward to answers that will further inform debate on item 5.
The latest salvo came after Cr Lee Vandervis made public an email exchange with Crs Benson-Pope and Richard Thomson, copied to other councillors and staff, earlier this week.
Cr Vandervis did not respond to ODT requests for comment yesterday.
In his emails, published online, he blamed a lack of information coming from council staff for the “tedious” need to resort to Information Act requests.
Biblical proportion…. [thanks RMN]
Matthew 23:23-25
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence….
It’s with some fascination if not repulsion that Whatiffers can observe bullying by standing committee chairmen continuing unabated on the mayor’s watch.
Cr Thomson’s historical on camera stunts of addressing or referring to Cr Vandervis as “my good friend” are, how shall I say, unchaste and deceptive in the context of what follows below.
Two emails received tonight.
—
Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:26 p.m.
█ Message: Differing Councillor views that may be of interest.
Cheers, Lee
—
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:41:19 +1200 To: Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone, Ruth Stokes Conversation: OIA Request Subject: Re: OIA Request
Actually Richard, the Lamborghini has become symbolic of many other very visible excesses, but let us stick to Council issues.
For many years I used to make all the information I had available in very candid discussions with staff, who often then failed to investigate appropriately. Citifleet is a prime example, and this and other examples has taught me that a publicly funded organisation is poorly motivated to investigate itself.
Without my LGOIMA requests the incredibly belated Citifleet ‘investigation’ might never have happened, as it did not happen for over a decade before. Have you counted the cost of that multimillion dollar fraud as a percentage of the cost of processing my LGOIMA requests?
Do you not realise that most of my LGOIMA request arise from questions and allegations from members of the public that I represent?
Even when an internal investigation does prove that for instance over quarter of a million of public funds was paid to a contractor to clear mudtanks and none were cleared, nothing appropriate seems to happen at the DCC without publicity. Hence my now having to get the public involved when things are not sorted internally.
When you claim that needing information “of how the information relates to possible wrong doing” is necessary to get information, this is absurd. It is much easier to simply search ‘Stihl chainsaws’ and forward what DCC files information appears. Similarly a vehicle registration number. Just search the registration number and forward the files – easy, quick, no thinking required, little time wasted considering whether ‘particular staff have been involved in possible wrong doing’ etc.
Why is it that our staff can have all this information, but not want to share it with us the supposed decision makers when we request it?
Answer – information is power – and bureaucracies generally do not want to share it, especially with supposed decision makers.
Don’t you dare suggest that I do not give a toss, as you have no way of knowing the state of my mind or the work that I do, and don’t you dare suggest that my approach has failed to identify fraudulent behaviour, as you similarly do not know what has gone into, for instance, Citifleet, Jacks Point/Luggate, mudtanks, Noble, Town Hall redevelopment, or the almost complete turnover of senior managers at the DCC in the last few years.
I will continue to carry on in the manner I believe to be appropriate, and I do not seek any advice on my manner from of you.
Regards,
Cr. Vandervis
———————————
On 15/09/15 9:48 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:
Actually Lee my concern is quite the opposite. If there is fraud taking place I want to see it caught. That is why in the Otago DHB when someone came to me with an anonymous tip off and no evidence to back it I initiated a full investigation within half an hour. And I know what some of the consequences are of taking action. They include having to have endless questioning of your integrity/intelligence/ etc by people such as yourself and your fellow travellers on the likes of What If. You have no idea how terribly amusing it is to regularly be accused, because you did the right thing, of “failing to notice the Lamborghini in the carpark”. Never mind that I never had a carpark so didn’t go in the carpark building, or that the fabled Lamborgini was only owned for a few days. Or indeed, had I gone in the carpark building for a random look around and spotted a Lamborghini I would probably have assumed it belonged to a surgeon anyway. So bearing that personal history in mind here is what really pisses me off.
