DCC fails to meet LGOIMA request re ‘lost’ secure storage of CST files

The Dunedin City Council OWNS the Carisbrook Stadium Trust files, note.

Received from Bev Butler
Mon, 8 May 2017 at 1:40 p.m.

Subject: Complaint Dunedin City Council/storage of stadium documents

Message: Attached is the letter from the Ombudsman Office. I have sent a response to the Ombudsman letter.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

● Download: 0_1-408161-3117439

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.16 Official Information at Dunedin City : Bev Butler maintains pressure
10.7.15 Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Bev Butler queries invoices for Delta hospitality at Stadium #LGOIMA

Received.
Another repetitive chore for Mr Cameron while he remains in office.

—

From: Bev Butler
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 12:06 p.m.
To: Glenda McGowan [Delta]; Grady Cameron [Delta]
Subject: Fw: Urgent LGOIMA Request: Delta/Aurora dangerous power poles – reason for financial restraints/invoices further details

Wednesday 14 December 2016

Dear Ms McGowan and Mr Cameron

I wish to follow up further on some of the attached invoices.

The following was reported in the ODT (28/11/16):

“On the issue of the corporate suite, Mr Cameron said like any large business, “from time to time we host our customers to strengthen the working relationships”.

In the past financial year, Delta spent about $9000 on food and beverage hosting customers at the suite…….” 

In light of Mr Cameron’s comments in the ODT, there are a number of invoices on which I request further information as follows:

1. Carisbrook Stadium Trust Invoice PSF-26, dated 5 December 2009, 10 Lounge Club Memberships $40,000+gst. Please state the names of those who have access to the 10 Lounge Memberships paid for by Delta. I note on the Forsyth Barr Stadium website the following: “As a Member of Forsyth Barr Stadium you can attend any of our scheduled events and take in the view from your own designated premium seat in the Speight’s Stand (South).”

This is obviously 10 premium seats in the Speight’s Stand on top of the seating in the Delta corporate suite.

2. Invoice 1343, dated 29/06/2012, Highlanders vs Chiefs includes Beverage $711.30+gst and 20 3 course meals @ $67.00 = $1340+gst.

How many of these guests were:

(a) Delta management staff

(b) Other Delta staff

(c) Delta directors

(d) DCHL directors

(e) Mayor and/or councillors

(f) DCC executive management team

(g) DCC staff

(h) Carisbrook Stadium Trustees (CST trustees/rich listers have reputation for receiving ‘gifts’ of tickets/catered meals at the expense of the ratepayers)

(i) Delta clients

(j) other – please state

Please supply the names of those who attended.

Jeff Dickie: Edinburgh tough, Dunedin (DUD)

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

█ 18.6.15 BBC News: Four jailed over Edinburgh City Council bribes

—

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.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles

Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 11:25 a.m.

—

From: Bev Butler
To: complaint @ ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Subject: Ombudsman complaint: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:19:53 +1200

{Address and phone number removed. -Eds}

Friday 10 July 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

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}

—

Related Posts and Comments:
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared

Updated post Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 1:22 p.m.

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

Dear Bev

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Regards
Sandy

—

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Ratepayer boxes #saga

Once upon a time, Rugby louts and owners of industrially-zoned land at Dunedin decided they deserved a new Rugby stadium and some personal spending CASH! (ie ratepayer money)

It wasn’t long before DCC was vigorously lobbied from within and without by slimy fatcats, to build a Hopeless Stadium.

The evil plan was to saddle ratepayers with outlandish debt for decades and decades.

It also transpired that the Chin Council thought only slightly about lines in the sand but agreed ‘it’s perfectly alright to rob the poor to support the well-off’ —the practice continues to this very day, Mayor Cull’s merry band of dimwits subsidise DVML and have recently transferred $30m of Hopeless Stadium debt back onto the DCC books.

Going back a treacle-filled step or two… the spendthrift Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST), headed by Malcolm Farry, became agent to the Council via a Service Level Agreement (SLA), to see in the Hopeless Stadium construction project and associated fundraising.

[Aside, like it didn’t matter: Farry in his construction safety hat and dayglo vest failed miserably at raising public donations for the Hopeless Stadium.]

Long short… regular as well as ‘other’ payments were made by DCC to CST and co-greedy sods without much corroborating paperwork.

