Mr Cull to Cr Vandervis: “You, sir, are a liar. Now leave.” [screenshot]
—
Texts received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 15 Dec 2015 at 7:48 a.m.
█ Message: Feel free to publicly contrast what I said to ODT reporter Chris Morris with what he said I said on today’s front page.
Lee, just checking – you planning on take big any action over the mayors comments today? Chris @ ODT
Not planning any action over Mayoral comments today because action over Mayor Cull previously defaming me as shonky’ finally got an unreserved apology from him but cost a lot of time and ratepayers money as did the farcical Code of Conduct sideshow. Shame that after all the evidence that I have provided especially what has been confirmed regarding my 2011 Citifleet allegations, that our new Procurement Policy still has not resulted in an independent Procurement manager position to oversee all individual managers’ contracting behaviour . Unfortunately my email programme died last Thursday and is still inoperative. Cheers Lee
—
REAL TIME
Otago Daily Times Published on Dec 14, 2015
Councillor Lee Vandervis asked to leave a DCC meeting
—
Exchange erupts on discussion of DCC’s new procurement policy and ‘historical’ kickbacks.
### ODT Online Tue, 15 Dec 2015 Cull, Vandervis cross swords at council meeting (+ video)
By Chris Morris
A furious bust-up saw Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull call Cr Lee Vandervis a liar and order him to leave yesterday’s Dunedin City Council meeting. The extraordinary scene saw both men on their feet, their voices raised as they roared over the top of each other, before Cr Vandervis packed up in silence and left with a parting shot. Read more
O me miserum, O Christmas Tree, WHYYYYY (Santa will look after us, won’t he)
THERE IS NO BULLYING, NOPE
—
The survey showed staff were particularly unhappy about the council’s executive team of five directors and Mr Bodeker.
### ODT Online Mon, 14 Dec 2015 Unhappy at ORC, staff say
By Vaughan Elder
Otago Regional Council’s chief executive has denied there is a “culture of fear” in the organisation after top management were singled out for criticism in a staff survey. Peter Bodeker, who was appointed chief executive in 2012, made the comments after the “2015 Employee Survey”, which was answered by 123 staff (95%), was leaked to the Otago Daily Times. Read more
—
Proposal in response to failed attempts at super councils in the North Island.
### ODT Online Fri, 11 Dec 2015 Councils may share services
By David Loughrey
A proposal to amalgamate some services of the six Otago councils is not a move to a super council, mayors say. […] Under the proposed system, local representation would stay as it is, but areas from payroll to IT, legal services, water, wastewater and roading services could be shared.
—
Steady stream of resignations and redundancies taking its toll.
### ODT Online Thu, 3 Dec 2015 ‘Culture of fear’ at DCC
By Chris Morris
Morale within the Dunedin City Council is taking a hammering as criticism and upheaval fuel a “culture of fear”, staff say. The concerns come from past and present staff, who have told the Otago Daily Times about the impact of constant restructuring, stretched budgets and redundancies. Read more
Following Tony Avery’s departure, a “Ruthless” ‘direct, no-nonsense approach to changeover issues’. Sue Bidrose ‘appeared to lack leadership experience, which she said was “possibly” true’.
### ODT Online Thu, 3 Dec 2015 ‘Culture of fear’ at DCC
By Chris Morris
Morale within the Dunedin City Council is taking a hammering as criticism and upheaval fuel a “culture of fear”, staff say. The concerns come from past and present staff, who have told the Otago Daily Times about the impact of constant restructuring, stretched budgets and redundancies. Read more
So. Staff are at the mercy of the D’urbavilles. There’s a new CEO waiting in the wings if anybody wants to sign out.
### ODT Online Wed, 16 Sep 2015 Final Citifleet fraud report not finished
By Chris Morris
Dunedin police are still working to finalise a report into the $1.5 million Citifleet fraud, despite announcing in June no charges would be laid, it has been confirmed. The development came as it was confirmed an earlier police report into the Dunedin City Council’s long-running fraud was released to media despite internal concerns from senior police it was out of date, emails showed. Read more
● The Department of Internal Affairs was keeping a close eye on the Dunedin City Council’s handling of the Citifleet fraud investigation, documents show. (ODT)
█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *bachop*, *bidrose* or *vandervis* in the search box at right.
█ Message: Spot the difference – a Maori group gets the SFO while Dunedin Ratepayers get a lowly detective.
—
### NZ Herald Online 3:59 PM Monday Sep 7, 2015 Tertiary funding probe: SFO called in as centre agrees to pay back $7.5 million
By Steve Deane
A senior manager is dead and a Serious Fraud Office investigation has been launched following a probe into an agricultural college that uncovered millions of dollars of unjustified taxpayer funding.
The results of a Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) investigation into funding irregularities at Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre were released this afternoon following investigations by the Herald.
Taratahi’s former chief executive, Dr Donovan Wearing, died suddenly in January – three months after the TEC confirmed it was undertaking a ‘targeted review’ of the organisation.
The Herald has been told Dr Wearing addressed staff at the sprawling campus just outside Masterton about the investigation on January 21. The 52-year-old father of six was later found in a critical condition in a shed on campus grounds. He was taken to Wellington Hospital where he died at 10.30pm.
Dr Wearing’s death has been referred to the coroner. Read more
█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *deloitte*, *vandervis*, *detectives* and *bidrose* in the search box at right.
DCC CULTURE OF ENTITLEMENT
‘Enormously disappointing’ —And Enormously Expected.
‘ONE MAN’ did it. An outright fairytale.
DOLLY didn’t, either. More to come !!
—
### ODT Online Mon, 10 Aug 2015 Further cases of fraud at council
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council says the discovery of five more examples of fraud and theft inside the organisation is “enormously” disappointing. […] Details of the smaller incidents emerged last week, in response to Otago Daily Times questions, a year after the discovery of the Citifleet fraud. Read more
From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 9:02 p.m. To: Chris Morris [ODT], Nicholas George S Smith [ODT] Cc: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Follow-up questions
Dear Mr Morris,
There are serious DCC issues underpinning the Code of Conduct process.
DCC Bureaucracy has run many months of self-investigations costing quarter of a million dollars, which this Councillor has not been allowed to see the results of.
Unbelievable claims that the acknowledged $1.6++ million worth of fraud was all perpetrated by one man only, now dead.
Months of Police investigation leading nowhere, with no prosecutions because they only looked at missing vehicles and anticipated that all receivers had to say was they thought the dead man had authority to sell in the way he did. And they all did. This despite many assurances from CEO Bidrose to me from the beginning that there would be a full and wide investigation.
My requests to the Serious Fraud Office [including discussion of 3 year plus investigation of Landfill frauds by local Police] to do the job local Police are seem not to be up to. CEO Bidrose claims SFO had been asked to investigate but SFO have no knowledge of this when I ask them to investigate.
Police investigation only claimed to be widened by Police management after my exposing of their very narrow investigation. Still no prosecutions, or Police interest to date in my offered evidence of Citifleet maintenance contract fraud, credit card fraud etc.
Mayor Cull and CEO Bidrose saying that no public comment allowed while investigations ongoing, but commenting themselves that it was all down to just one man and that the public can have confidence in the living remainder of the DCC organisation.
Mayor Cull accepting non-confirming [devoid of any evidence] Conduct complaints against me.
Crs. Thomson and Staynes add tampered evidence to one of their complaints but not the other – both immediately accepted again by Mayor Cull.
Mayor Cull falsely claims it is within his authority to choose the membership of the Code of Conduct committee against me. Is defeated.
Mayor Cull chooses again, this time with majority Councillor rubber stamp.
CEO Bidrose fails to ensure proper meeting and Code of Conduct processes over many weeks, fails to read my related email, finally culminating in hallway loudness. My full apology should have been printed and still should.
Audit and Risk committee fails to address major DCC problem of contract fraud, identifying 17 types of fraud but not including contract or tender fraud which I have been complaining of repeatedly.
Audit and Risk chair refuses ultra vires to allow any discussion or debate on 40 page pivotal financial report confirmed agenda item which I had previously indicated in the meeting I wanted to speak to.
Cr. Calvert also wished to speak to it but the Chair abused her authority and shut it down. This along with a history of other A&R suppression was the cause of this loudness and my final exit from this committee.
These are all real issues with stories you should be interested in Mr Morris, but instead you bypass the reasons “Whatever the reasons for your frustration…” miss the important issues and ask 5 inane questions about my behaviour.
These are the actions of a gossip columnist, not a reporter.
Cr. Vandervis
{Draft text deleted at Cr Vandervis’s request. -Eds}
On 24/04/15 4:11 PM, “Chris Morris” wrote:
Lee,
I’m following up on this morning’s story. I tried to include as much as I could of your comments, where they addressed the issues being raised in the conduct committee’s report, but I’d still far rather talk through it all point by point, in detail.
Failing that, can you respond to these specific questions about where to from here:
1. Whatever the reasons for your frustration, do you now accept that your behaviour (as reported by witnesses in the report) was bullying, aggressive and intimidating and included swearing (which you initially denied)?
2. If you do, what changes (if any) will you make to modify your behaviour, other than the previously mentioned plan to raise concerns with council staff only by email?
3. What is your reaction to the comments by Richard Thomson, who said your approach was counter-productive and your talents wasted?
4. What is your reaction to the comments by Cr Thomson and others suggesting a genuine apology might be the best way forward? Will you consider this, or do you plan to offer one at Tuesday’s meeting or at any other time, or do you maintain that you have already offered one?
5. Do you think your behaviour (as described in 1) is in any way appropriate for an elected public representative? If not, and given the limited sanctions available to the council, will you be considering your position, including whether or not you should resign?
From: Sandy Graham Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 4:16 p.m. To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Sue Bidrose, Elizabeth Kerr Subject: RE: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Lee
Please find attached the information you have requested about the responsibilities of Dr Bidrose.
It took a few days to collate as I wanted to ensure accuracy.
The information will also be forwarded to all Councillors for their information.
From: Sandy Graham Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 8:45 p.m. To: Lee Vandervis Cc: Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Re: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Lee
I will get this information on my return to work on Monday.
Regards
Sandy
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council
————
On 17/04/2015, at 4:12 pm, Lee Vandervis wrote:
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Thank you for correcting my overestimation of the time Sue was senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming DCC CEO.
I sincerely apologise for my inaccuracy.
To avoid future inaccuracy on my part, can you please clarify which departments Sue was in a managerial position over and for what periods in the years Sue was at the DCC prior to be coming our CEO.
Kind regards,
Lee
The overestimation was made in Cr Vandervis’s open letter found at the highlighted link below (15.4.15). -Eds
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 6:22 p.m.
█ Message: Your readers may be interested in this email exchange below.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:58:40 +1300 To: Sandy Graham Cc: Stuart Anderson [University of Otago], Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Sue Bidrose Conversation: Code of Conduct public announcement Subject: Re: Code of Conduct public announcement
This does not answer my governance question Ms Graham, as to why I was not advised that this was coming out.
There has been nothing standard about any of this Code of Conduct process.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
————
On 23/04/15 11:48 AM, “Sandy Graham” wrote:
Dear Councillor
The report formed part of the public agenda that was delivered to all Councillors last night in advance of Tuesday’s meeting.
The media receive a copy of the agenda at the same time as per our standard process.
Regards
Sandy
————
On 23/04/2015, at 10:34 am, Lee Vandervis wrote:
Code of Conduct public announcement
Dear [as in expensive] all,
I have been rung by media this morning wanting my comment on the outcome of the Code of Conduct claims against me.
Nobody has had the decency to inform me of what these outcomes might have been, despite the exceptionally long time the production of these outcomes has taken.
Can anyone advise me why the media seem to have this information well in advance of me, or is it just standard process for a show ‘trial’, in which I have not even been allowed to see 2/3 of the ‘evidence’.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
—— End of Forwarded Message
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 7:12 p.m.
Re: Code of Conduct decision
I have sent my response to today’s Code of Conduct decision just sprung on me to you since I can not rely on ODT reporter Chris Morris to accurately present it.
Fortunately most interested parties read your blog anyway.
I am innocent of the Code of Conduct claim that I have misled the non-pubic Audit and Risk committee regarding the Citifleet fraud investigations.
The guilt lies with those DCC staff and some elected representatives who for years failed to act on my Citifleet fraud and other whistle-blowing allegations despite the DCC records evidence available to them. Some of this evidence has recently emerged in the Deloitte reports which I continue to seek.
If my allegations and evidence had been appropriately acted on, many matters of grave concern would have been dealt with when the record shows I raised them as early as 2011.
DCC staff refusal even now to let me see the full main unredacted Deloitte Citifleet Fraud report, or the Deloitte staff report, or the digitised relevant DCC records evidence, further increases my suspicion of a cover-up.
Questions regarding the role of new DCC CEO Bidrose as senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming CEO, and of what she knew of my allegations in the years prior are some of the many questions yet to be answered.
What has been shown is that the Police investigation was certainly very narrowed up until my complaint of this narrowing to CEO Bidrose and the Police investigating officer, some six months after the Citifleet manager’s sudden death. Subsequent claims by Area Commander Jason Guthrie that the investigation has been widened have not been supported by Police following up on the evidence I tried to interest them in: the Citifleet maintenance contract fraud, DCC credit card use fraud, etc. or by any convictions, or other widened investigation action that has been visible to me.
The two loudness claims, evidence of which I have not been allowed to see and therefore defend, both come back to the shutting down of the wider DCC contract fraud debate, and the resulting multiple abuses of Code of Conduct process to try and shut me down.
The four prescribed penalties suggested in the Code of Conduct report are:
1 -Censure
– the Mayor has already done this on pubic and non-public occasions.
2 -Request Apology
– I already apologised for loudness at the time
3 -Suspension of voting right only in Committees, not Council
– abuse of my representative function, but a wet bus ticket given my continuing right to debate
4 -Dismissal from positions of Deputy Mayor, Chairperson or deputy chairperson of a committee
– Mayor Cull already did this at the beginning of the triennium.
The Mayor’s recommended members of the Code of Conduct Committee have run an expensive Kangaroo Court with only my loss of two months committee voting rights to be recommended. It will be interesting to see if enough Councillors will vote for that.
It will also be interesting to see what the voting public think – do they want wide investigation and full disclosure or do they just prefer good news stories from the DCC.
Kind regards,
Cr. Vandervis
Received from Lee Vandervis
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 7:17 p.m.
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:15:55 +1300 To: Chris Morris [ODT], Nicholas George S Smith [ODT] Conversation: Code of conduct report Subject: Re: Code of conduct report
Chris,
I have sent my response to the What If site, as I can not rely on you to accurately present it.
I was out last night, and the first I heard of the Code of Conduct decision today was radio media wanting comment.
Cheers,
Lee
————
On 23/04/15 3:34 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:
Lee,
I’ve sent you a text with a very basic outline of the key findings. Happy to hear from you at any time today or tonight for a detailed response once you’ve read the report in full. I understand it was hand-delivered to your house last night.
Updated post Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 6:45 p.m.
Correspondence from Lee Vandervis in reply to Sandy Graham and Sue Bidrose; and forwarded note to Code of Conduct Committee – entered below last update to post.
Updated post Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 1:46 p.m.
Correction received by email from Sandy Graham, DCC General Manager Corporate Services entered below Open Letter.
—
Received Wed, 15 Apr 2015 at 11:24 a.m.
█ Message: I have forwarded this Open Letter to the DCC Code of Conduct Committee in an attempt to debunk the many misleading claims around the DCC Citifleet fraud investigations.
I am happy to provide supporting email evidence for anything stated below that your readers may find questionable.
Cr. Vandervis
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 22:48:00 +1300 To: John Bezett, David Benson-Pope, Stuart Anderson Conversation: OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE
OPEN LETTER TO THE DCC CODE OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE
Dear Sirs,
Three separate Code of Conduct issues have been raised against me this year following my Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Cull which Deputy Mayor Staynes decided, without giving his reasons to me, not to refer to you.
There has been an uncomfortable mix of assertions and facts in the limited evidence that has been presented regarding the claim that I misled over Citifleet investigations, which I would like you to consider.
Provable facts include my long mostly non-public attempts to clean out dysfunctional management at the DCC since I was first elected in 2004. Partial success keeps me going.
I never expected whistle blowing to be popular, but neither did I expect such personal attacks for my trouble on behalf of our ratepayers.
Regarding the Citifleet frauds, my records show my many 2011 complaints to senior DCC management of: inappropriate DCC vehicle disposal, Citifleet manager selling vehicles to himself, credit card fraud, vehicle maintenance tender fraud, and tyre fraud are all well documented.
What is equally clear is that nothing was done to seriously investigate these complaints which all turned out to have substance until almost 3 years later when the Citifleet manager’s ‘sudden death’ resulted in new CEO Sue Bidrose ordering the DCC accountants Deloittes to investigate.
Dr. Sue Bidrose had been the most senior manager in charge of Citifleet and many other DCC departments prior to becoming CEO. It is my view that whatever evidence she might have given is not only inadmissible in terms of process because I had not been advised in advance of her evidence or her intention to give evidence, but that Dr. Bidrose is compromised because of her years as the senior manager of Citifleet prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death.
In the month following the Citifleet manager’s sudden death I repeatedly urged CEO Bidrose and head of Governance Sandy Graham to resist the temptation to minimize the frauds’ fallout by narrowing the investigation or by blaming it all on the dead manager. Although later admitting that the initial request for investigation related mainly to missing vehicles, CEO Bidrose gave me assurances from the beginning that Deloittes and then later Police would conduct a wide investigation. This provably did not happen with the Police, and I have no evidence other than yet another management assurance that it has or will really happen.
CEO Bidrose also gave me assurances from the beginning of the investigations that if I could provide hard evidence of DCC staff stealing even one dollar she would ensure prosecutions followed. Unfortunately the DCC records evidence which I have sought to complete hard evidence cases against both DCC staff and those involved outside the DCC has been denied me by CEO Bidrose, despite my making LGOIMA requests for it last year, namely: both the full unredacted Deloittes report, the Deloittes staff report, and the digitised evidential files which Deloittes collated for their investigation.
In that month following the Citifleet manager’s death I became very concerned when CEO Bidrose did not achieve a proper Police investigation apparently ‘because Police lacked the resources’, and that only the accounting investigation by Deloittes was to take place. I was relieved that Deloittes’ investigator Kyle Cameron seemed to have a good grasp of the many Citifleet complaints that had been made to me during his detailed interview of me, and that subsequent to the Deloitte reports Police were to investigate fully after all.
My concerns about Police having a belated investigation three months later are recorded, as are my concerns that Police requested that no public statements be made about Citifleet while their belated investigation was in progress. This despite Mayoral and CEO public statements that the Citifleet frauds were all the work of one now dead man.
I have highlighted with evidence to the SFO and CEO Bidrose the extreme slowness of a previous Dunedin Police investigation into DCC Landfill frauds that took more than three years before one individual was finally prosecuted, and I have written to the Serious Fraud Office unsuccessfully urging them to have an outsider’s independent investigation into the Citifleet frauds because local Police seem unable to do the job. CEO Bidrose claimed that the SFO had been contacted re the Citifleet frauds, but curiously the SFO’s Sara Morris said to me that no request from the DCC to investigate had been received by the SFO prior to my request for them to investigate.
My worst fears for the hoped for DCC investigation were realised when the Police investigating officer Detective Mathew Preece interviewed me at my home six months after the Citifleet manager’s tragic death, in what he described as the last week of his investigation. Detective Preece said that the scope of his investigation was only the missing vehicles and that he had already interviewed all other people he intended to interview. He said that all those he interviewed regarding missing vehicles offered the defence that they thought the deceased Citifleet manager was authorised to dispose of the vehicles in the way that he did, and that subsequently there would be no prosecutions of anybody.
I told Detective Preece that I had received many Citifleet complaints for years regarding not only vehicle disposal but fraudulent Citifleet credit card use, tyre supply, fuel supply, and fraudulent Citifleet maintenance contracts and that I had a motor trade business owner and others prepared to give evidence on these issues.
That night I wrote the following email to CEO Bidrose, Head of Governance Sandy Graham and to Detective Preece voicing my concern at the very limited scope of the investigation, and the investigating officer’s understanding that he could not investigate anything else because he did not have any wider complaint from the DCC to act on.
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:57:31 +1300 To: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, “PREECE, Matthew” Conversation: Police Citifleet Investigation Subject: Police Citifleet Investigation
Dear Sue,
An hour and a half spent with Detective Matthew Preece and another Policeman called Regan has left me with deep concerns regarding the Police Citifleet investigation.
Mr Preece has informed me that the scope of his investigation has been limited by the complaint the DCC has made to the Police, and that this complaint only concerns missing or inappropriately sold DCC vehicles.
Mr Preece says that because Police have not had a complaint from you or the DCC regarding;
– fraudulent Citifleet tender processes,
– fraudulent Citifleet tyre supply contracts,
– fraudulent Citifleet maintenance contracts
– fraudulent use of DCC Citifleet vehicle fuel
– fraudulent DCC accounting of Citifleet credit cards and other payment methods used and Citifleet managerial oversight
– and fraudulent use and conversion of DCC Citifleet vehicles [eg the conversion of a DCC-owned vehicle by Mrs Bachop]
and that consequently none of these fraud areas is being investigated!
Mr Preece did say that if you as CEO were to request that he broaden his investigation to include these other areas and not just the missing cars, that he would broaden his enquiry to include them. He insisted that he would have to have a broadened complaint from you as CEO for this to happen, and implied that a complaint from me as a City Councillor would not be enough to act on.
I have highlighted to Preece and Regan the urgent need to use the Citifleet manager’s tragic death to investigate and prosecute all Citifleet fraud areas, as a failure to do so will result in the loss of an unprecedented opportunity to clean out the culture of entitlement at Citifleet and in other DCC departments.
Can you please with urgency broaden the DCC complaint to include the 6 areas of potential Citifleet fraud listed above, so that Mr Reece can broaden his enquiry to include them.
Can you please also now with urgency, forward to me all instructions to Deloitte regarding the Citifleet investigation as previously requested in my email of 26/10/14 as below.
Is it possible to meet with you at any time tomorrow at your convenience to learn whether you have broadened the DCC Police complaint or not?
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:23:41 +1300 To: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham Conversation: LGOIMA requests Subject: LGOIMA requests
Hi Sue,
Further to my verbal requests of a week or two ago please forward copies of all original correspondence and or other direction given to Deloittes in regard to their investigation of Citifleet.
I wish to have the original brief stating the terms of reference, the subsequent brief where the investigation needed to be extended, and any other direction written or otherwise given to Deloittes regarding the Citifleet investigation.
I am deeply disturbed by what I have seen in parts of the investigation conclusions appearing without covering page or any details identifying them as parts of the Deloitte findings in non-public parts of the Audit and Risk subcommittee meetings.
I note a severe slowing on responses to my recent LGOIMA requests, and hope this has been a temporary frustration.
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
Subsequent email from Police Area Commander Guthrie claimed as follows:
From: GUTHRIE, Jason [mailto:Jason.Guthrie@police.govt.nz] Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2014 10:48 a.m. To: Sue Bidrose Cc: COSTER, Andrew; INGLIS, Malcolm Subject: RE: Investigation Update
Hi Sue.
I can confirm that DCC staff did not (and have not) in any way attempted to restrict, curtail, or limit the scope of the Police investigation stemming from the Deloitte report either at the 1 September meeting or at any other time.
At no stage has any undue influence been exerted by DCC staff on Police as to what should be investigated and what should not be investigated.
At the 1 September meeting it was agreed that the focus of the enquiry would be limited to activity around the 152 vehicles as this was considered to be the most likely aspect to potentially lead to a criminal prosecution.
To avoid any confusion, from the outset the Dunedin City Council has been clear in it’s desire that Police investigate matters arising from the Deloitte report independently, fully, and thoroughly as Police sees fit. The DCC has also been very clear in it’s desire that if any individual(s) are identified as being involved in criminal activity linked to the matters within the Deloitte report that those people be held accountable for that criminal activity.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
regards Jason.
Inspector Jason Guthrie
Area Commander | Dunedin Clutha Waitaki | New Zealand Police
Dunedin Central Police Station, 25 Great King St, Private Bag 1924, Dunedin, www. police.govt.nz
Safer Communities Together
Area Commander Guthrie’s response above says that “DCC staff did not (and have not) in any way attempted to restrict…the Police investigation”, but then goes on to say that …”it was agreed that the focus of the enquiry would be limited to activity around the 152 vehicles…”!
Commander Guthrie’s subsequent claim that the Police investigation would be widened has thus far failed to result in my being contacted to provide the further evidence I have already tried to give Detective Preece regarding credit card fraud, vehicle maintenance contract fraud etc. The lack of any prosecutions after so much time adds to my concern.
This seems to me to be another example of management claiming one thing but investigating officers doing another.
I am yet to be convinced either by Police taking an interest in my offered evidence or by any Citifleet related Police prosecutions that a serious Police investigation has really been effectively widened despite stated intention to widen, even at this now very late stage. I do not dispute Police management intentions, but see them as quite different to actual Police investigating actions, which seem to me to be more interested in sidelining me as a critic of their investigation than getting to the bottom of Citifleet fraud.
Regarding the two other loudness Code of Conduct claimed complaints, I do not recognise them and I remain far from content that CEO Bidrose and Cr McTavish at least have made ‘loudness’ statements to your Code of Conduct Committee [Cr. McTavish read hers] but not provided these statements to me in advance so that I could defend them. I see these loudness complaints as politically motivated attempts to ambush me outside of proper Code of Conduct process, and I do not accept that they can have any force.
The two staff that might have had reason to complain of my loudness, namely CEO Bidrose and Sandy Graham, have made no complaint and both have independently assured me that they did not make any complaint, CEO Bidrose with a hug, and Sandy Graham with an eye-roll.
I particularly resent the swearing allegation that no Councillor has admitted to claiming, despite Mayor Cull’s publicly repeatedly saying in the ODT that my swearing had been claimed by a Councillor. I note the irony that when Code of Conduct complaining Cr. Thomson left an earlier Audit and Risk meeting in a huff using the ‘F word’, that no complaint was forthcoming from anybody.
I take this opportunity to register my complaints regarding the running of this Conduct hearing.
1 – That the loudness complaints should never have been recognised as complying by the Committee for want of evidence.
2 – That I was not permitted to record the public part of the hearing in which I spoke, but that Media were allowed to take short-hand and thus given the opportunity to misquote me with impunity.
3 – That no reason was given when asked for, for not being able to record the pubic hearing.
4 – That parts of the hearing evidence were in public, but that apparently some evidence parts were non-public.
5 – that I have been given an extract only from your draft report, on grey paper marked confidential, ensuring that I can not as a result comment on it. The claim that “This is to ensure that the principles of natural justice and due process are observed.” is absurd, given that natural justice and due process have been absent throughout.
Looking forward to having this wasteful exercise in enmity drawn to a conclusion.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
—— End of Forwarded Message
[ends]
*Email addresses, phone numbers and web links removed. The company referred to above is “Deloitte”. The councillor surname is “MacTavish”. -Eds
—
CORRECTION
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 1:31 p.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr [What if? Dunedin] Subject: Correction
Dear Elizabeth
As discussed, I wish to correct a statement made by Cr Vandervis in his “Open letter to the Conduct Committee” which is published on your website.
The statement that the CEO Sue Bidrose had “years as the senior manager of Citifleet prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death” is incorrect. Sue had Regulatory Services (which included Citifleet, Building Control, Environmental Health, Parking Services) added to her General Manager portfolio for less than five months in 2013, immediately prior to being appointed CEO. This is clearly not “years” and needs correcting. Cr Vandervis’ assertions that Sue’s evidence to the Conduct Committee was therefore compromised is not supported by the facts.
Regards
Sandy
Sandy Graham
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council
—
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 5:01 p.m. To: John Bezett, David Benson-Pope, Stuart Anderson Subject: FW: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet
Dear Code of Conduct Committee,
Please accept my apology for ignorantly overstating the length of time Dr Bidrose was most senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming our CEO.
‘Years’ should read ‘5 months as the senior manager of Citifleet and then 6 months as CEO’ prior to the Citifleet manager’s sudden death.
Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis
—— Forwarded Message From: Lee Vandervis Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:12:33 +1300 To: Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose Cc: Elizabeth Kerr [What if? Dunedin]
Conversation: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager Subject: Overestimation of Dr. Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Thank you for correcting my overestimation of the time Sue was senior manager of Citifleet prior to becoming DCC CEO.
I sincerely apologise for my inaccuracy.
To avoid future inaccuracy on my part, can you please clarify which departments Sue was in a managerial position over and for what periods in the years Sue was at the DCC prior to be coming our CEO.
Kind regards,
Lee
—— End of Forwarded Message
—— End of Forwarded Message
█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.
Site Admin
What if? Dunedin has received a total of 17 emails from Lee Vandervis, including two with email attachments. A further three emails have been withheld from publication due to privacy reasons, and which may be actionable.
The first batch of seven emails feature at this post, with the remaining ten emails (some repeats to different recipients as Mr Vandervis follows up with Kyle Cameron of Deloitte, responsible for the Citifleet investigation) to be added at Comments after being photographed and stitched back together to retain threads.
To be noted, this is part document proof of Cr Vandervis’ efforts from 2011 forward to elicit information on suspicion of fraud occurring at Citifleet. The emails show DCC Senior Management were aware of fraud allegations well prior to 2013/14, despite Council’s formal media statements to the contrary last year. They also support the obvious need that existed for a wider fraud investigation in regards to Council tendering processes, service contracts, traffic of car parts and tyres, staff credit card spending (by multiple available cards) and more – quite apart from disposal of at least 152 Council vehicles in the period 2003-2013, the set arbitrary window for investigation by Deloitte.
The DCC chief executive having taken a fraud complaint to Dunedin police was advised police had insufficient resources for follow up. There was then a three-month gap before police received the Deloitte investigation report commissioned by the Council. Three months is long amount of time to minimise and remove critical evidence within Council and about town. Dunedin City Council knows that. Deloitte knows that. Dunedin police know that. We can assume the Council’s insurers know that, yet they paid out $1 million in two instalments, for the ‘lost’ vehicles only [see DCC media release]. The three-month gap in itself is a suspicious if not criminal activity against Dunedin ratepayers and residents.
For more information at this website, enter the term *citifleet* in the search box at right.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:19 a.m.
█ Message: I have had enquiries today from members of the public regarding my initial 2011 investigation of Citifleet complaints. For the public record, I am forwarding the related emails I have on record from that period, some of which you may find interesting enough to publish.
—
Batch #1 (six emails distinguished by blue subject lines and flags)
### ODT Online Tue, 17 Mar 2015 Council sets up whistleblower committee
By Eileen Goodwin
An internal audit policy adopted by the Dunedin City Council shifts responsibility to governance level, an “important change”, councillor Richard Thomson told a council meeting yesterday. […] Cr Lee Vandervis asked how easy it would be for the general public to tip off the council’s whistleblower, given he was “beginning to tire of the role, given recent events”. Read more
█ Comments not allowed at ODT Online.
—
It is completely ludicrous that our little Cr Thomson is today making public comment on DCC’s new Whistleblower Policy – given Cr Thomson as chair of DCC Finance Committee has had every opportunity to treat his colleague, Cr Vandervis, the Council’s most notoriously effective Whistleblower, with all fairness and due respect but has actively failed on that count, time and time again.
What is it with Cr Thomson, our import from Southern District Health Board and former Otago District Health Board. Doesn’t the Councillor see it as his mission to relieve Dunedin Ratepayers from the living hell of the nearly unsurpassable multimillion-dollar mountain of corruption and fraudulent activity perpetuated at the Council and through its CCOs. Whitewash is not removal, Councillor.
A quietly spoken SDHB informant tells me Susie Johnstone, a chartered accountant, was wheeled in by the Health Board after the Swann fraud, for mop up. Well, Detectives, who wheeled her in and what was the nature of the mop up?
Separately, following Cr Thomson’s uptake into local body politics, Ms Johnstone was recommended for the position of independent chair of the DCC Audit and Risk Subcommittee.
The ARS committee is now to deal with Whistleblowing (no surprises there). As we have already published in previous months, via intimations of the Draft Whistleblower Policy: the DCC contact for Whistleblowers has been a Balclutha woman, whether actively.
Connections regularly multiply. The timing of Council’s announcement of its new Whistleblower Policy is sheer craziness in light of yesterday’s illegitimate farce of a conduct hearing, held at the expense of the DCC Chief Whistleblower. A woman from Balclutha was a witness at the hearing….
Rule of Thumb for DCC Whistleblowers: use outside means.
Good to see Eileen Goodwin reporting on Council business.
—
### ODT Online Tue, 17 Mar 2015 Vandervis accused of ‘bullying’ behaviour
By Vaughan Elder
Dunedin City councillor Lee Vandervis’ aggression towards colleagues was slammed as unacceptable at a code of conduct hearing yesterday. The committee heard evidence relating to three complaints, two of which related to him behaving in an “aggressive” manner. […] The panel’s independent chairman, Prof Stuart Anderson, of the University of Otago’s faculty of law, noted the committee needed to look at Cr Vandervis’ intent and not whether he was correct. Read more
█ Comments allowed at ODT Online.
How many comments will be lost and deleted?
****
### ODT Online Tue, 17 Mar 2015 Councillor apologises for ‘loudness’
By Vaughan Elder
[…] In an effort to not upset people, [Cr Lee Vandervis] would no longer go to the audit and risk subcommittee – where he was accused of being aggressive towards the independent chairwoman – and make his complaints to chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose by email rather than in person. These two steps would “more” importantly stop him from being the subject of further “political back-stabbing”, he said. Read more
● For more, enter the terms *vandervis* and *citifleet* in the search box at right.
—
Documents: Dunedin City Council – Standing Orders (PDF, 1019.0 KB)
The Standing Orders set out rules for the conduct meetings of the Dunedin City Council and includes the Code of Conduct for Elected Members, as adopted at the inaugural Council meeting Oct 2010.
DCC Committee Structures and Delegations Manual (PDF, 328.7 KB)
This document details the constitution of the Council, Committees and Subcommittees, and the delegations to the Chief Executive.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 at 9:32 a.m.
█ Message: Your readers may be interested in an example of how extraordinarily difficult it often is for Councillors to get information from staff – especially if that information is about staff.
An important example is highlighted in the following email trail – important because as the original Citifleet whistleblower in 2011, I am still getting flack and having information withheld that could help to get to the bottom of DCC frauds.
Thank you for this sudden response after more than 3 months of nothing.
Further follow up LGOIMA requests are as follows;
Why has this multiple LGOIMA request not been acknowledged or decided upon within the required 21 working days?
When you say that this is “our response” who exactly has been responsible for the decisions in the response?
Are you aware that the last time I went to the ombudsman to hurry up an information request, it took several attempts and 11 months to get an answer?
Looking forward to a response by return.
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 11/03/15 4:03 PM, “Grace Ockwell” [DCC] wrote:
Good afternoon Lee,
Thank you for your email of 20 November 2014 and your follow-up email requesting information about the Deloitte Report on Citifleet. Your request has now been forwarded to me to process. It has been considered under the provisions of LGOIMA and the following response is provided. I have repeated your request (or parts thereof) to give context to our response.
a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
The Police have yet to conclude their investigation of this matter and therefore a copy of the full Deloitte report is still withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
The information provided to the CEO in relation to staff is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals and pursuant to section 7(2)(c) as the information provided is subject to an obligation of confidence.
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
All correspondence between the Council and our legal advisors (including correspondence between Deloitte and our legal advisors on the Citifleet matter) is withheld pursuant to s 7(2)(g) of LGOIMA to protect legal professional privilege. Additionally, some but not all of the material is also withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloitte of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
The Police have not yet concluded their investigation of this matter and therefore the preserved electronic copy of information held by Deloitte which the Council controls is withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As you are aware, as we have withheld information, you have the right pursuant to section 27(3) of LGOIMA to have our decision to withhold information reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Grace Ockwell
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
——————————
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:37:03 +1300 To: Sandy Graham [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC] Conversation: Further LGOIMA requests Subject: Re: Further LGOIMA requests
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Can you please update me by return on where these LGOIMA requests have progressed to?
Regards,
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 24/12/14 10:13 AM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
Again I request a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
I can accept that the full report may have to be provided on grey paper.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloittes of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
Ratepayers have paid quarter of a million dollars for the production of this information and I wish to see all of it as a public representative in the public interest.
It is not acceptable to me to have only been provided with the public redacted report along with the public at such a late pre-Christmas stage.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
——————————
On 13/10/14 10:32 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
You have not answered the question as to why one elected representative [the Mayor] seeing the entire Deloitte report [and parts of the report appearing in Audit and Risk Subcommittee agendas] is not likely to “prejudice the maintenance of the law including the investigation and detection of offences.” but that this is still an excuse for not showing the entire report to other elected representatives like myself. Especially given the number of comments the Mayor and CEO have been making to the media regarding the subject of the Deloitte Report.
Your claim that the Stadium review is not yet completed and is still in draft form directly contradicts the advice of the quoted Audit and Risk agenda of 7/10/14 which plainly says that the Stadium “external review has been completed”. If the former, since it can’t be both, why can’t I see it anyway? And why have we then been misled in the A&R agenda?
Being “of course entitled to have that decision reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsmen.” is a farcical affront, given the last response from this dysfunctional excuse for a government department took ELEVEN MONTHS to reply to my request to see the faults list for the long completed Town Hall redevelopment, which you also refused.
This systematic stonewalling of this elected representative by DCC staff is unacceptable to me.
Of course —with Professional Rugby the sense of entitlement goes a terrible long way. The Dunedin City Council, cracked and broken, has been unfairly or dishonestly “short-changed” by Otago Rugby and big brother NZRU. So too is the community of South Auckland (history: Jokers Bars, Gambling money spent out of area on Otago Rugby and Racing). What a delightful experiential and lucrative background exists to the Otago Union.
Straight up and rational, in the course of a chairman’s work, it’s simply the case that there’s been no mandate to name the rugby sponges who misused millions of dollars of public funds; although Jeremy Curragh, former ORFU change manager, suffered a moment when he was forced to blurt that a lesser amount of charitable funds had been misused by the union in yet another of its darkest hours. [enter *curragh* in the search box at right]
Nor has prosecution of ‘the deserving’ been progressed (fact), but then NZRU and DIA are fully committed to ‘looking forward’ rather than back at their contentious and damning files that might be, suddenly(!), lost or misplaced, or smoothly sealed and suppressed. That’s the political climate, nefariously yet continuously supported by a line-up of senior government ministers along with NZ Police, IPCA, SFO, the Auditor-general, and yes, the Ombudsmen.
Doug Harvie will be glad he is now (personally) out of the spotlight.
Like it never happened. Not on his watch. Like it would not in future.
A clipped accounting English.
—
### ODT Online Wed, 21 Jan 2015 Rugby: Harvie stepping down after getting tough job done
By Steve Hepburn
Doug Harvie will step down from the Otago Rugby Football Union’s board with the sport in a much better position than when he arrived. Harvie, a Dunedin chartered accountant, became chairman of the newly structured board in May, 2012. He was shoulder-tapped to stand and felt he could not say no.
Harvie (57), a former loose forward for the University and Dunedin clubs, said the new board did not want to look back on why it found itself in such a tough position. It was focused on getting the business of rugby back into a good shape in Otago. Read more
The Police have joined both the Charities Commission and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in picking off low hanging fruit to justify their existence. There’s no mongrel in the public service any more and all they want is the easy life. It’s why the Police love traffic enforcement, particularly speed and drink driving – so instant, so easy and oh so profitable. –Anonymous
—
Southern police officers were investigated for a range of complaints, including failure to investigate, attitude/language, and inadequate service.
### ODT Online 9:20 AM Sunday Jan 11, 2015 Dozens of police faced disciplinary procedures
By Hamish McNeilly
Complaints about bad language and bullying are just some of the reasons for disciplinary actions against some Southern district police officers. Figures released to the Otago Daily Times show dozens of southern officers have been involved in disciplinary action over the past five years, with 12 officers resigning. Read more
—
IPCA: “It’s our job to keep watch over Police” !!!!
Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand Sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Independent Police Complaints Authority. The Independent Police Conduct Authority is an independent body that considers complaints against New Zealand Police and oversees their conduct. http://ipca.govt.nz/
IPCA Role and powers
The Authority has the following functions and powers under the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988.
Functions: Under section 12 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988, the Authority’s functions are to:
● receive complaints (i) alleging misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of Police or (ii) concerning any Police practice, policy or procedure affecting a complainant; or
● investigate incidents in which a member of Police (acting in the execution of his or her duty) causes or appears to have caused death or serious bodily harm.
Action on complaints: Under the Act, when the Authority receives a complaint, it may carry out its own investigation, or refer the matter to the Police for investigation under the Authority’s oversight. If a complaint is referred to the Police for investigation, the Authority will take steps to ensure that it is properly resolved. This may include directing or actively overseeing the Police investigation, or reviewing or auditing the Police investigation once it is completed. The Authority may also decline to take action on a complaint – for example, if the complaint is very minor or outside the Authority’s jurisdiction. The Authority’s powers in relation to complaints are set out in section 17 and section 19 of the Act. Read more
IPCA Vision and values
The Authority’s mission is to promote public trust and confidence in New Zealand Police. […] The Authority’s values include independence, trustworthiness, accountability, vigilance, and integrity. The Authority exists to support public expectations – as expressed by Parliament – for the justice system to be trusted and effective.
Outcomes: The Authority is funded through Vote: Justice and contributes to the overall justice sector outcome ‘A safe and just society’ and to the following three justice sector goals: accessible justice services, effective constitutional arrangements, and trusted justice system. The work done by the Authority also contributes to Police outcomes of ‘Confident, safe and secure communities’ and ‘Organisational development’, and Police values of integrity and professionalism as outlined in the Police Statement of Intent 2008/09. Read more
IPCA Accountability
The Authority is an independent Crown entity, which means it is accountable to Parliament for its use of taxpayer funding. The Authority is independent in its day-to-day operations. It cannot be told how to handle an investigation, or what the outcome of any investigation should be. However, the Authority is taxpayer-funded and it must account to the responsible Minister and to Parliament for its use of those funds. Read more
IPCA Independence
The Independent Police Conduct Authority is fully independent – it is not part of the Police. ‘Independence’ means that the Authority makes its findings based on the facts and the law. It does not answer to the Police or anyone else over those findings. In this way, its independence is similar to that of a Court. There are three aspects to the Authority’s independence: Legislative independence, Operational independence, and The perception of independence. Read more
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) was established in November 2007, replacing the Police Complaints Authority.
The Police Complaints Authority had been established in 1989, following several years of debate about Police accountability, sparked in part by the role of Police during the 1981 Springbok Tour. Prior to 1989, complaints against the Police were investigated internally. Through most of its life, the Police Complaints Authority comprised a single person with a small number of support staff conducting reviews of Police investigations. Because of its reliance on Police investigations, the Authority was perceived as lacking independence. Recent changes, including the appointment of independent investigators, are addressing that perception.
Key milestones in the history of the Police Complaints Authority include:
● the October 2000 Review of the Police Complaints Authority by Sir Rodney Gallen, who recommended the appointment of independent investigators;
● the appointment in late 2003 of the first independent investigators;
● the March 2007 report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, which recommended a number of changes to the Authority, including enhanced powers and improved communication with complainants;
● the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Act 2007, which changed the Authority’s name and made changes to the Authority’s powers.
The period since the establishment of the Independent Police Conduct Authority in November 2007 has been one of transformation, as the Authority shifts its focus towards independent and transparent investigation of the most serious incidents and complaints. This period of change has included the appointment of additional investigators, and changes to the Authority’s legislation, structure and operations.
[IPCA History] Read more
—
### stuff.co.nz Last updated 10:00 10/01/2015 ‘Zero tolerance’ policy should be scrapped
By Duncan Garner
OPINION Police like to roll out statistics when it suits them so here’s one that hurts – 17 people killed on the roads during the holiday period. That’s more than double the death toll compared with last year. And it’s despite the police’s misguided efforts to target speeding drivers with the hopelessly designed zero tolerance for speeding campaign. It’s a campaign that has utterly failed. It’s a stupid policy that needs to be scrapped. Hundreds of thousands of us will have broken the zero tolerance policy over the holidays. Good on you. I did. It was safer to do so. Read more
****
### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00, January 11 2015 Uber taxi battle sees police vs cabbies
By Shabnam Dastgheib and Marika Hill
Police are cracking down on Uber, the cheap and trendy new-kid-on-the-taxi rank, leaving paying customers on the pavement. After complaints from the old-school taxi firms, police have begun fining the Uber drivers whose lower fares have been hurting the big cab companies. The private car hire service has hit back, lodging a complaint of police harassment with the Independent Police Complaints (sic) Authority. Uber operates as a private hire service which means the fare has to be set at the time of booking, rather than using a meter. This means Uber does not have to abide by taxi regulations, thus saving on operating costs. Read more
Otago Rugby —For more information, enter the terms *orfu*, *rugby*, *racing*, *pokies*, *auditor-general*, *audit nz*, *dia*, *oag*, *sfo*, *operation chestnut* and *whistleblower* in the search box at right.
● The Trusts Charitable Foundation (TTCF Inc) ● The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd (TTCF Ltd) ● Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) ● Professional Rugby ● Centre of Excellence for Amateur Sport ● Harness Racing ● Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) ● Gambling Commission ● Pokies ● Rorts ● Organised Crime ● Serious Fraud ● Political Interference
On the subjects of RUGBY and POKIE TRUSTS (with respect to evolving evidence of organised white collar crime and serious fraud), we note the very troubling lack of accountability and transparency demonstrated by the top brass of Department of Internal Affairs, Serious Fraud Office, Office of the Auditor-General, Office of the Ombudsmen, and New Zealand Police. And indeed government ministers who, practised in the art of political interference, obfuscation and worse, see themselves as entirely above the law.
—
### radionz.co.nz 23 February 2014
Radio New Zealand National
Sunday Morning with Richard Langston http://www.radionz.co.nz/sunday
8:12 Insight: The Public Service – will it survive reforms?
In the last month, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have both confirmed that the drive under the “Better Public Services” banner will continue. The programme is one of the government’s four priorities and includes a cap on core administrative positions. The State Services Commission say the key to doing more with less lies in productivity, innovation, and increased agility to provide services. But, as Philippa Tolley has been finding out, others say public servants are now too wary to offer free and frank advice and that their democratic role is being undermined. Audio | Download: Ogg MP3 (27:51)
****
“The system needs to be overhauled. New Zealand’s got a lot of serious problems that it’s going to have to face up to in the future and those problems require the best-quality governance that we can possibly have – and the public service is a vital part of that.”
### radionz.co.nz Updated at 9:45 am today
RNZ News ‘Total overhaul’ of state sector sought
The former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer is calling for a royal commission of inquiry into the public sector, saying it needs a complete overhaul. Sir Geoffrey says many departments and ministries do not cooperate with one another and lack the capacity to be effective. He says morale in the public sector is low, and too little attention is given to the appointment of chief executives.
Sir Geoffrey says a royal commission is needed to establish some clear principles for the public service to adhere to. Read more
● The Trusts Charitable Foundation (TTCF Inc) ● The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd (TTCF Ltd) ● Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) ● Professional Rugby ● Centre of Excellence for Amateur Sport ● Harness Racing ● Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) ● Gambling Commission ● Pokies ● Rorts ● Organised Crime ● Serious Fraud ● Political Interference
### NZ Herald Online Tuesday 8 October 2013 Super City elections 2013: West’s ‘ugly’ culture has Tamihere fuming
By Steve Deane
Colourful talk radio host MP John Tamihere wants to change what he sees as liquor trusts’ unhealthy monopoly from the inside but they defend set-up as democracy in action, saying proportion of payouts to turnover is about to pick up.
[pub crawl ensues in West Auckland – see full article]
What we’ve just seen [on the crawl], he says, is an example of how West Auckland’s alcohol licensing trusts use their control of the region’s pubs to maximise gambling revenue through pokies. The gambling money, he says, is then used to peddle influence and spread pro-trust propaganda, which reinforces the position of the liquor trusts.
The West’s drinkers are suckers, says Tamihere. They pay over the odds for their booze at the trusts’ bottle stores, are forced to drink in dives and are subjected to banks of pokies when they do. “It’s an ugly drinking culture,” says Tamihere. “It sets up a false world where the leadership of the trusts can make out that we don’t have any drinking problems out West. That is because we migrate them into town or over on to the Shore. No right-minded youth or family will go out anywhere in the West because they are dives. The culture has been perverted by the way the trusts just want to monopolise pokies.” Tamihere wants to get elected so he can change things from the inside. But is change really necessary? Like many things involving the colourful talk radio host, the answer is not straightforward.
Two weeks later we take another tour, this time with Ross Clow, the long-serving president of the Portage Licensing Trust and chairman of The Trusts Community Foundation.
As well as rebutting Tamihere’s ugly drinking culture claims, Clow’s aim is to show where the money from the liquor trusts’ combined $100 million turnover is going. Money, it will surprise no one, is at the heart of this issue. TTCF’s accounts show it paid $10.57 million in pokie revenue to West Auckland causes last year. Clow stands firmly by the claim that 97 per cent of the cash raised out West is returned to the West. He should know. As president of the Portage trust he is responsible for making the recommendations to TTCF on how money raised in its venues should be spent. Given he is also chairman of TTCF, Clow could be accused of making recommendations to himself. He defends the system as a sound way of making sure the money goes to the right places and insists he recuses himself when TTCF votes on Portage’s recommendations.
Tamihere disputes figures surrounding the return of money to West Auckland, but says he won’t be able to prove his case until he gets access to the trusts’ full accounts. “If I have to go to the High Court to break it open I will,” he says. “There is something not right here. I know my community. There is nothing like that being spent out here.”
Then there is the question of who really distributes the money. For years statements issued by the liquor licensing trusts have indicated the money comes from them. It doesn’t. It comes from TTCF, which is a separate financial entity. Read more
You can also contact your union representative, a lawyer or your local Community Law Centre for advice.
█ Don’t hesitate to call Police on 111 if you feel threatened.
—
We note the following news items with some distress and revulsion.
### ODT Online Wed, 1 May 2013 Queenstown driver paid $63,000 after sexual harrassment
By Abby Gillies
A female truck driver working in Queenstown has been awarded more than $63,000 for being sexually harassed, discriminated against because of her gender and unjustifiably dismissed from her job. A decision by the Employment Relations Authority has ordered Rachael Harrington receive $25,000 in compensation and $38,200 from her former employer Cromwell-based Thunderbird One, over her treatment.
The truck driver started work with the company in Queenstown, which operates a Mainfreight franchise, in September 2008. However, “her employment was both short and fraught”, and she resigned and filed a personal grievance three months later, said the ERA finding. Her claims of being unjustifiably disadvantaged, discriminated against and sexually harassed were unchallenged by the company, it said. Read more
—
### ODT Online Thu, 2 May 2013 Sexually harrassed Queenstown driver miscarried
By James Beech
The former Queenstown female truck driver awarded more than $63,000 for being sexually harassed, discriminated against because of her gender and unjustifiably dismissed from her job suspects she miscarried as a result of being told to “manhandle” an 800kg load at work. The Employment Relations Authority ordered that Rachael Lee Harrington receive $38,243 as recompense for wages lost as a result of the dismissal and $25,000 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings from her former employer, Cromwell-based Thunderbird One Ltd. Ms Harrington was “severely bleeding and miscarrying after lifting all the heavy pallets, so it was really super traumatic for her,” counsel Angeline Boniface, of Christchurch, told the Otago Daily Times yesterday. “The worst thing about this entire situation is that here she is bleeding profusely, her father asked for an ambulance to come on site and Mr [Justin] Marshall said, “If you get an ambulance, you’ll be up for disciplinary action,” Mrs Boniface said. “Meanwhile she’s bleeding, she wants to get into the building and other staff members have locked her out and [are] laughing at her. This is awful, just shocking.” Read more
● Justin Marshall, managing director of Thunderbird One Ltd and Picture Vehicles Ltd, is not the former All Black and broadcaster Justin Marshall.
### interest.co.nz
February 11, 2013 – 12:36pm SFO eyeing rewards for whistleblowers similar to those now used in United States to catch Ponzi schemers, fraudsters
By Bernard Hickey
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has said it is in the early stages of considering whether to offer rewards, bounties and percentages of fines to whistleblowers providing evidence to detect serious frauds and the sorts of Ponzi schemes similar to the one run by Bernie Madoff. “There has been some early discussions,” SFO Acting CEO Simon McArley told a news conference before a seminar on Economic Crime in Auckland. Read more
The content of the following news item by New Zealand Herald has been reproduced here in full, in the public interest. -Eds
—
### nzherald.co.nz 5:45 PM Sunday Sep 23, 2012
Business Stamp out Chch fraud early – SFO boss
Fraudulent activity during the Christchurch rebuild should be acted on quickly rather than mopped up afterwards, departing Serious Fraud Office chief executive Adam Feeley says.
His comments come after Deloitte international corruption expert Peter Dent last week warned of the potential for huge amounts of fraud as the systems in place for the rebuild get stretched to the limit.
Mr Feeley said enforcement and regulatory agencies had made the mistake of mopping up after the fact at failed finance companies – but the office would not let that happen in Christchurch.
“It’s incredibly important that we don’t mop afterwards – we act now, we act in a very co-ordinated fashion, and we act in respect of what we know to be the problem,” he told TV3’s The Nation.
“The problem is at the moment, we’re not sure what the problem is. But we every reason to believe – unless New Zealand is some unique anomaly in the world – that post-natural disaster you have fraud, and you have fraud on quite a big scale.”
The Serious Fraud Office would focus on three key areas in Christchurch.
“One is around public awareness – to get people to speak up, to come and contact us, police or other agencies if they see things either within their work or just publicly going on that they have concerns about.”
The second was to use intelligence “a lot more cleverly”.
“You need to analyse data, and the sheer volume of data that happens after a natural disaster means you have to be more sophisticated in the way you look for anomalies that might suggest fraud.”
The third and most important focus was to act quickly.
“Far more quickly than we have in the past.”
Mr Feeley said the office would use methods as unsophisticated as hearing something in a pub.
He said it seemed taboo in New Zealand to “snitch” but people needed to speak up if they knew about crimes being committed.
“It’s New Zealand – we know what’s going on and we want to encourage that culture,” he said.
“It is very, very rare that people commit crimes without someone knowing there is a problem happening.”
Mr Feeley leaves the Serious Fraud Office next month to become the chief executive of the Lakes District Council in Queenstown. NZ Herald Link
The Octagon Occupy (a peaceful legitimate protest) and the weekend’s North Dunedin fires (arson, threat to property, drunkenness and street fighting, threat to health and safety) are exerting pressure on the Dunedin City Council to enter meaningful – open and transparent – communication with residents and ratepayers; evidently, this should extend to the university and the police.
—
The protesters have won a significant victory and it will be even more difficult to move them now.
### ODT Online Wed, 9 Nov 2011 Editorial: Communication breakdown
Have the Dunedin City Council and senior police officers stopped talking to each other? After last Tuesday night’s public relations disaster when the council failed in its attempt to have trespassed protesters removed from the Octagon, the residents of Dunedin could well be forgiven for thinking sensible communication has ceased. The “Occupy Dunedin” protesters – some call them noble and brave and others bludgers and beneficiaries – pitched more than 30 tents in the upper Octagon on October 15, joining a global movement protesting corporate greed and social inequality and calling for greater protection of the environment. Read more
Mr Cull to Cr Vandervis: “You, sir, are a liar. Now leave.” [screenshot]![xmas - charlie_brown_christmas [westword.com] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/xmas-charlie_brown_christmas-westword-com-1.jpg)
![sue bidrose [whatifdunedin]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sue-bidrose-whatifdunedin-e1449099268211.jpg)
![Sue Bidrose - timeline of managerial responsibilities 2010 - 2013 [screenshot]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sue-bidrose-timeline-of-managerial-responsibilities-2010-2013-screenshot.jpg)
![police-generic-1200-A [3news.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/police-generic-1200-a-3news-co-nz.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 