When you make accusations but when virtually begged to make the information available to the CEO so it can be investigated you respond that the “only way you will be making the information available will be through the pages of the ODT”. As you did at the Audit Committee meeting.
When you put in OIA requests and refuse to give any indication of how the information relates to possible wrong doing. Lets think chain saws here. So in the end the only way the OIA can be responded to is to make general inquiries all over the place thereby pretty much ensuring that if there has been dishonesty the person involved will have plenty of time to bury any evidence.
When you seek “all documentation” about a motor vehicle without giving a toss whether the inquiries around that might harm any investigation if there has been wrong doing because the people responding to the request will have no idea if they are going to tip off unknowingly a suspect.
It ought to be of some concern to you by now that your methods and approach have failed to catch any fraudulent behaviour but that the methods of Mr McKenzie that you so disparage have caught a number. Perhaps the fact that people do come to you with info might actually result in people being caught if you worked with people instead of carrying on in the manner you do.
R
[contacts deleted]
———————————
From: Lee Vandervis To: Richard Thomson; Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2015 8:59 PM Subject: Re: OIA Request
Re: OIA Request
I note Richard, that you and some others are quite happy to get on with running a city without knowing who is stealing what or how much things cost to run the city.
My regular voting against Council spending motions often arises because there is simply not enough information made available to justify voting for.
If staff reports provided adequate relevant information, and if rate-paid reports like the $300,000 Deloitte investigation information were made available to us who need to make related decisions, none of this tedious LGOIMA process would be necessary. It is a shame that I have to go to so much effort just get basic information, and that so few others can be bothered.
Cr. Vandervis
———————————
On 15/09/15 5:27 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:
Hi,
Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.
on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city..
R
[contacts deleted]
—— End of Forwarded Message
—
Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:27 p.m.
█ Message: And this…
—
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:50:07 +1200 To: David Benson-Pope, Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone Conversation: OIA Request Subject: Re: OIA Request
You might well have stopped for a moment David, to consider the cost of not making LGOIMA requests, or of the enormous savings to ratepayers had LGOIMA requests been honestly and promptly complied with as required by the LGOIMA Act.
It has been recently proven that ex CEO Harland misled Councillors making LGOIMA requests to find out what Farry and Co were up to with Stadium planning/funding, by falsely claiming that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust were not subject to LGOIMA information disclosure requirements. Ex-CEO Harland did this despite having two legal opinions, one local and one ex Wellington, saying that the CST were absolutely subject to LGOIMA information requests. Harland’s deceptions have only come to light as a result of many subsequent LGOIMA requests.
Had Harland processed LGOIMA requests as legally required during his tenure it would highly likely have saved ratepayers many millions in a variety of areas, if not hundreds of millions wasted on our Stadium liability.
If all my 2011 LGOIMA requests for Citifleet information, including all credit card information had been made available as requested under LGOIMA, think how many subsequently stolen vehicles would have been saved and perhaps even the life of a bent manager. Put a price on that David and make sure to request the full cost thereof.
The horrendous cost of not having required relevant information on which to make decisions is the reason we have LGOIMA.
In my opinion, not using the LGOIMA process suggests that you are not doing your job as an elected representative.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
———————————
On 15/09/15 6:04 pm, “David Benson-Pope” wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment … If he won’t I wil
This is therefore a request for full details of all lgoima requests made to the dcc by any councillor in the current triennium and the full cost thereof
Yours etc
David Benson-Pope
Sent from my Windows Phone
———————————
From: Richard Thomson Sent: 15/09/2015 5:27 p.m. To: Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Lee Vandervis; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone Subject: OIA Request
Hi,
Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.
on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city.
R
[contacts deleted]
—— End of Forwarded Message
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Image: toonpool.com – Cat Whisperer by Goodwyn (tweaked by whatifdunedin)
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.
Site Admin
What if? Dunedin has received a total of 17 emails from Lee Vandervis, including two with email attachments. A further three emails have been withheld from publication due to privacy reasons, and which may be actionable.
The first batch of seven emails feature at this post, with the remaining ten emails (some repeats to different recipients as Mr Vandervis follows up with Kyle Cameron of Deloitte, responsible for the Citifleet investigation) to be added at Comments after being photographed and stitched back together to retain threads.
To be noted, this is part document proof of Cr Vandervis’ efforts from 2011 forward to elicit information on suspicion of fraud occurring at Citifleet. The emails show DCC Senior Management were aware of fraud allegations well prior to 2013/14, despite Council’s formal media statements to the contrary last year. They also support the obvious need that existed for a wider fraud investigation in regards to Council tendering processes, service contracts, traffic of car parts and tyres, staff credit card spending (by multiple available cards) and more – quite apart from disposal of at least 152 Council vehicles in the period 2003-2013, the set arbitrary window for investigation by Deloitte.
The DCC chief executive having taken a fraud complaint to Dunedin police was advised police had insufficient resources for follow up. There was then a three-month gap before police received the Deloitte investigation report commissioned by the Council. Three months is long amount of time to minimise and remove critical evidence within Council and about town. Dunedin City Council knows that. Deloitte knows that. Dunedin police know that. We can assume the Council’s insurers know that, yet they paid out $1 million in two instalments, for the ‘lost’ vehicles only [see DCC media release]. The three-month gap in itself is a suspicious if not criminal activity against Dunedin ratepayers and residents.
For more information at this website, enter the term *citifleet* in the search box at right.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:19 a.m.
█ Message: I have had enquiries today from members of the public regarding my initial 2011 investigation of Citifleet complaints. For the public record, I am forwarding the related emails I have on record from that period, some of which you may find interesting enough to publish.
—
Batch #1 (six emails distinguished by blue subject lines and flags)
Clarke and Dawe – An Exciting New Interpretation of The Text.
“An Important Government Functionary. One of many.” Originally aired on ABC TV: 07/08/2014
****
ClarkeAndDawe Published on Aug 13, 2014
Clarke and Dawe – The Exceptions that Prove the Rules
“Mr Desmond Gruntled, Financial Projectionist” Originally aired on ABC TV: 14/08/2014
****
ClarkeAndDawe Published on Aug 20, 2014
Clarke and Dawe – Who said that?
“Mr Tim Astraya, Asparagus farmer” Originally aired on ABC TV: 21/08/2014
****
ClarkeAndDawe Published on Aug 27, 2014
Clarke and Dawe – Some Slight Difficulties in the Workplace
“An Extremely Senior Australian Treasury Official” Originally aired on ABC TV: 28/08/2014
● The Trusts Charitable Foundation (TTCF Inc) ● The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd (TTCF Ltd) ● Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) ● Professional Rugby ● Centre of Excellence for Amateur Sport ● Harness Racing ● Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) ● Gambling Commission ● Pokies ● Rorts ● Organised Crime ● Serious Fraud ● Political Interference
Fairfax Media journalist Andrea Vance broke the story.
### ODT Online Fri, 7 Jun 2013 Dunne resigns as minister
By Claire Trevett – NZ Herald
United Future leader Peter Dunne has resigned as a Minister after he was found to have withheld information from an inquiry into a leak of a GCSB report. Read more
Mr Key said he had told Mr Dunne he was “very shocked” by the Henry [GCSB] report.
![android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/android__email_by_bharathp666-bharathp666-deviantart-com.jpg)
EMAIL 6
![android-email-app [carleton.ca]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/android-email-app-carleton-ca.png)
![Cat Whisperer by Goodwyn [www.toonpool.com] tweaked 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cat-whisperer-by-goodwyn-www-toonpool-com-tweaked-1.jpg)
![Sue Bidrose - timeline of managerial responsibilities 2010 - 2013 [screenshot]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sue-bidrose-timeline-of-managerial-responsibilities-2010-2013-screenshot.jpg)
![Peter Dunne [Parliament]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/peter-dunne-parliament.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 