Despite non-accountability and lack of transparency, and the odd crucial missing document, there’s a stash of CST files kept “in storage” somewhere – files to drive a bulldozer through, lawfully the property of the Council, paid for by ratepayers.

Turns out two of DCC’s most senior executives, with Malcolm Farry, appear to have no interest whatsoever in surrendering the files for independent forensic audit. They’ll only retrieve file boxes in batches, while pedalling strongly backwards.

The files are not sealed, seized or safe. Where are they? DCC will not say. Farry won’t say. Fairytales are being told.

The files were long ago officially requested through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by Dunedin resident Bev Butler. They’re also subject to the Public Records Act.

The Ombudsmen’s Office is involved, due to deliberate lack of co-operation shown by CST and DCC to supply copy of the original files to Ms Butler in a timely manner.

Have the files been thrown into plastic shopping bags, shredded or dumped? We simply don’t know.

CST and DCC are equally culpable, they’re both prepared to lie and defer – What if? can only imagine the files might be as tidy as this.

If it takes a court order…..

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: clipart.org – Filing Cabinet Overload

DCC / Carisbrook Stadium Trust document scramble #LGOIMA

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.
 
Kind regards
Bev

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses

Dunedin City Council released the following report through the LGOIMA process, in reply to Bev Butler who lodged an information request.

The report by independent auditors Crowe Horwath investigates the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager, then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick.

Download: Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

NOTE: The report is not the result of a forensic audit, which should now take place to provide clarification for Mr Hedderwick and his manager.

QUESTION: Why is Dunedin City Council not seeking requirement for a forensic audit?

—

Related Post and Comments:
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)

Updated post 17.6.14

Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

Dunedin City Council has released a report recently completed by independent auditors Crowe Horwath, into the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick. ODT reporter Chris Morris is covering the story.

—

[Received]

Readers of this site will recall the efforts that campaigner Bev Butler went through to track down the expenditure incurred by Guy Hedderwick while he was the Commercial Manager for Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

After much effort through the LGOIMA process Ms Butler was told that Mr Hedderwick had run up bills of nearly $80,000 during 51 work-related trips since 2010.  

Readers will also recall the reaction by Neville Frost, DVML’s Finance Manager (ODT 22.3.14), who labelled Ms Butler’s claims of this expenditure as “completely inaccurate and ill-informed” while accusing her of “disgraceful” conduct and that she was “lacking in personal integrity”.  

Readers should now be fully informed that the figure of nearly $80,000 was indeed incorrect. The figure arrived at in the report compiled by Crowe Horwath is $144,879 – the amount released by Mr Frost in response to Ms Butler’s LGOIMA request has nearly doubled.

Readers should also be informed that the report found there was almost $4,000 spent by Mr Hedderwick with no evidence of what it was spent on; and a total of over $34,000 with no evidence of any approval.  

City ratepayers now need real answers to some basic questions.

1. Why, when Neville Frost was required to provide accurate information under an LGOIMA request on Guy Hedderwick’s expenditure, did he provide information that was inaccurate and misleading? Readers should not need to be reminded that when Steve Prescott, Manager of Aquatic Facilities at the DCC, did just this recently he resigned.  

2. Now that the full extent of Guy Hedderwick’s spending has been revealed by the Crowe Horwath report, can DVML still maintain as Neville Frost did in his press release, that it was “frugal”?  

3. What is DVML doing to obtain refunds from Guy Hedderwick on those sums incurred where there was no approval, or where there was no evidence of what the expenditure was for? For expenditure where there was no approval, is Neville Frost or Darren Burden at fault for lack of oversight and lack of management, and if so, should they be also responsible for repayment?  

4. What benefit to DVML and the ratepayers occurred from this $144,879 expenditure? Guy Hedderwick seems to have had carte blanche to travel at his own whim and it appears that DVML can’t point to any general or particular benefit from any of it.  

5. What accountability will be enforced by DCC, on behalf of the ratepayers, on the actions of Guy Hedderwick, for Neville Frost’s failure to both financially control this expenditure and to mislead and misinform both Bev Butler as the LGOIMA requestee and the general public by the content of his press release, and on the Board for its failures to contain costs?  

6. A full, comprehensive and public apology must be obtained from Neville Frost for his disgraceful and inaccurate statements made in his press release of March 22, 2014.

Note: Thanks to Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt for these statements.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Finance Department (payments area)

Both items supplied.

ClarkeAndDawe 7 May 2014

Clarke and Dawe – Some steadying words on the current situation
“Robin Peter, Payments Officer with the Australian government.” Originally aired on ABC TV: 08/05/2014

[Quote: ‘Remind you of anything? DVML, DVL… Liu & Woodlouse… Very timely!’]

****

A Simple Idea for PSF (Farry’s Folly)

ODT 8.5.14 In Brief (DCC DAP) – page 13

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium: Fairfax business editor pokes DCC’s Fubar

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 05/03/2014
Business
Empty seats, empty pockets
By Chalkie
[…] Chalkie is concerned by a $48 million scheme to build a stadium in Petone for the benefit of the Phoenix A-League football team and its fans. From what we know of the proposal, the Hutt City Council – which means ratepayers – will be asked to contribute $25m towards building a “boutique” 10,000 to 12,000 seat arena at the southern end of the Petone Recreation Ground. […] The good burghers of the Hutt will be best placed to judge the practicalities of the scheme when further details are available, but the financial side has worrying similarities to the set-up of Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin. Arm’s length charitable trust controlling the budget? Check. Private sector funding promised? Check. Troubled sports franchise as anchor tenant? Check.

[…] In Dunedin, those involved in developing the city’s shiny new covered stadium are far from universally popular after ratepayers ended up with huge debts and an ongoing headache from running the thing. The original idea, itself controversial, was for ratepayers to contribute $129m – split between $91.4m from the city council and $37.5m from the regional council – towards the $188m cost of the stadium, with private sector funding contributing $45.5m. The balance was coming from local trusts and a government grant. In the end, the stadium cost $224m and the ratepayers were hit up for $200m of that. The private sector funding was virtually zero.

You could write a book on the series of failures that left a relatively small number of people – Dunedin has a population of about 126,000 – exposed to such high costs. But even in the short version written by PricewaterhouseCoopers it seems councillors were not well informed about the project and financial controls were inadequate. The controversy still simmers. Local campaigner Bev Butler, a determined and resourceful opponent of the stadium scheme, continues to unearth aspects of the process that do not reflect well on its management. One of the latest involves the relationship between Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, which runs the project, and the council.

The problem in this instance is the lack of transparency around public spending, even when there was obviously concern at the outset to keep a firm grip on it. More than that, Dunedin got in over its head and allowed itself to be the schmuck landed with everyone’s bill at the end.

Money from the council was supposed to be transferred to the trust only to pay for third-party invoices billed to the trust. An exception to this rule provided for the trust’s administration costs to be covered by a general monthly payment from the council. These “trust costs” invoices were for between $40,000 and $90,000 a month, running from July 2007 to January 2010. According to Butler’s information, which tallies with the council schedule, the payments totalled $2.2m over the period. An Official Information Act response from the council to Butler said the money was paid “to cover staff and administration costs” of the trust “to facilitate ease of administration”.

Chalkie can see that it would be easier to pay for the trust’s incidentals in this way. However, it opened a big hole in accountability for spending because the staff and administration costs detailed in the trust’s annual reports for the period total $1,068,796, more than $1m less than the sums invoiced. It is not clear from the accounts how the other $1.1m was spent because no combination of other costs – marketing, PR, fundraising or project administration – seems to come close to the right figure. Chairman of trustees Malcolm Farry told Chalkie he could provide documents to clarify the details last week, but unfortunately they were not yet available as we went to press.

There are several lessons for the Hutt City Council, including to beware of using a charitable trust as the development vehicle, to ensure private sector money is paid up front with a buffer for contingencies, and to ensure there is no ambiguity about costs.
Read full article

● Chalkie is written by Fairfax business bureau’s Tim Hunter.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs

A 2009 cashflow report suggested the total trust and administration costs for CST for the project should be $3.7 million, but in the end they were $5.4 million. (PricewaterhouseCoopers)

### ODT Online Sat, 22 Feb 2014
Council payments to trust queried
By Debbie Porteous
A stadium opponent has questioned a series of historic administration cost payments from the Dunedin City Council to the trust in charge of the Forsyth Barr Stadium’s development. Bev Butler says it remains unclear what exactly the payments to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST)*, mostly labelled ”trust costs”, were for. The payments, ranging from $40,000 to $80,000 a month, were made between 2007 and 2011.
Read more

*Properly known as the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CSCT)

Related Post and Comments:
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .

****

[back file]
### ODT Online Mon, 12 May 2008
Stadium Trust heads to regions
By Hamish McNeilly
Representatives from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust will venture south this week, hoping to persuade people to not only support the project – but also pay for some of the Awatea St stadium. Trust chairman Malcolm Farry said the tour would be an opportunity to discuss the project and detail some of the packages available. Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: scene.co.nz – Malcolm Farry (re-imaged by whatifdunedin)

DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue

Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) —operating losses and compounding debt

—

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Oct 2013
DVML loss bigger than forecast
By Chris Morris
Ratepayers will not be hit in the pocket again despite the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium missing its mark by nearly $700,000. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd on Monday revealed a $986,000 loss for the 2012-13 year, which chief executive Darren Burden said represented progress after a $3.21 million loss the previous year. However, the company had been forecasting an even better turnaround, with a $298,000 loss predicted for 2012-13 in a statement of intent published in July last year.

In the end, the $986,000 loss was $688,000 worse than expected, the company’s annual report confirmed.

Mr Burden said the loss could be covered internally using income from other sources, such as ground memberships and other private sector sponsorship arrangements.

Mr Burden said the forecasts for 2012-13 were actually completed in early 2012, about 18 months before this week’s results were released. Because of that, they were also based on only about six months of trading by DVML, he said. For those reasons, there was always going to be ”a level of uncertainty”, but the accuracy of future forecasts should improve, he said.
Read more

—

Associated comments at ODT Online, in the public interest:

Really?
Submitted by overit on Thu, 03/10/2013 – 9:24pm.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, these figures may not be true reflection of the FB Stadium earning its way. Now that DVML has other income streams from the Railway Station and the Dunedin Centre it would be very interesting to see what the separated financial result for FB stadium is rather than DVML as a whole.

Maybe the ODT could report on this?

A grip
Submitted by russandbev on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 6:38pm.

MikeStK, the Larsen report and the PWC report – both of which were published in the ODT – made it plain that the whole basis of the stadium’s finances were nothing than hyperbole. Huge under-estimation of costs of construction, huge over-estimation of economic benefits, and under-estimation of on-going operational costs. By now, surely most proponents of this White Elephant can see how completely destructive this project has been on Dunedin’s well-being. The only people or groups to have benefited directly from this project have been the very fortunate land owners who sold at round 3 times the budgeted amounts, the private CST who received regular fees for their management of the project, the various “consultants” who provided glowing future forecasts for stadium usage which have all proved to be optimistic at best, the ORFU who have been bailed out, the few promoters that have received subsidies for bringing in the few shows that have been staged at the stadium, the anonymous economic impact analysts who provide regular non-peer group reviewed reports on mythical income, and of course the highly paid executives of the entities themselves who seem to make sure the balls are continually being juggled to obscure the true position.

And of course the people to pay for all of this are the ratepayers. Behind it all are the potential governance people who, it seems largely, want to just pretend that all in the garden is lovely. Well, everyone now has the opportunity to make your views known. If you don’t vote, then you are as much to blame as those that made this mess happen. Vote wisely.

Diverting debt repayments
Submitted by MikeStk on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 1:26pm.

Now just a minute – back when we were pretending that income from memberships were really “private fundraising” rather than pre-purchased ticket sales the city borrowed $45m to cover the fact that this money wasn’t going to be paid up front but would instead dribble in over 5-10 years. If Mr Burden’s now going to divert this money that was supposed to be used to pay off the debt borrowed against this future income to paying off his own losses who is going to pay off the actual $45m in principal and associated interest?

This whole rugby stadium thing appears to be a giant game of cups and balls.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin Venues logo overstitched (re-imaged by Whatifdunedin)

Is there a conflict of interest?

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Sep 2011
Conflict of interest claim denied
By David Loughrey
Anti-stadium campaigner Bev Butler has again taken aim at the people who worked to build the Forsyth Barr Stadium, but this time she has got no backing from a former ally, now mayor, Dave Cull. Ms Butler’s latest target is Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) director Mike Coburn, who has also worked on the project delivery team that made sure the stadium was built. She claimed there was a conflict of interest in the role, and that two invoices she unearthed to Mr Coburn’s company Ruboc Holdings for “casual corporate suite rental” last year for the All Blacks v Wales game, showed about $6000 that should not have been paid for by ratepayers.
Read more

****

This morning, Bev Butler emailed the following notes and information to What if? Dunedin…

She says:
• Attached are 23 Ruboc Holdings invoices.
• Below is the covering note with [Mike] Coburn’s explanation.
• My overall comment: “The public will be shocked at the pure unadulterated greed.”
• My comment on the covering note by Coburn is “Pathetic”.

Notes:
DCHL director Mike Coburn’s company, Ruboc Holdings Ltd, invoiced the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST), then paid for by DCC, for casual lease of a corporate box for the All Blacks vs Wales test game last year.

The invoice was for $4,429.69 (incl GST). This was approved by Malcolm Farry, CST chairman. Note also the invoice is dated 12 May 2010 and payment made a month in advance of the rugby All Blacks test.

Another invoice was for Additional Test tickets $2,409.69. From the invoices this was a day out for the Project Delivery Team and ……..

Total of all Ruboc invoices: $83,370.04 (incl GST)

Coburn started claiming fees from 9 March 2009. This is before the Hawkins contract was signed on 27 April 2009. He was right in there from the start.

Some invoices claim expenses for meals, taxis, phone, parking and accommodation. Not sure where the accommodation would fit in as Coburn lives in Dunedin and there are no claims for travel elsewhere.

Mike Coburn is the sole director and sole shareholder of Ruboc Holdings Ltd. He is the company.

Mike Coburn was being paid $1000 per day as Project Delivery Team member to push the stadium construction further while failing in his duty as a director of DCHL to inform DCC that DCHL was unable to supply dividends to pay off the stadium debt.

Mike Coburn invoiced the CST $4,429.69 for the one day casual hire of his corporate box so that the Project Delivery Team could watch the All Blacks vs Wales test match.

This invoice was approved by Malcolm Farry then sent to DCC for payment under the guise of construction cost.

Mike Coburn also invoiced CST $2,409.69 for extra Test tickets for the same All Blacks vs Wales game.

[Malcolm] Farry then claimed this as a construction cost of the stadium.

Did Coburn also claim $1000 payment for attending the test match day as well because he was ‘working’?

Who were the other tickets bought for?
Who are the members of the Project Delivery Team?
Are these members all being paid $1000 per day and did they all get paid $1000 to attend the rugby as well as their tickets paid for?
Do any of these other members also have conflicts of interest?

—

Covering note from DCC:
Dear Bev
As previously indicated, here is the covering note for the release of Ruboc invoice information.

“Please find attached the information requested regarding Ruboc Holdings Ltd invoices. All the invoices held by the Council have been released. The invoices, in the main, cover Ruboc Holding’s[sic] time in respect of the many meetings attended relevant to the delivery of the stadium project including those with the PDT, DCC committees, Council meetings, University, DVML and Hawkins.

“Two invoices relate to the rental of a suite at Carisbrook. The hosting of contractors at Carisbrook was an exercise by the PDT to strengthen the working relationship primarily between the main contractor Hawkins, subcontractors and Arrow International Ltd at a time when they were facing significant challenges to reduce costs to remain within budget. Initially there was only sufficient interest to fill part part the suite and Ruboc committed to the balance but as word got around, enthusiasm grew as did the numbers, and Ruboc had to forgo the balance, hence two invoices.

“I trust this answers your enquiry.”

Sandy [Graham]
[DCC governance manager]

—

The invoices:
Ruboc Holdings – 00000041 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000047 – $2,025
Ruboc Holdings – 00000053 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000065 – $1,800

Ruboc Holdings – 00000069 – $1,487.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000075- $5,580
Ruboc Holdings – 00000112 – $2,180.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000125 – $2,197.50

Ruboc Holdings – 00000130- $2,120
Ruboc Holdings – 00000133 – $3,937.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000138 – $3,583.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000148 – $2,141.95

Ruboc Holdings – 00000150 – $4,459.25
Ruboc Holdings – 00000167 – $3,240
Ruboc Holdings – 00000180 – $3,330
Ruboc Holdings – 00000190 – $4,680

Ruboc Holdings – 00000198 – $4,950
Ruboc Holdings – 00000213 – $4,275
Ruboc Holdings – 00000221 – $2,475
Ruboc Holdings – 00000234 – $4,725

Ruboc Holdings – 00000246 – $5,625
Ruboc Holdings – 00000253 – $2,700
Ruboc Holdings – 00000261 – $4,050

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr