Tag Archives: LGOIMA requests

No news : Appointment of Group CFO

dcc-private-briefing

****

Consternation of Various Sorts

We note the Dunedin City Council’s very poor financial position generally, in face of the ‘explosive’ DCC-owned Aurora/Delta collapse of the Otago power network – notable for continuing poor governance and management, with contingent lack of transparency and accountability – affecting ratepayers and residents in three distinct council areas (DCC, CODC, QLDC); the city council’s snail-like attendance to infrastructure maintenance and upgrades including implementation of three waters strategy; the city council’s ongoing out-of-control stadium fiasco; and ALL The Council Debt / debt servicing costs etc etc – for the very low, ever passive and aging ratepayer base.
FANTASTIC TIMES.

How interesting then that DCC has – as yet – failed to appoint a new Group Chief Financial Officer following the resignation of Grant McKenzie last year (see announcement 11 June 2016 via ODT).

****

Fri, 12 Aug 2016
ODT: Departure reshuffle
The departure of the Dunedin City Council’s group chief financial officer, Grant McKenzie, has triggered a minor reshuffle within the organisation. The rejig includes a temporary structure while Mr McKenzie’s replacement is recruited, but the council has also taken the opportunity to realign job titles and responsibilities for two of the council’s senior managers. […] Council financial controller Gavin Logie has also been named acting chief financial officer until Mr McKenzie’s replacement is named.

Sat, 11 Jun 2016
ODT: Sir Julian stands down, McKenzie appointed CEO
Sir Julian Smith, chairman and managing director of Allied Press, publisher of the Otago Daily Times, is stepping down from the day-to-day running of the company after nearly 40 years. Sir Julian (72), who will remain as chairman, told staff yesterday he has appointed Dunedin City Council group chief financial officer Grant McKenzie as the new Allied Press chief executive officer.

****

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
DCC Appoints Treasury Manager
This item was published on 10 Sep 2014
Richard Davey has been appointed to the new position of Dunedin City Council Treasury Manager. Mr Davey, who is originally from Dunedin, has had more than 21 years of banking experience in New Zealand and Australia. His experience centres on dealing with corporate treasuries and solving their risk management and funding issues. As Treasury Manager, Mr Davey will oversee Dunedin City Treasury Ltd – a DCC-owned company provides funding and financial services to other companies in the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd group. Mr Davey will report to Group Chief Financial Officer Grant McKenzie. Read more

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Group Chief Financial Officer Appointed
This item was published on 14 Oct 2013
The University of Otago’s Director of Financial Services, Grant McKenzie, has been appointed as the Dunedin City Council’s Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO). Announcing the appointment of Mr McKenzie to this newly-created role, DCC Chief Executive Paul Orders says, “Grant will bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the role and will be instrumental in ensuring the effective and efficient management of DCC group finances.” […] The new position of Group Chief Financial Officer replaces the DCC’s Chief Financial Officer (currently a vacant post), with the role expanded to include the provision of financial advice and support to the Board of Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL). The role will also create more cohesive financial management between the DCC and Dunedin City Holdings Limited. Twenty eight applications were received for the position, from New Zealand and overseas.
Read more

****

It seems DCC has slumped and trailed until 27 February (20 working days) to respond formally to my request for official information – with no phone call received (see postscript).

Tomorrow Monday is D-Day. No notice of extension has been received.

HOW HARD IS IT REALLY TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS—
20 working days ? Get real DCC.

OFFICIAL INFORMATION REQUEST

From: [DCC Governance Support]
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017 11:31 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Acknowledgement of LGOIMA request

03-Feb-2017

Dear Ms Kerr,

Official information request for: APPOINTMENT OF GROUP CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Reference Number: 289707

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 27-January-2017 for information regarding the APPOINTMENT OF GROUP CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER as follows:

1. When will the DCC appoint a Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO) to replace Grant McKenzie ? 2. For what reason(s) has this appointment been delayed ? 3. Have applicants for the position been short-listed ? 4. Is there anything thing else DCC wants to say about the appointment process ?

We received your request on 27-January-2017. We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than 27-February-2017, being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.

Your request is being handled by [Governance Support]. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact [Governance Support] on 03 477 4000. If any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely

[Governance Support]

P.S. I have also sent your questions to our chief executive Sue Bidrose, as she may wish to provide an answer to you directly by phone or email.

Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council

Related Post and Comments:
10.6.16 g’bye & ’ello

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

13 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Geography, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, What stadium

Let the Ombudsman recommend for democracy at SDHB

As we know, the slippery triumverate – Kathy Grant, Richard Thomson and Graham Crombie – have had a lot to answer for at both the SDHB and DCC/DCHL. An unsavoury grouping, best dissolved. Unfortunately, Health Minister Jonathan Coleman is not that bright.

### ODT Online Mon, 6 Feb 2017
SDHB restricts information access
By Eileen Goodwin
The Southern District Health Board is clamping down on information it has previously released without objection. Last week, the SDHB said it could no longer release commissioner Kathy Grant’s official correspondence unless the Otago Daily Times stated “specifically” which letters it is after. Previously, the board agreed to a general release of top-level inward and outward correspondence, subject to redactions to protect individual privacy. […] The ODT has also complained to the Office of the Ombudsman about the board’s response.
Read more

For more, enter the terms *sdhb*, *kathy grant* and *hospital* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

10 Comments

Filed under Business, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Travesty

Site Notice : Post removal

Updated

A new post published today, entitled ‘Council procurement policy falters’, has been removed at the urgent request of Richard Thomson, and separately, Graham McKerracher.

Sincere apologies to Mr Thomson and Mr Staynes for any referencing that appeared false or damaging.

The post was swiftly pulled at first notice.

Responses received this year from DCC via LGOIMA requests for information on Firebrand as a service supplier to various council entities are public domain. The general public can request this prepared and available information from DCC at any time.

The official information was originally supplied to independent requesters Elizabeth Kerr and Hilary Calvert.

Elizabeth Kerr
Site Owner

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Hot air, Media, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Public interest

South Dunedin mainstreet Hub : no direct relevance to distant Gasworks

as well as (pre-Election)
DESPICABLE DCC / ORC CLIMATE CHANGE MASSAGE

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap - South Dunedin Hub area incl gasworks museum JanFeb2013DCC Webmap – GREAT DISTANCE except by computer or Segway….
South Dunedin | from King Edward St (red) to Gasworks Museum (blue) via Lorne and Braemar Sts (green) – colour overlays by whatifdunedin.

█ DCC doesn’t need Athfield Architects to justify the LONG DURATION need and solution. No disrespect to colleague, the late Ian Athfield —or the current firm (love them heaps).

DCC, DO NOT OVER THINK THIS, FOR CRISSAKES
Give South Dunedin a community facility as was Promised YEARS AGO. Leave the goodie-two-shoes Gasworks Museum lobbyists out of it, or very much to the side. They mean well, but for too long they’ve been praying on the feckless DCC, soaking up Ratepayer dollars with little justification, and they keep wanting more.

COLLECTIVELY, WE HAVE LOCAL SOLUTIONS – WE DON’T NEED TO BE HELD BY THE HAND TO SET UP SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY SIMPLE AS AN ECONOMICAL WELL-CRAFTED COMMUNITY HUB IN KING EDWARD STREET

How many people is this “out of control” Dunedin City Council wanting to Massage – BEFORE the October Local Body Elections.

VOTE BUYING
The CULL Stench around this is SO DISGUSTING.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Drop-in sessions start of community conversation on South Dunedin’s future

This item was published on 22 Aug 2016

A series of drop-in information sessions hosted by the Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council early next month are the start of a community conversation around South Dunedin’s future. The sessions will be at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Thursday, 1 September and Friday, 2 September.

DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose will be presenting information about what happened in the 2015 flood, how the current stormwater system works, and how the DCC plans to invest and work with the community in the future.

Ms Bidrose said that it was important to plan carefully for South Dunedin’s changing environment. It was also important to take the time to involve the community in the decision making along the way, rather than to just do things on their behalf.

“Addressing the challenges of the future requires the DCC and ORC starting to have conversations with the community about the challenges, and the expectations and options for what can be achieved. The rest of Dunedin’s population needs to be involved as well. There is a great opportunity to turn some of the challenges into opportunities and give confidence for long-term investment in the area. These drop-in sessions are the beginning of the process. The DCC will be actively seeking local people’s thoughts on these issues and working with the ORC on what the long-term responses might be. I’m looking forward to seeing as many people as possible from the South Dunedin area at the sessions.” –Bidrose [employed by ????]

ORC director of stakeholder engagement Caroline Rowe said the drop-in sessions were part of a wider South Dunedin community engagement plan, aimed at developing a conversation with locals and groups about managing the risks associated with the changing environment. Ms Rowe said they follow the recent release of the ORC’s Natural Hazards of South Dunedin report. The [BULLSHIT ORC] technical report pulls together information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on natural hazards facing the area, particularly the increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level. [FALSE AND MISLEADING BULLSHIT]

Presentations, with accompanying video, will be at each session and people will have an opportunity to talk individually to staff from both councils. The hour-long sessions will be repeated several times, with Thursday sessions starting at 10am, 11.30am, 1pm, 4.30pm and 7pm. The Friday sessions will start at 10am, 11.30am, and 1pm.

Ongoing engagement planned for the next few weeks also includes briefings for support service agencies and other specific interest groups such as the South Dunedin Business Association, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, and school and early childhood centres.

Contact Sue Bidrose, chief executive DCC on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

█ Feedback on the proposal can be provided online on the council’s website at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/currently-consulting-on/current-consultations/south-dunedin-community-hub

The feedback period runs from Saturday, 20 August until 4pm on Monday, 29 August.

****

Mon, 22 Aug 2016
ODT: South D hub proposal unveiled
The Dunedin City Council is calling for feedback from residents on its preferred option for a library and community hub in South Dunedin before a report is presented to councillors next month. Council services and development general manager Simon Pickford and architect Jon Rennie, of Athfield Architects, presented the council’s preferred option to about 50 people at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Saturday morning. Under the $5.25 million proposal, a library would be built in the former BNZ building in King Edward St and the facility linked to the Gasworks Museum through Lorne St. Some facilities, such as a café, would be based at the museum. Mr Pickford said residents had until August 29 to provide feedback to the council on the proposal.

█ For more, enter the terms *south dunedin*, *flood*, *hazard*, *vandervis* (sane) and *cull* (VOTE Cull OUT) in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

40 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Climate change, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

ORC, DCC continuing Deceptions : Natural Hazards for #SouthDunedin

W H A T ● P L A N ?

ORC stakeholder engagement director Caroline Rowe said the sessions were part of a wider “South Dunedin community engagement plan”.

### ODT Online Tue, 9 Aug 2016
Sessions on natural hazards
By John Gibb
South Dunedin residents will be able to learn more about natural hazards facing the area through drop-in sessions to be held at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum early next month.
The Otago Regional Council is organising the September 1 and 2 sessions, in collaboration with the Dunedin City Council. The drop-in session on the first day will run from 1.30pm to 7pm, and on the second day from 10am to 2.30pm.
Last month the ORC released a report titled “Natural Hazards of South Dunedin”. This report consolidated information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on the natural hazards facing the area, particularly the “increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level”.
Read more

W H A T ● R I S K S ?
Answer ……. M I S I N F O R M A T I O N via ORC Hazard Plans and Maps

F I G H T >>> To Protect Your Property Values

“In a report to be tabled at the ORC’s technical committee tomorrow, Ms Rowe said South Dunedin was “an integral part of the wider Dunedin community” and many people and groups had an interest in how its risks would be managed. The report said the ORC also planned several other communication activities over the hazards plan, this month and next.” –ODT

ORC : Combined Council Agenda 10 August – Public.pdf
● Go to Agenda Item 5 (pp 34-35)
2016/0988 South Dunedin Community Engagement Report
The report outlines the approach management is taking to the community engagement as was verbally communicated at the Technical Committee meeting held on 20 July 2016 where Council received the report entitled “The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin” and made the decision to “endorse further community and stakeholder engagement within a timely manner”.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]
ORC Report 4.8.16 South Dunedin Engagement Plan [ID- A924516]

General reading (Otago including Dunedin City District)
ORC : Natural Hazards

● Information coming to this ORC webpage: ORC committee report – natural hazards of the Dunedin district: technical documents

Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016

● See also, the DCC second generation district plan (2GP) hazard zone information and maps based on ORC data, via the 2GP Index page.

Related Post and Comments:
6.8.16 LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *hazard*, *south dunedin* and *southdunedinflood* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

10 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

The following letter has had names removed, except those previously cited by broadcast and print media (public domain). -Eds.

Received from Neil Johnstone
Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 11:41 p.m.

Subject: DCC and the LGOIMA

Message: I have read concerning comments on your site regarding DCC’s apparent failure to comply with its LGOIMA obligations. You may wish to post my account of my recent experience.

[begins]

Dunedin City Council took ten months to produce its second Infrastructure Report, entitled ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure During June 2015 Flood Event Follow-Up’ (Author: R. Stokes). On 28 January 2016 (still three months before the report surfaced), then DCC Group Manager Transport Ian McCabe told the Otago Daily Times “the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was robust, including an external peer review of its findings”. Mr McCabe went on to emphasise that “the report had been widened from an initial focus only on mudtank maintenance, and now also included a fresh look at the network’s design capacity”. That all seemed fair enough.

When the report was ultimately released in late April 2016, it contained no reference to any external (or other) peer review. However, when interviewed by John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme on April 22, shortly after the Report’s release, Mayor Cull repeatedly referenced “independent” peer review(s) as supporting (“parts of”) the Report’s content. Mr Cull stated that he didn’t know which parts of the report had been reviewed independently. “You would have to talk to her (Ms Stokes) about that,” he said. Presumably, therefore, he hadn’t seen the review(s) either.

On 17 May I sent a LGOIMA request to DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, asking for a copy of the review(s). On 20 May I received an acknowledgement from DCC which rather defeated the purpose of my request but, more importantly, indicated that I would receive a response asap, but within 20 working days. I immediately queried why it should take such a long time to simply send a copy of a recent review, and asked simply for confirmation whether the review actually existed.

This time I received an email from the Group Manager Corporate Services suggesting a “discussion” before they left for overseas. There was no mention of my straightforward query as to whether the review actually existed. I replied immediately, and asked again for a simple yes/no to that question. Again, the question was not answered.

A full month (the maximum allowable period of 20 working days having elapsed since my simple request) later, I received an email from DCC. They were able to report that they had received information from the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks thus: “The response to Mr Johnstone is that we have had a peer review done, however this is still in draft and yet to be finalised (as staff have been focusing on forward work demands, and we have staff away). Once the review is finalised it will be publicly released.” “Therefore we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available.”

I considered that response was unsatisfactory. The review, apparently under belated construction, was clearly not what I had repeatedly requested. I should by then have received the review referenced by Messrs McCabe (“external”) and Cull (“independent”), or received an acknowledgement that it did not exist.

Then on the evening of 6 July I was emailed by the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, a copy of a new review, seemingly hot off the press, and authored by Opus in Auckland. This obviously was not the review that I had requested back on 17 May, as all DCC personnel involved should have known.

On 9 July I wrote to Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, expressing my concerns. I asked the following key questions:

Why, almost two months after my original LGOIMA request, I had still not received an admission that the peer review sought did not in fact exist?
Or, alternatively, if it did exist, why had it not been provided?
Why it took a month after my initial request for me to be merely told (irrelevantly) that a (different) peer review was being prepared, but with no attempt to satisfy my simple, legitimate request?

Almost a week later, a DCC officer returned to the list of respondents. They advised that my (follow-up) enquiry was being treated as a new request, and (you all know the drill) would be dealt with as soon as possible, but within 20 working days of receipt at the latest.

Nineteen working days later I received an emailed response from a Manager Civic and Legal. None of the three questions (above) were answered. They stated that my enquiries had been answered as soon as possible, given the volume of other requests. But the most interesting part of their response reads as follows: “The reported reference in the ODT (Mr McCabe, cited 28 January) to the external peer review was actually a reference to work the Council was undertaking to investigate the performance of the mudtank maintenance contractor…..”

So external means internal in the DCC, and widening means narrowing?

If the manager had been informed correctly, then there was no external review. Why, in that case, was I not told that nearly three months ago? Why did the Mayor apparently believe there was an external (independent, to use his wording) peer review? Furthermore, why did DCC fail to answer my three questions above.

I could, of course, ask these questions of DCC via LGOIMA, but I could then only expect an interim response followed by 20 more working days of inaction and worse.

Instead I have initiated a series of complaints to the Ombudsman, and decided that the public should view yet another example of how our City Hall is operating.

My intent throughout has been to identify the true causes of the June 2015 flood, so that real solutions can be identified and “political” solutions avoided. I have no intention of stopping, despite DCC’s apparent resistance.

[ends]

Neil Johnstone is welcome to publish emails supporting his story; it appears most if not all of the emails he received pertain under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and therefore reside in public domain. However, the Ombudsmen are best to advise on these matters. In the meantime DCC is welcome to correct any factual errors, in the interests of accuracy and balance. -Eds.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

Delta EpicFail #8 : Cr Calvert goes AWOL, 23 Questions for Mr McKenzie —Saddlebags !!

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Thu, 21 Jul 2016 at 1:11 a.m.

Readers, we must observe a minute’s silence for Councillor Calvert, who will be greatly missed. Councillor Calvert was one of few – very few – willing to shake off the soporific torpor afflicting so many of the elected representatives, ask penetrating questions, and not follow the herd. Some other Councillors think that simpering naivety is a fetching and winning look (and not just limited to one particular female councillor), but on the very few times your correspondent has been able to withstand viewing parts of a council meeting, he had a heaving feeling and it wasn’t stale milk in the Choysa.

Ms Calvert did make some missteps in her term, and the Court of Appeal judgement in relation to the James Queenstown Development undoubtedly might have affected her confidence to run, but this correspondent says, all is forgiven Hilary, the city needs you. A suggestion : Why not just go all out and stand for Mayor on the premise that you have done your time as Councillor and got treated like a mushroom by Mayor Cull et al, so you now know that to achieve reform in the city of Dunedin, you need to be at the top, and nothing else will do. That would be a powerful message and it would resonate with many. Please consider it. Readers, please post your support to show Cr Calvert there is a mayoral Calvert constituency – offers of assistance also appreciated !!

So the DCC has refused to answer Cr Calvert’s questions in relation to Delta. Instead, Mr McKenzie, “has been asked to contact” Cr Calvert. It is not recorded by the DCC if Mr McKenzie agreed to do this, or alternately, had been instructed to, ie couldn’t refuse to. Bureaucrats !!

But Mr McKenzie wants to hold a “workshop” with councillors on this issue. We can be so very very sure that without the efforts of What if? this workshop would never have seen the light of day. Your correspondent says this workshop is the first of the plaintive cries of ignorance and fast & furious duckshoving predicted in the EpicFail #6 post. What is not needed is some vague platitudes from the departing Mr McKenzie, who now has no stake or future in the DCC, but some evidence and history of the issue in writing, that can be considered by the people footing the bill, ie us. And there had better be something comprehensive and truthful – in writing, or the Ombudsman (who is already watching the DCC for its appalling LGOIMA performance on other matters) will be involved.

To this end, your ever helpful correspondent has prepared some additional questions for Mr McKenzie’s workshop in addition to Cr Calvert’s questions, that all ratepayers will be VERY interested to know the responses to. Councillors, feel free to pick and run with as many as you like. Goodness knows, even Mr Vaughan Elder of the ODT may want to pursue some : Breaking news is that the ODT is sick of being pummelled by What if? on this issue (and others) and has assigned Mr Elder to pursue the Delta / Noble story. Welcome to the party Mr Elder, good to have you aboard, unless you get captured by the DCHL / Delta party line that is, in which case you will receive no mercy from this correspondent.

Q_LOGOweb [twitter.com] 1Questions for Mr McKenzie (No, not you Graham, Grady and Delta directors…. but it’s coming….)

1. Do you agree that as DCC Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO), you must answer all questions truthfully and disclose all material facts known in relation to issues you are reporting or advising on ?

2. When did you become aware of the partial assignment security sharing deeds with Gold Band Finance and Avanti Finance ?

3. Have you read the above documents ?

4. If you have read the documents, have you ever in your career seen a document with the same sort of provisions, and if not, did this create any alarm to you ?

5. If the document was not one you had ever experienced before, as the GCFO of the DCC, did you seek a further opinion on the legality or enforceability of the document ?

6. If you had read the document, why did you say that there is no relationship between Gold Band and Delta when this is demonstrably not true ?

7. If you had read the document, why did you say that the actions of Gold Band are “out of our control” when this is demonstrably not true ?

8. If you hadn’t read the document, how could you accurately say what sort of relationship there was between Gold Band and Delta ?

9. Did someone else advise you of this, and if so, who was it ?

10. Was pressure from the Mayor, Delta Management or Directors, or DCHL Directors brought to bear on you to say that there was no relationship between Delta and Gold Band ?

11. Do you consider the current court action, which is being paid for by Delta, a prudent use of ratepayer owned funds ?

12. How much has been spent on legal and staff costs on the current, ongoing court cases ?

13. If the document, ie partial security sharing deed that is the subject of the current court action is found by the Court to be illegal, do you think it is appropriate for the CEO and Directors who have allowed this happen and who were in place at the time the document was prepared, approved and signed, to remain in their positions ?

14. If the document is found to be illegal, what is your plan of action you will recommend to Delta/ DCHL/ DCC ?

15. If the document is found to be illegal, will you recommend to Delta/ DCHL/ DCC that legal action be taken against the law firm that prepared the agreement ?

16. Have you been advised in any way informally or formally, of any proposed Delta or DCC or DCHL involvement in the entity that is purchasing the land at the Noble Subdivision mortgagee sale ? And when were you made aware of it ?

17. If yes, precisely what information has been disclosed to Councillors ?

18. If nothing has been disclosed to councillors, why not ?

19. What amount of funding is proposed for this “involvement” and where will it come from ?

20. Is there any limit to further funds being committed to this proposal, if as often happens, budgets and timeframes are exceeded ?

21. As GCFO, do you think it is appropriate that Delta should have spent $3.39M on a questionable at best partial assignment when it’s five-year profit average is $2.6M ?

22. If you were the Delta CEO, would you have done this ?

23. Do you consider that the Management and Directors of Delta have acted ethically and within the law, and in a manner appropriate for a ratepayer owned company during your tenure at the DCC ?

?

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

10 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Economics, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design