Tag Archives: John Hansen

Blonde ‘lawyer’ takes over DVML —expect no change

Where do they get them.
Dumb enough to accept the blurb given.

DVML and DCC needed an expert psychologist. Not a token.
But if it makes the Smiths happy.

### ODT Online Sat, 28 Feb 2015
Auckland lawyer takes chair at DVML
By Chris Morris
Dunedin Venues Management Ltd’s new chairwoman says she is up for the challenge of Forsyth Barr Stadium. Ashburton-born lawyer Raewyn Lovett (54), now living in Auckland, yesterday took over from outgoing chairman Sir John Hansen, who was farewelled last night after five years in the role. Ms Lovett told the Otago Daily Times she was taking over an organisation that appeared to be turning a corner, helped by the recent stadium review and the company’s “very energetic” chief executive, Terry Davies.
Read more

Raewyn Lovett 1Raewyn Lovett. In addition to my legal career I enjoy spending time in governance roles. I was Chair of Netball New Zealand for seven years and on the board of TTNL Limited (responsible for the establishment of the ANZ Championship). I am a chartered member of the Institute of Directors. Full profile here.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Raewyn Lovett with fringe! (tweaked by whatifdunedin)

█ For more, enter the terms *dvml*, *directors*, *davies*, *stadium*, *stadium review*, *misses*, *cull*, *orfu*, *highlanders*, *rugby*, *suite 29*, *tvs* or *hansen* in the search box at right.

13 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

‘Stadium liability’, from the ODT unprintable letters file

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sun, 14 Dec 2014 at 10:42 a.m.

Message: I have been advised by Nick Smith that the ODT Editor will not print my letter as below.
You may well have ideas on what the reasons for rejection may be.
Cheers,
Lee

ODT 10.12.14 Letter to the editor (page 14)
ODT 10.12.14 Letter to editor Diehl p14

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:43:28 +1300
To: EditorODT, Nicholas G S Smith [ODT], Dave Cannan [ODT]
Conversation: Stadium liability
Subject: Stadium liability

Dear Editor,
Despite all the evidence, contributors like Bev Diehl still have everything wrong regarding the Stadium.
We do not “have it” – it has us till it is paid for. In the meantime the lenders have it and us by the debt short and curlies.
It is not “an asset” but a rates liability. We are not having major artists, they occasionally have us, as in the estimated $6 million Elton took back overseas for his one-off no-charge use of the Stadium. The mostly empty stadium has other events, mostly rugby, which are heavily subsidised by rates bail-outs and differential, Community Access fund, Event Attraction fund, and millions in interest, staff and maintenance payments. The DCC Stadium Review Committee was stacked with Stadium Management who recently succeeded in again increasing funding for their already wasteful operational spending.
Everything can never “fall into place”, until Stadium operational costs are reduced to the bare minimum required for the rare large events that only the Stadium can host, now that Carisbrook has been levelled.

Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

Perhaps an inkling here, Lee ?

Ch39 News (11.12.14) talks to Phil Somerville about the ODT Opinion page.
We’re told it’s about bringing forth ideas. Different views from different perspectives – but STOP.

What are some of the main recurring topics?

“Often they tend to be on the main news of the day. For a while of course they were on the stadium, try to avoid that now, most views are extremely entrenched. Probably could run something on climate change every week….”
Link to comment

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DCHL & DVML: Call for directors

ODT 4.10.14 DCHL directors advert p21ODT 4.10.14 (page 21)

Is it our collective good fortune that “Don’t you know who I am?!?!” Sir John Hansen is ending his tenure as chairman for the sympatico boards of DVML and DVL?

Although, here is evidence that the Fubar Stadium GOES ON………..

We know public release of the Stadium Review initiated by DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose is pushed out until November. It’s all VERY messy, that nothing will DIE —regrouping the DVML board for the $20 million pa loss-making stadium won’t turn the structure into crushed aggregate and salvaged steel (for sale) at pumpkin hour.

