### ODT Online Sat, 3 June 2017 Mayoress recovering
By Margot Taylor
The wife of Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull is slowly recovering after being seriously injured in a crash which wrecked a new mayoral car. Joan Wilson was driving a 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe when she crashed near Roxburgh in late December. Documents obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by blog “What if? Dunedin” reveal the $55,659 vehicle had been in use for just five days before the crash. In a statement to the Otago Daily Times Mr Cull said his wife sustained “serious injuries” in the crash. “Joan was the sole occupant in the vehicle. Fortunately, she is making a gradual recovery and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the emergency services and members of the public who provided assistance at the scene,” Mr Cull said. The accident was a “private matter” and no further comment would be made, Mr Cull said. […] Mrs Wilson was an authorised driver. Insurers had not identified the cause of the accident, and no other vehicles were involved. Read more
Comment at ODT: Dakota Sat, 03/06/2017 – 9:34am #
If this has cost ratepayers three grand, how is it a private matter?
****
New Zealand Transport Agency
NZTA manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. The system provides tools to analyse and map crashes and enables users to identify high-risk locations and monitor trends and crash sites. This information helps inform transport policy, design and prioritise road safety improvements and monitor their effectiveness. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. It is an essential tool in supporting Safer Journeys and its vision of a ‘safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury’. It enables the transport sector, over the long term, to improve road safety through knowledge, research and the measurements of the effects of changes to the network and network user behaviour. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/
Ministry of Transport
Motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand is an annual statistical statement on road crashes in New Zealand. The crash data are derived from Traffic Crash reports completed by Police who attend fatal and injury crashes. As well as road crash statistics, motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand includes national hospital, breath and blood alcohol, road user behaviour and comparative international statistics which relate to road crashes. http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadcrashstatistics/motorvehiclecrashesinnewzealand/
NZTA road death statistics
New Zealand road death toll statistics covering road fatalities and fatal crashes, updated daily. Road fatalities update | Fatal crashes update | Update road deaths by local government region | More detailed data https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-deaths/toll.html
****
Postscript
The driver of the 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe is understood to have fallen asleep at the wheel resulting in the serious injury road crash as reported; their spouse was said to have been following in another vehicle at the time of the crash.
From: Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance] Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 5:03 p.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr Cc: [DCC Governance Support] Subject: RE: Elizabeth Kerr Local Government Official Information request – 584807
Dear Elizabeth
Please see below a response to your LGOIMA request re Mayoral vehicles.
Request details:
LGOIMA request re mayoral vehicle (DCC)
1. I understand there is a DCC vehicle dedicated for use by the Mayor of Dunedin, is this correct? If so, is the vehicle owned by DCC, or is it leased? Yes. It is owned by DCC
2. What are the terms and conditions of the Mayor’s use of this vehicle? (including DCC insurance cover in regards to who may drive the vehicle and for what purpose(s) to retain the cover) The Mayor pays for full private use of the vehicle as per the determination set out by the independent Remuneration Authority. The insurance cover for the mayoral vehicle is as for all other fleet vehicles. Any authorised driver is covered.
3. What is the make, model, colour, year and registration of the mayoral vehicle? Please state for all vehicles designated for mayoral use in the period October 2010 to April 2017, if any. Please see the attached spreadsheet. I have not provided registration plate details and these are withheld to protect the privacy of natural persons pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA.
4. What has been the annual mileage clocked for the mayoral vehicle on official business in the period October 2010 to April 2017? Annual mileage is not recorded and so the information requested does not exist.
5. Does the mayor also retain the vehicle for his own casual use when not on official business? If so, is this mileage logged separately and what has been that annual mileage clocked in the period October 2010 to April 2017? Or please supply the annual mileage clocked for all use of the vehicle in the period October 2010 to April 2017? The Mayor pays for full private use of the vehicle as per the determination set out by the independent Remuneration Authority. No records of annual mileage are kept.
6. Designated driver(s). Besides the mayor, are there other dedicated drivers specified for this vehicle? (see 2. above). Please identify the drivers – if for privacy reasons names cannot be supplied, state by position or role to include council staff, elected council representatives (councillors), or the mayor’s family. The vehicle is able to be driven by any authorised driver.
7. See 4. above. How does this mileage compare with the annual mileage recorded for a mayoral vehicle (if any) used by previous mayors, where this is known? For example, for Richard Walls, Sukhi Turner and Peter Chin. No mileage records are held.
8. In the period October 2010 to April 2017, have any vehicles assigned for mayoral use been badly damaged or written off? Please provide vehicle identification (make/model/colour/year/registration), date of vehicle crash or incident, crash site or incident location; and, where relevant identify whether this was an injury/serious injury/non injury crash (cross out whichever does not apply). Yes. A Hyundai Santa Fe was written off in Jan 2017 following an accident involving serious injury near Roxburgh.
9. See 8. above. What was the official cause of each vehicle crash or incident as determined for DCC’s insurance claim (if any); and or as claimed in the official CAS report* involving a DCC vehicle, a copy of which may be held on DCC files? *The NZ Transport Agency manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/ The insurers did not identify a cause of the accident.
10. See 6. above. Was the mayor or another officially designated driver identified for each vehicle crash or incident listed at 8. above? Yes.
11. How recently was the mayoral vehicle replaced following a vehicle write-off? Did DCC’s insurance cover and budgets meet the full cost of vehicle replacement and other associated costs such as accident victim transfer to hospital? Please itemise all costs to DCC. Refer to the attached spreadsheet. DCC received a full insurance pay-out.
12. Further to 3. above, please confirm the make, model, colour, year and registration number of the present mayoral vehicle and its date of purchase or commencement of lease by DCC. Please respond by email within 20 working days. Thanks. Refer to the attached spreadsheet. I have not provided registration plate details and these are withheld to protect the privacy of natural persons pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA.
Given I have withheld information, you are entitled to a review of the decision by the Office of the Ombudsman.
I have cc’ed [DCC Governance Support] on the response for record keeping purposes.
From: [DCC Governance Support] Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 9:28 a.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Acknowledgement of request
19-Apr-2017
Elizabeth Kerr
Dear Ms Kerr,
Official information request for: 584807, KERR, MAYORAL VEHICLE
Reference Number: 306621
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 18-April-2017 for 584807, KERR, MAYORAL VEHICLE
We received your request on 18-April-2017. We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than 17-May-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 Sandy Graham. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact her 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 Officer
Dunedin City Council
[*My LGOIMA request is dated 16 April 2017]
—
From: officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:19 p.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 584807
Dear Elizabeth
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 16 Apr 2017 1:19pm
We support public access to official information. Our obligation under the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 (the Act) is to provide you the information requested as soon as reasonably practicable unless there is a good reason for withholding it.
We will process information requests as below:
• We will let you know as soon as we can (and in any case within 20 working days) whether your request will be granted or declined, and if the request is declined why we have declined it.
• In some cases it may be necessary for our decision to be made after 20 working days. When this occurs we will advise you the anticipated delivery date together with the reason why it is necessary to extend that time within the 20 working days.
• If your request is complex or requires a large amount of collation and research, we may contact you with a view to either refining your request or discussing the possibility of charging for aspects of your request in line with the DCC charging policy.
• If we decide to release the information, we aim to provide it at the same time as we give our decision. If this is not possible we will provide the information as soon as reasonably practicable.
If you need to contact us about your request, please email officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000. Please quote reference number: 584807
The timeliness of our decisions and the reasons for them are reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. You can view the Ombudsman’s guidelines for the processing of information requests at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling freephone: 0800 802 602.
Yours sincerely,
Official Information Request Service
Below are the details of the request
Your request:
LGOIMA request re mayoral vehicle (DCC)
1. I understand there is a DCC vehicle dedicated for use by the Mayor of Dunedin, is this correct? If so, is the vehicle owned by DCC, or is it leased?
2. What are the terms and conditions of the Mayor’s use of this vehicle? (including DCC insurance cover in regards to who may drive the vehicle and for what purpose(s) to retain the cover)
3. What is the make, model, colour, year and registration of the mayoral vehicle? Please state for all vehicles designated for mayoral use in the period October 2010 to April 2017, if any.
4. What has been the annual mileage clocked for the mayoral vehicle on official business in the period October 2010 to April 2017?
5. Does the mayor also retain the vehicle for his own casual use when not on official business? If so, is this mileage logged separately and what has been that annual mileage clocked in the period October 2010 to April 2017? Or please supply the annual mileage clocked for all use of the vehicle in the period October 2010 to April 2017?
6. Designated driver(s). Besides the mayor, are there other dedicated drivers specified for this vehicle? (see 2. above). Please identify the drivers – if for privacy reasons names cannot be supplied, state by position or role to include council staff, elected council representatives (councillors), or the mayor’s family.
7. See 4. above. How does this mileage compare with the annual mileage recorded for a mayoral vehicle (if any) used by previous mayors, where this is known? For example, for Richard Walls, Sukhi Turner and Peter Chin.
8. In the period October 2010 to April 2017, have any vehicles assigned for mayoral use been badly damaged or written off? Please provide vehicle identification (make/model/colour/year/registration), date of vehicle crash or incident, crash site or incident location; and, where relevant identify whether this was an injury/serious injury/non injury crash (cross out whichever does not apply).
9. See 8. above. What was the official cause of each vehicle crash or incident as determined for DCC’s insurance claim (if any); and or as claimed in the official CAS report* involving a DCC vehicle, a copy of which may be held on DCC files?
*The NZ Transport Agency manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/
10. See 6. above. Was the mayor or another officially designated driver identified for each vehicle crash or incident listed at 8. above?
11. How recently was the mayoral vehicle replaced following a vehicle write-off? Did DCC’s insurance cover and budgets meet the full cost of vehicle replacement and other associated costs such as accident victim transfer to hospital? Please itemise all costs to DCC.
12. Further to 3. above, please confirm the make, model, colour, year and registration number of the present mayoral vehicle and its date of purchase or commencement of lease by DCC.
Please respond by email within 20 working days. Thanks.
File attachment
No file uploaded
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
This post is offered in the public interest.
*Image: hyundaiusa.com – 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
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.
Firebrand is a full service web, design and marketing agency.
“We’ve assisted with multiple schemes initiated by the DCC, including Sexy Summer Jobs and Dunedin’s City of Literature. Our work on these projects includes branding and custom website design and development, as well as an ongoing part Pro-Bono Creative Partnership with Sexy Summer Jobs, specifically.” https://firebrand.nz/work/portfolio/article/732
Firebrand has previously offered pro bono services to Greater Dunedin.
****
Offical Information Requests
Subject: LGOIMA Request Ref No. 541487 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 3:34 p.m. From: Elizabeth Kerr To: Kristy Rusher [DCC] Cc: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose
Dear Kristy
Re DCC open tendering processes
This official request stems from citizen concern or perception that contracts for supply are being awarded without Dunedin City Council (DCC) engaging in open tendering processes. I hope this is not the case but I wish to go beyond hearsay in seeking the following information.
The divisions of council or council partnershps for which it is unclear whether open tendering processes are being followed are:
● Economic Development Unit (EDU) – co-ordinating Economic Development Strategy initiatives; positioned within Enterprise Dunedin, the agency responsible for the economic development and marketing of the city. Chris Staynes chairs the DCC Economic Development Committee.
● Grow Dunedin Partnership – Partners: Ngāi Tahu, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, Otago Southland Employers’ Association, Otago Polytechnic, the University of Otago, and the Dunedin City Council. The partnership is chaired by Chris Staynes.
● Digital Community Trust (DCT) – Digital Office Ltd (The Digital Office) : see GigCity Dunedin “The Council has supported the Digital Community Trust to deliver the City’s Digital Strategy”; “A total of $250,000 per year has been included for the GigCity project in 2016/17 and 2017/18 so Dunedin can get maximum benefit from being the first New Zealand city to have a gigabyte internet connection.” DCT is chaired by Chris Staynes.
Firstly, Economic Development Unit (EDU):
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
Secondly, Grow Dunedin Partnership:
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
Thirdly, Digital Community Trust (DCT) – Digital Office Ltd (The Digital Office) : see GigCity Dunedin
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
In addition:
● Has the registered company Firebrand been awarded contracts by any of the DCC-related entities bullet-pointed above, in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
● How many contracts for supply have been awarded to Firebrand, Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
● In regards to the last two bullet points, in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
Further, I understand Firebrand supplied services to Greater Dunedin (now defunct) election campaign(s) in previous years.
● Is Firebrand (a usual supplier to DCC ?) currently in discussion with Dave Cull about supplying services to his mayoral campaign for the local body elections in October 2016?
It would be concerning if a usual supplier to the city council was being awarded contracts without being subject to an open (public) tendering process; particularly if that same supplier was also discussing or had already been engaged to provide services to the Mayoral election campaign. If true, this would seem to be inappropriate and an interest should be declared. However, until more information is obtained I retain a completely open mind.
I seek your response by email in digital format. Thank you.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request Ref No. 541554
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:37 p.m.
From: Elizabeth Kerr
To: Kristy Rusher [DCC]
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose
Dear Kristy
Re DCC open tendering processes
This official request stems from citizen concern or perception that contracts for supply are being awarded without Dunedin City Council (DCC) and its CCO Delta Utility Services Ltd or any other DCC controlled entity engaging in open tendering processes. I hope this is not the case but I wish to go beyond hearsay in seeking the following information.
It is unclear whether open tendering processes are being followed by :
Firstly, DCC Communications and Marketing
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded to the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
2. In regards to question 1., how many of these contracts for supply did Not go through an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
3. In regards to question 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
Secondly, Delta Utility Services Ltd (the Council owned company)
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded to the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
2. In regards to question 1., how many of these contracts for supply did Not go through an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
3. In regards to question 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
Thirdly, has any other DCC controlled entity engaged the services of the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016; if so have any of those contracts awarded for services Not followed an open (public) tendering process; and if so why not?
Received from Calvin Oaten
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 at 5:35 p.m.
—
—–Original Message—– From: Calvin Oaten Sent: Sunday, 1 November 2015 10:10 a.m. To: Sandy Graham Cc: Dave Cull; Sue Bidrose Subject: [LGOIMA] Request
Hello Sandy,
I have been reading the annual reports of Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) and am somewhat uncertain as to the true position regarding the matter of charges/fees for the use of the Stadium. We were given a detailed report in the 2014/15 Annual Plan wherein it [was] disclosed that the DCC/ratepayers would be making a one off lump sum of $2.271m to DVML by way of calling up unpaid capital. Then there is to be $715k per annum paid also by way of calling up unpaid capital. An event attraction fund of $400k per annum, source ratepayers? These two annual sums are I believe revenue to DVML. We won’t talk about the later decision to fund $2m per annum as a rent subsidy to DVL, due to DVML’s inability to meet the $4m rent required towards DVL’s debt reduction.
There is no mention of the Stadium in the 2015/16 Annual Plan with any reference to funding shortfalls even though both DVML and DVL continue to run deficits.
Zeroing in on sports events held in the Stadium (because that is its primary purpose) I see that in 2013 there was (sic) 44 events attracting 205,511 attendees.
In 2014 there were 39 with 206,123 there and in 2015 for 33 events 174,575 turned out in support.
DVML showed revenue of $6.085m in 2012 and $8.205m in 2013. These were of the Stadium only, thereafter it includes the Edgar Centre, the DCC Convention Centre plus the Ice Stadium management. This brought about an increase in revenue to $9.127m for 2014 and $9.960m in 2015. Similar pattern for the operating expenses over those same years.
In order to enable one to get an assessment of where these obviously inadequate revenues come from I would request under the [LGOIMA] the following points;
1. The main events being rugby, which of the ORFU, the Highlander Franchise or the NZRFU staged what events over those years? What was the rental received by DVML from those respective bodies per event and do they figure in the revenue statements?
2. What was the amount of revenue received from the other lesser codes which used the same facilities?
With respect to the Operating Expenses outlined in the reports, 2012 as $3.862m, 2013 $3.589m, 2014 $4.361m and 2015 $5.407m.
1. Of those expenses I would request under the [LGOIMA] the amounts of those expenses which could be described as paid inducements or subsidies to perform in the Stadium, albeit sports and concerts?
I trust that this information could be made available within the statutory twenty-one days and thank you in anticipation.
Cheers,
Calvin Oaten
—
Terry Davies, DVML Chief Executive [via whatifdunedin]
From: Terry Davies Subject: FW: [LGOIMA] Request Date: 27 November 2015 3:53:09 pm NZDT To: Calvin Oaten
Dear Mr Oaten
I refer to your email dated 1 November which has been referred to DVML to respond. I have responded directly to your questions below:
1. The main events being rugby, which of the ORFU, the Highlander Franchise or the [NZRU] staged what events over those years? What was the rental received by DVML from those respective bodies per event and do they figure in the revenue statements? The rental received for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.
2. What was the amount of revenue received from the other lesser codes which used the same facilities? The revenue received for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.
With respect to the Operating Expenses outlined in the reports, 2012 as $3.862m, 2013 $3.589m, 2014 $4.361m and 2015 $5.407m.
1. Of those expenses I would request under the [LGOIMA] the amounts of those expenses which could be described as paid inducements or subsidies to perform in the Stadium, albeit sports and concerts? The expenses incurred and event attraction funding for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.
You are entitled to have this decision reviewed by the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Terry Davies
———————————————
From: Calvin Oaten Subject: Fwd: [LGOIMA] Request Date: 28 November 2015 12:08:46 am NZDT To: Sue Bidrose
Hello Sue,
You will have been aware of my queries expressed recently via the [LGOIMA], re the DVML revenue [breakdown].
Well I would have to say that the reply as received is totally underwhelming. This would have to be the most condescending, snivelling, performance by a highly positioned manager one could expect. Hiding behind a clause in a flawed piece of legislation to deny a citizen stakeholder information which ought to be available, on the grounds that it would compromise the company in carrying out its business without prejudice or disadvantage is nothing but
a complete ‘cop-out’ by a less than forthright person. Unless there is detail showing activities detrimental to achieving maximum returns to the company, then I find it a disingenuous and rude dismissal of an honest request.
Sue, I am dissatisfied with his response but if you think it is the way it should lie, then I would be deeply disappointed. I would appreciate your comments as I treat this as a serious affront.
Cheers,
Calvin
[ends]
—
█ In other developments, ICC felt the need to secure games for its stadium. What have Terry Davies, (“make it work”) Dave Cull and Sue Bidrose been up to in behind ?
### ODT Online Fri, 27 Nov 2015 Rugby: Highlanders private investors revealed (+ video)
A group of South Island private investors has been granted a five-year licence to run the Highlanders. The group, headed by Ticket Direct boss Matthew Davey, has taken a 77% stake in the Dunedin-based Super Rugby franchise, with Otago, Southland and North Otago Provincial Unions having a 13% stake. New Zealand Rugby (NZR) retains a 10% share for the first two years. Read more
Otago Daily Times Published on Nov 26, 2015
Highlanders private investors revealed
29.11.15 ODT: Rugby: New operators for Highlanders
The Invercargill City Council has underwritten the venture to the tune of up to $500,000 in return for one guaranteed game at Rugby Park each year for the next five years.
29.11.15 ODT: Canadian finds his ticket to success
Matthew Davey says the Highlanders helped make him – now he is ready to help return the favour. The Dunedin businessman says he started the company he founded, Ticket Direct, at Carisbrook in 1999, and it has since grown into a multinational entity based in Dunedin.
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
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.
Received from Bev Butler
Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:27 p.m.
MESSAGE TO MEDIA WATCHING THIS BLOGSITE
Malcolm Farry has been misinforming media about the CST being subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).
Farry is incorrect when he states that the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST) is not subject to LGOIMA.
Attached are two legal opinions which both state that the CST is subject to the provisions of LGOIMA.
These were released to me by Paul Orders, former CEO of the Dunedin City Council (DCC), after I made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
In July 2008 I was making requests under LGOIMA about the stadium and was informed by the then CEO, Jim Harland, that the CST was not subject to LGOIMA. What Harland failed to tell me was that he had sought two legal opinions both of which state that the CST is subject to LGOIMA.
When I produced Harland’s email to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council release these opinions to me. Hence the attached legal opinions. It is not often that legal opinions are released because of legal priviledge but I guess in this case I had proved I was misled. It was part of the deceipt of withholding vital information from the public so that they could push the project through against the will of the community.
They lied from start to finish with this project and filled their pockets along the way –that’s why myself and others will continue to expose what happened. The whole process was so bloody cynical.
Returning to Farry, CST and LGOIMA, it is also clear under the Public Records Act 2005 that the Council is required to maintain full records etc as outlined below:
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 2005
Requirement to create and maintain records
(1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.
(2) Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act or required by or under another Act.
(3) Every local authority must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all protected records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act.
————————————————
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] To: Bev Butler CC: Letitia Parry @ombudsmen.parliament.nz Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:50 +1300 Subject: Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012.pdf – Adobe Acrobat Professional
Dear Bev
Please find attached the information regarding the LGOIMA peer reviews.
Regards
Sandy
—
Full download:Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012 (PDF, 949 KB)
• Cover letter from Paul Orders 14.2.12 (1 page)
• Letter from Anderson Lloyd 18.9.08 (3 pages)
• Letter from Simpson Grierson 25.9.08 (5 pages)
[ends]
For more, enter the terms *cst*, *csct*, *carisbrook*, *stadium*, *farry*, or *harland* in the search box at right.
The Long Term Plan [2012/2022] as a document is only beneficial to the community when it fully incorporates the probable financial outcomes for the city. This Long Term Plan has not taken into account the financial future of the stadium. (The DVML six-monthly report has been delayed until after submissions close). The DVML report will reveal that the stadium is running at a multimillion dollar loss and it is now time to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether it is financially viable for the stadium to remain open or not. The results of a cost-benefit analysis of the stadium would then put the city in a clearer position to then make decisions for the future. The city in its present overwhelming debt situation can ill-afford to continue to sustain the stadium multimillion dollar losses. The Council has been capitalising interest for the last few years to the tune of over $40m. This situation if allowed to continue will eventually result in bankruptcy.
The main anchor tenant of the stadium (the ORFU) is technically insolvent and has already come to Council requesting a bailout. The Dunedin ratepayers cannot afford to keep on bailing out the ORFU. It will not be long before the ORFU again request another bailout. This has been the pattern over many years. I have no confidence that the ORFU bailout conditions will be met just as the stadium conditions were not met (see attached spreadsheet).
The council has to change its mindset that ‘what is good for Otago rugby is good for Dunedin/ Otago.’ Clearly, on a financial basis, this has not been true for many years. It is not the DCC’s role to continually ‘wet nurse’ the rugby interests in this town by caving in to their repeated, self=destructive mode of operating. Namely, their calling on public funds when they get into financial trouble.
It has become clearer as Official Information has been released that the process that led to the building of the stadium was corrupt. I request that the Council instigate a full independent inquiry into the whole stadium project so that those responsible for misleading the community are held to account. Until this happens the stadium will continue to divide the community. Continue reading →
(13 June, 9.01pm) @CERAgovtnz RT @msdgovtnz Cowles Stadium Welfare Centre open http://ow.ly/5geid for those needing emergency assistance in #chch following #eqnz
![android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/android__email_by_bharathp666-bharathp666-deviantart-com.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 