A few bunnies will apply. We’ve had bunnies all along at DCHL —look what that’s cost Dunedin ratepayers and residents. Same applies for DVL and DVML. No change will happen while the stadium continues to drain the finances of Dunedin City Council under Liability Cull’s mayoralty of disasters and increased spending.

Remember this BS?

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
DCHL Names New Directors

This item was published on 31 Oct 2013

Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) has announced the appointment of two new directors to the parent company board and another two to its subsidiary company boards. More than 50 applications were received for the DCHL Board. […] DCHL Chair Graham Crombie says the new directors bring strengths that will add valuable skill sets to the boards they have been appointed to. “We needed people that could make informed business decisions, but at the same time complement the skill set of the directors already around the Board table. Following on from last year’s result we needed people comfortable working in a highly visible public arena to help us build on the excellent work done by the previous directors and maintain the forward momentum.”
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
30.9.14 DCHL financial result
25.9.14 DVML on Otago Rugby and Rod

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

24 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DCC: Forensics for kids

Crime scene - forensic animation 09 - Tim McGarvey [tmba.tv] 11

Fairfax Media has obtained Audit NZ letters of management to the DCC from 2005 to 2012, released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. The letters show that in the years 2007-2010 auditors consistently urged the DCC to tighten up its risk-management policies and processes.

Audit NZ expressed concern over what it indicated could be inadequate controls over several internal processes, including verifying signatures of those authorised to sign invoices and purchase orders, independent review of creditor files, and controls of sensitive areas such as sale of council assets to staff. (Fairfax)

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 08:17 26/08/2014
Dunedin council officers ‘not kids’
By Wilma McCorkindale
The Dunedin City Council (DCC) appears to have ignored calls by Audit New Zealand to improve its risk and fraud processes, saying its officers were “supposedly people with integrity … not kids”.

The DCC revealed in June it was investigating a suspected major fraud within its Citifleet unit. The fraud was suspected to have been carried out over a decade. Citifleet team leader Brent Bachop died suddenly in May. His death has been referred to the coroner. Council chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose said the alleged fraud of $1.5 million included alleged illegal transactions resulting in the loss of profits from the sale of 123 council fleet vehicles. The findings have been passed to the Dunedin police for further investigation.

Fairfax Media has obtained Audit NZ letters of management to the DCC from 2005 to 2012, released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. The letters show that in the years 2007-2010 auditors consistently urged the DCC to tighten up its risk-management policies and processes. It appears Audit NZ was compelled to repeat similar advice over the period and noted the DCC met only minimum requirements.

Council managers’ response to the Audit NZ findings in 2010 was to say the council had considered creating an audit and risk committee but concluded its finance and strategy committee adequately performed the role. In December 2010 Audit NZ raised the issue of reviews of areas “susceptible to fraud”, but management commented that specific audits in the “most sensitive areas” had found “no transactions of concern or deficiencies in controls”.
Read more

Crime scene - forensic [scottthornbury.wordpress.com] 2b

Five council staff were involved in “employment processes”, with some facing the prospect of losing their jobs, the ODT understands.

[Irony] Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule yesterday told the ODT the “mind-boggling” alleged fraud was the biggest involving a local authority he could recall.

### ODT Online Tue, 26 Aug 2014
Council overlooked audit advice
By Chris Morris
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull concedes a chance to detect the alleged $1.5 million Citifleet fraud may have been missed, after the council twice overlooked advice from Audit New Zealand. The revelation came in Audit New Zealand’s annual reports to the council, obtained by the Otago Daily Times, which highlighted gaps in council processes dating back to 2003. […] The findings have triggered finger-pointing between past and present council staff, councillors and Audit NZ, but council chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose said responsibility for failing to detect the alleged fraud rested with the council.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
3.7.14 Stuff: Alleged vehicle fraud at DCC
1.7.14 DCC: Far-reaching fraud investigation Citifleet
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.5.14 DCC $tar-ship enterprise
28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
7.2.12 DCC ‘money go round’ embedded

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images (tweaked by whatifdunedin): tmba.tv – Tim McGarvey: 3D forensic animation (TMBA Inc. Animation Studio, New York City); scottthornbury.wordpress.com – F is for forensics (illustration by Quentin Blake, from Broughton, G. (1968) Success With English. Harmondsworth: Penguin)

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

DVML catering and commercial kitchens….

FB Stadium: The exclusions included a kitchen fit-out, broadcasting facilities, electronic turnstiles, score boards and replay screens.

FB Stadium: On site commercial kitchens with secondary kitchen facilities on Level Two and Level Four
– Bar areas on Level Two and Level Four
– Suites and lounges on Level Four with air conditioning

Questions, questions.

Why is Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) getting rid of their employees in order to employ Compass Group (the caterers) employees?

Perhaps because Compass were going to pull out as it wasn’t viable to do business at the Stadium? If Compass pulled out they would make Dunedin City Council pay them back the $3 million they invested in catering equipment at the stadium?

Oi! What events?!

FBS kitchens [projectstainless.co.nz]Images: projectstainless.co.nz

Related Posts and Comments:
19.3.11 ‘Forsyth Barr Stadium Base Building Further Requirements’

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Design, DVML, Economics, Events, Hot air, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA

Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 24 Jun 6:20 p.m.

I am disappointed in the complete indifference of the local press regarding info I have sent them on the scandalous $1.3 million of new flatscreen TVs DVML bought when they already had 94 TVs and were already grossly unable to meet budgets. –Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:54 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [ODT; Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: stadium
Subject: Re: stadium

Hi Chris and Debbie,

My understanding is that mothballing the stadium is not being seriously considered, but that it should be to at least give us a sunk-costs base-line to recognise how much keeping the doors open is costing us.
The one-off cost of buying and paying the interest on the stadium is damaging enough with out the continuous massively subsidised ridiculous running costs.

It is a shame that DVML have been allowed to run as an out-of-control Council Trading Organisation for far too long, and that DCC failure to get DVML to operate responsibly as required by their Statement of Intent has encouraged profligate spending, such as buying $1.3 million of new flat screen TVs with fancy computer controls, when they already had 94 new flat screen TVs. [see attached DVML LGOIMA responses] Spending $1.2 million on unauthorized temporary seating, and buying an unauthorized specifically Council-denied growlight system [to keep the turf growing] are two other examples. Despite this the Mayor and other Councillors seem to be happy for years now to keep throwing millions at DVL/DVML.
I have often said that before we seriously consider closing the stadium doors we should strip DVL/DVML of their staff, directors and overheads, appoint a DCC in-house manager to run the stadium along Edgar Centre lines using volunteers including Rotary as was done with Carisbrook, fit a low-maintenance artificial turf to allow everyday use, and see how cheaply the stadium could really be run. Only then would we be in a position to decide whether keeping it open was possible long term.

I have sent original info re DVML’s profligate spending on newer TVs and their disposal of ‘old’ flat screens in separate emails.

Cheers,
Lee

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 1

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:59 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response and new questions
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response and new questions

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:45:59 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response and new questions

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response to your request in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 9 May 2014. Attached also is a record of the payments made by staff and Directors for the purchases of the second hand televisions.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Record of Payment (PDF 836 KB)
ClrVandervis030614 (PDF, 129 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 2:47 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response and new questions

Thank you Kim for Mr Davies responses to my questions.

Unfortunately some of my questions have not been answered.
Question 2 asks whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new Stadium TV software package that the existing 94 TVs were incompatible.
Can you please respond – yes or no – whether DVML realised they were buying a software package that was incompatible with the stadium existing 94 TVs?

Question 5 asks who was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”.
My ‘who’ question has not been answered – was it a management requirement lapse, or was it simply a staff member filing error, or some other subcontractor’s recording lapse?

Question 6 asks who was responsible for the damage causing seven TVs to be discarded? Does the “where no blame can be attributed” response mean that nobody was held responsible for the destruction of these seven TVs? Was any insurance claim made for the damaged TVs?

Question 7 requests copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs supplied to DVML staff and directors. Thank you for supply copies of invoices, but it is proof of payment original paperwork that I have asked for. Can you please forward copies of this ‘confirming payment was made’ paperwork?

Your response also raises some additional questions which I wish to pose now as an additional LGOIMA request for information:
TV sale invoices variously describe TVs as “new” “second-hand” or just as “TV”.

Question A – are the “new” TVs so described actually new, and if so why are these new TVs being sold so cheaply? Are the sold ‘new’ TVs from the original 94, or from the subsequent 165 TVs? Are the second-hand TVs from the original 94 or subsequent 165 TVs or both? Of the TVs sold to staff/directors that are neither described as new or second-hand, which were new and which were second-hand?

Question B – why do the TV sale invoices vaguely refer to a generic TV type and not specify the actual TV unit by way of model number or serial number as is required in “a description of the goods” on a GST invoice?

Question C – What is the total number of TVs now in the stadium, and how many are from the original 94 TVs and how many are from the more recent purchase of 165 TVs?

Thank you for the information that you have provided so far as it has helped to clarify some aspects of the $1.3 million cost of the second full stadium TV system excluding the original stadium 94 TVs system.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 2

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:07 +1200
To: Debbie Porteous [ODT], Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:02:38 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 1 April 2014 along with copies of invoices as requested.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Staff purchase invoices (PDF, 615 KB)
ClrVandervis290414 (PDF, 101 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2014 10:17 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim,

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”?
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 1/04/14 5:48 PM, “Kim Barnes” wrote:
Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

—— End of Forwarded Message
{See also correspondence via posts made on 3 April 2014. -Eds}

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
14.6.14 NZRU ‘hustles’ towns and cities to build stadiums
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[Punctuation in the string of correspondence lightly edited and highlighting added; all email addresses removed. -Eds]

32 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, What stadium

DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

Received from Lee Vandervis
Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:37 p.m.

Interesting to note how little of the below ended up in the ODT story!

—— Forwarded Message
From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:48:04 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

.
Attachments
ClrVandervis310314
Samsung-TV-invoice-1
Samsung-TV-invoice-2
Media Release 310314

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis’ reply, a further LGOIMA request:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:17:25 +1300
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis sent Kim Barnes’ email with attachments to Chris Morris [ODT] with this cover message:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:33:30 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

Hi Chris

Again as with DVML purchase of Turf Grow Lights which Councillors had decided were not to be bought, DVML disappoint at every turn in their spending and disposal of so many TVs.
They have taken an unacceptable 8 weeks to respond to my request to account for Stadium televisions whereabouts and to provide original purchase invoices.
It appears that they wish to blame an unidentified group or individual for buying the original 94 ‘old technology’ stadium TVs which they claim were unsuitable and that they have bought 165 newer TVs which are an “essential tool in any stadium”. I wish to know who decided to buy the first 94 TVs and on what advice, and whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible.
The 165 newer TVs costing $145,000+ are claimed by DVML to “provide increased revenue opportunities” because they can be operated by a ‘Cisco Stadium Vision software package’ allowing individual imaging.
DVML claim to have gone through an involved process to determine the value for sale of the first 94 ‘outdated’ TVs, but “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
28 of the original 94 TVs continue to be used around the stadium making a total now of 193 stadium TVs, more than double the original number.
7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been terminally damaged and who has been held responsible?
Sales of the original TVs have been made “to staff and two DVML board members, Sir John Hansen and Peter Stubbs”. I have asked to see original paperwork confirming payments by staff members, and payments by DVML Chairman Sir John Hansen and Board Member Peter Stubbs.

My request for confirmation of stadium TV whereabouts was made in response to public questions to me concerning purchasing accountability at the stadium.

I look forward to getting further answers to more questions raised by DVML’s unacceptably slow response.

Kind regards
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

DVML Letter (page merge) clrvandervis310314

Media Release 310314

Related Post and Comments:
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums