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.
An Email Thread
Bev Butler’s continuing quest for information about the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST) via Dunedin City Council with recourse to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) —and with assistance of Ombudsman Sir Ron Paterson.
What if? Dunedin has archived the original emails. Minor formatting changes have been entered for the WordPress template; email addresses have been removed or deactivated.
—
Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:52 a.m.
From: Bev Butler To: Kristy Rusher; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA responses – Carisbrook Stadium Trust/Progress? Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:50:17 +1200
Dear Kristy, Sue and Sandy
It is now nearly six months since I received the response below which indicated that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) have refused to respond to my LGOIMA request.
Given the CST is subject to LGOIMA under section 2(6) of the Act and given the CST has a statutory obligation to respond to requests for information under their agency contract with the DCC then I believe it is the DCC’s responsibility to hold the CST accountable to the statutory obligations under their contract.
It is not appropriate to refer me to the ombudsman office when it is the DCC’s and CST’s statutory responsibility to obtain that information. I was informed in 2015 by the DCC that they had recovered the documents from the CST after the CST had stored them in an undisclosed storage container – unbeknown to the DCC.
I, therefore, again request the information outlined below and trust I will receive it within the statutory timeframe.
I have approached CST again to ask for the information to LGOIMA requests 3 and 4 below and have received no response.
Therefore, I am declining to provide the information and rely on section 17(e) of LGOIMA as despite reasonable efforts to locate it, the documents cannot be found.
As we have declined to provide you with information you have the right pursuant to section 27 of LGOIMA to have our decision reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman who may be contacted at:
The Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
PO Box 10 152
WELLINGTON 6143
Interview: Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
Saturday 19 Mar 2016 10:56 a.m.
The new Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier speaks to Lisa Owen about his plans to overhaul the office and how he expects the Government to deal with public information.
█ View the TV3 Video (11:25)
Who is the Ombudsman?
There are currently two: Judge Peter Boshier and Professor Ron Paterson.
Judge Boshier began his term as Chief Ombudsman on 10 December 2015.
Ron Paterson was appointed an Ombudsman on 4 June 2013. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/about-us/who-is-the-ombudsman
█ 22.1.16 Stuff: New chief ombudsman promises to be a fearless operator
New chief ombudsman Judge Peter Boshier plans to be a fearless operator, with every intention of using his title and its “spectre” to draw attention to unacceptable practices. “I’m not going to resile from saying things publicly in a considered, measured way when I think that’s justified. That’s what I did as the principal court judge and that’s what I’ll bring to this job,” he said.
█ 16.1.16 RNZ: New Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier (with Kathryn Ryan)
Former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier was one of our highest profile judges during his eight years in that role, and intends to bring the same openness to his new role as Chief Ombudsman. Audio | Downloads: OggMP3 (24’39”)
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Image: TV3 The Nation – screenshot by whatifdunedin
### NZ Herald Online 1:40 PM Wednesday Dec 2, 2015 Official Information Act review finds ‘no deliberate misuse’
By Isaac Davison – NZH political reporter
A high-level review of the Official Information Act will not uncover any widespread political interference in the release of information, its author says. The Ombudsman’s Office will release the findings from its comprehensive, year-long review next week. Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem said today that the investigation had not discovered malicious or deliberate misuse of the Act by ministers’ offices or by Government departments.
“We’ve really shaken the tree over this and haven’t been surprised by what’s fallen out,” she told a Parliamentary committee this morning.
She admitted that she had suspected political interference, but had found no hard evidence of it. Dame Beverley said people who had complained to her office could be perceiving political spin or “bad behaviour” when it did not exist, and she could not make any findings “based on hearsay”. Read more
█ The release of the report will be Dame Beverley’s last act as Chief Ombudsman after 10 years in the role. She is being replaced by former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier next week.
—
Gun shy ? (broken record – your 10 limp-wristed years, inter-agency OBFUSCATION, or lose your privilege, your confidence, your connections, your office budget….)
DemiLovatoVEVO Published on Oct 9, 2015 Demi Lovato – Confident (Official Video)
Sharon Murdoch, Dame Beverley December 5, 2015 [Stuff.co.nz]
█ For more, enter terms such as *audit nz*, *auditor general*, *citifleet*, *corruption*, *courthouse*, *cst*, *dcc*, *delta*, *department of internal affairs*, *dia*, *dvml*, *fraud*, *gambling*, *kaipara*, *nzru*, *oag*, *orfu*, *pokies*, *racing*, *rugby*, *sfo*, *stadium*, *ttcf* or *whistleblowers* 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
Further to the contents of an email from Jeff Dickie last month, who was writing from a hotel on Orchard Road at the time:
Supplied. ODT 13.7.15 (page 6)
****
INVOICE FRAUD AND MORE
TWO corrupt council officials and two businessmen who supplied them with cash and hospitality have been jailed with a warning they face “significant” sentences.
### HeraldScotland.com Wednesday 17 June 2015 Corrupt Edinburgh council officials face lengthy jail term
[…] Former local authority employees Charles Owenson and James Costello were treated to dances and drinks in lap dancing bars as valuable Edinburgh City Council contracts were secured through bribery. Ex-directors of Action Building Contracts Ltd (ABC Ltd) Kevin Balmer and Brendan Cantwell provided the rewards over the allocation of work for public buildings including schools, care homes and cemeteries.
Following their earlier guilty pleas a sheriff told them that he would continue their case until tomorrow for sentencing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to consider the information he had been given. But Sheriff Michael O’Grady QC told the four men: “Having regard to the gravity of the offences, it is clear to me the sentences will require to be custodial and require to be significant.” He remanded all of them in jail ahead of sentencing.
Owenson and Costello were provided with hospitality, including corporate seats at Hibs and Hearts football grounds and meals out as well as cash, by Edinburgh-based construction firm ABC Ltd (Action Building Contracts). The contractors even submitted inflated invoices to the local authority for work carried out to cover the costs of the bribes they were paying council officials. Fiscal Keith O’Mahony earlier told the court: “In essence, the council was being charged for the cost of bribing its own officials.”
[…] Police began carrying out enquiries in 2010 as a result of complaints about the statutory notices system and were later informed that senior management had received “a whistleblower letter” alleging that Owenson was showing favouritism when allocating work to contractors. The Crown has raised proceedings to recover crime profits in the case. Read more
Shades of the ‘Screaming Orgasm cocktails’ saga following Dunedin City Council’s decision to build the stadium. That evening, the board members of Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust went out to celebrate, booking their drinks at Alibi Bar & Restaurant to the Ratepayers.
Of course, there have been masses of local big-ticket ‘corruptions’: the stadium land purchases (including for realignment of SH88); the Carisbrook ‘deal’ with Otago Rugby Football Union, and further ‘Otago Rugby’ deals with Dunedin Venues (DVML); the Delta subdivisions and service contracts (Jacks Point and Luggate, and more recently Noble Village); the unravelling Citifleet fraud and insurance scam (substantially greater than 152 fleet vehicles lost off the inventory, allied to ‘traffic’ in car parts, tyres, service contracts, and fluid cash); the Dunedin Town Hall Redevelopment Project (via City Property) yet to be fully detailed; and field lights for Otago Cricket Association…….. et al.
I wish to make a complaint about the Dunedin City Council’s reply to a recent LGOIMA request (copied below) where I ask the whereabouts of the secure storage facility and the date the DCC/CST documents were placed in the facility.
Please also refer to my email to Ombudsman Office dated 15 June 2015 where I express concern as to the safety of the DCC/CST documents.
In the DCC response it states:
“The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information.”
This is not a valid reason to refuse the request because s7(2)(b)(ii) only provides protection for “the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information”. This could be a valid reason to refuse to provide some of the documents, but not a valid reason to refuse to provide the location of the documents.
The other reason for refusing to provide the location was: “pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.”
This is invalid because there are no public affairs being conducted that would be affected by revealing the location of the documents. More importantly, this only applies to “members or officers or employees of any local authority”. Revealing where the documents are, will not create any “improper pressure or harassment” on Council staff or Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) members.
The DCC in their response to the date the documents were stored in the secure storage facility state: “The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.”
The DCC confirmed this morning that the documents were moved with permission of the CST. Therefore, if the documents were moved with the permission of the CST then section 2(6) of LGOIMA applies because the CST are subject to LGOIMA given their special agency agreement with the DCC.
I request the Ombudsman Office investigate the above.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
█ {See previous post for chain of correspondence up to and including Ms Graham’s reply at Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000, provided in full with Ms Butler’s complaint to the Ombudsman. -Eds}
Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 12:32 p.m.
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 1:46 p.m. To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Wednesday 1 July 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
It was recently stated in the media that the DCC/CST documents were stored in a “secure storage facility”.
Also on Monday 29 June 2015, the CST stated: “The CST advise that there is no charge for the storage and as such, there is no invoice.”
I request the location where these documents were stored, the type of “secure storage facility” and on what date the documents were taken to the secure storage facility.
Thank you.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] To: Bev Butler CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility? Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:14:28 +0000
Dear Bev
I refer for your request for information about the CST secure storage facility where you asked the following questions:.
Where are the documents stored?
What type of secure storage facility it is?
What date were the documents taken to the facility?
I provide answers to these questions as follows:
The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The facility is a commercial storage facility. I have already advised that it is not EziStor. Any further details that may identify the facility are however withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.
The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.
As we have withheld information you are entitled to a review of our decisions by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sandy Graham [DCC] CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:15:33 +1200
Dear Sandy and Grace
Appreciate clarification before contacting Ombudsman.
In the response it states: “The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia.”
Given the statement above which implies that there is only one person in the world who knows when the documents were moved, is it correct to assume the documents were moved by the “sick lady” without the permission of the CST?
Is it also correct to assume the documents were placed in the secure storage facility without the knowledge of the secure storage facility’s owner, given the “sick lady” in Australia is the only person who knows when the documents were stored there?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham [DCC] To: Bev Butler CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC] Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000
Once upon a time, Rugby louts and owners of industrially-zoned land at Dunedin decided they deserved a new Rugby stadium and some personal spending CASH! (ie ratepayer money)
It wasn’t long before DCC was vigorously lobbied from within and without by slimy fatcats, to build a Hopeless Stadium.
The evil plan was to saddle ratepayers with outlandish debt for decades and decades.
It also transpired that the Chin Council thought only slightly about lines in the sand but agreed ‘it’s perfectly alright to rob the poor to support the well-off’ —the practice continues to this very day, Mayor Cull’s merry band of dimwits subsidise DVML and have recently transferred $30m of Hopeless Stadium debt back onto the DCC books.
Going back a treacle-filled step or two… the spendthrift Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST), headed by Malcolm Farry, became agent to the Council via a Service Level Agreement (SLA), to see in the Hopeless Stadium construction project and associated fundraising.
[Aside, like it didn’t matter: Farry in his construction safety hat and dayglo vest failed miserably at raising public donations for the Hopeless Stadium.]
Long short… regular as well as ‘other’ payments were made by DCC to CST and co-greedy sods without much corroborating paperwork.
Despite non-accountability and lack of transparency, and the odd crucial missing document, there’s a stash of CST files kept “in storage” somewhere – files to drive a bulldozer through, lawfully the property of the Council, paid for by ratepayers.
Turns out two of DCC’s most senior executives, with Malcolm Farry, appear to have no interest whatsoever in surrendering the files for independent forensic audit. They’ll only retrieve file boxes in batches, while pedalling strongly backwards.
The files are not sealed, seized or safe. Where are they? DCC will not say. Farry won’t say. Fairytales are being told.
The files were long ago officially requested through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by Dunedin resident Bev Butler. They’re also subject to the Public Records Act.
The Ombudsmen’s Office is involved, due to deliberate lack of co-operation shown by CST and DCC to supply copy of the original files to Ms Butler in a timely manner.
Have the files been thrown into plastic shopping bags, shredded or dumped? We simply don’t know.
CST and DCC are equally culpable, they’re both prepared to lie and defer – What if? can only imagine the files might be as tidy as this.
Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 19 June 2015 at 9:13 a.m.
—
From: Bev Butler To: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson Subject: Mayor and Councillors/Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:50:20 +1200
Friday 19 June 2015
Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors
During my recent DCC Annual Plan submission I requested a full forensic audit of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST). You will recall that preliminary informal investigations found that documentation has been withheld. The CST and the previous CEO of the DCC both attempted via undisclosed legal opinions to ensure that this documentation remained hidden from any investigation or even LGOIMA requests and it is now more than clear that the CST, as an agent of the DCC, have no right to retain ANY documentation that relates to the entire period which the CST were in any way acting as an agent of the DCC. The CST appears to have no other function than continuing to receive donations from private persons as part of the private sector funding so, given that, I do not believe ANY documentation should be withheld from the DCC.
Since my public call for a full forensic investigation I have been greatly concerned about the security of the DCC/CST documents all of which were financed with ratepayer money.
It has now been revealed that the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry has removed most of the documents from the stadium and dumped them in a container. By doing so I believe that he has demonstrated a desire to thwart any investigation into any inappropriate spending of ratepayers money which could be revealed by a forensic audit, but he has also on the face of it, essentially misappropriated the documentation which has been, and remains, the property of the DCC.
On Monday 15 June 2015 I also contacted the Office of the Ombudsman expressing my concern over the security of the documents.
A representative of the Ombudsman Office then rang the DCC Governance Manager on Monday afternoon.
As elected representatives I believe you should be made aware of the situation.
Below is an urgent LGOIMA request I submitted on Tuesday 16 June 2015 followed by an acknowledgement of the request.
Further down the page is the earlier correspondence I had with the DCC CEO requesting the documents be secured.
Kind Regards
Bev Butler
—
From: Bev Butler To: Grace Ockwell [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC] CC: Sue Bidrose [DCC] Subject: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:17:33 +1200
Tuesday 16 June 2015
Dear Sandy and Grace
Given the following:
1. Changes to LGOIMA recently came into force on 26 March 2015.
In light of these changes, and especially the changes to s2(6) which unequivocally states that a local authority will be deemed to hold any information held by an independent contractor in its capacity as contractor.
2. Under section 3 of Schedule 5 of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the CST and DCC it states:
“All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.”
3. DCC Governance staff were told by the Chair of CST, Mr Malcolm Farry, that ALL the DCC/CST stadium documents were in a locked room at DVML offices as per the SLA and only Malcolm Farry and his secretary had keys to the locked room.
4. Recently it has transpired that MOST of the documents are not in the DVML offices.
5. Most of the documents are now in a container.
Therefore, given the LGOIMA legislation, the contract between DCC and CST and other information above, I request the following:
1. On what date were the DCC/CST documents removed from the DVML offices?
2. Apart from Malcolm Farry, who else was involved in the removal of the documents?
3. Which other CST trustees were aware of the removal of the documents?
4. Where exactly is the container located?
5. How are the documents stored in this container? Are they in cardboard boxes, supermarket bags, filing cabinets or thrown in piles or some other storage method?
6. Will the DCC report this removal of local government documents to the Police given this was done without DCC permission?
7. Will the DCC now seize these documents as is their legal right under the SLA?
8. The name of the law firm and lawyer who has been providing legal advice to the DCC over the security of the DCC/CST stadium documents?
Given the seriousness of this situation, I am requesting that this request be treated with urgency.
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Sandy Graham To: Bev Butler CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:00:11 +0000
Dear Bev
Thank you for your request below. I note that you have requested urgency and we will consider this request. If we decide that we will not progress the request urgently, you will receive a response as soon as practicable or within twenty working days.
I do wish to formally advise that I have sighted the CST files and after conversations with the CST have no concerns about their security. I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.
Regards
Sandy
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sandy Graham CC: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell Subject: RE: URGENT LGOIMA Request: Security of DCC/CST stadium documents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:30:55 +1200
Dear Sandy
Thank you for your email.
Do the CST still have access to these documents?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2015 3:47:51 p.m. To: Sandy Graham Cc: Sue Bidrose, Grace Ockwell
Dear Sandy
Further to your email below where you state:
“I note your reference to the provisions of the Deed between the CST and the DCC and will work to give effect to that with the CST over coming days.”
Can I assume that the DCC will be taking control of the documents by the end of the week as per SLA?
Kind Regards
Bev
—
From: Bev Butler Sent: 24 May 2015 4:16 p.m. To: Sue Bidrose Subject: Security of stadium documents Importance: High
Sunday 24 May 2015
Dear Dr Bidrose
I wish to formally request that the DCC secure the CST stadium documents.
Some time ago, I was made aware of a threat by Mr Malcolm Farry, Chair of CST, to remove the documents from the locked stadium room.
I think it is essential to ensure the security of these documents.
Given Mr Farry’s ongoing refusal to release information even with the recent change in legislation to LGOIMA and given the false statements and the malicious attack on me which he made on the front page of the ODT on Friday 22 May 2015 I believe it may be necessary to:
(a) change the locks as I understand Mr Farry has the only key;
(b) secure any external window(s) from possible break-in or access to damage the documents.
(c) ensure Mr Farry is escorted by a security guard at all times whilst in the document room if he does now decide to co-operate.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler
PS I think it fair to inform you I will be making this request public in a few days time.
—
From: Sue Bidrose To: Bev Butler Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 03:38:28 +0000
Hi Bev
Thanks for the conversation. To just put it in writing, I have had discussions with the CST representative and we are working together to ensure DCC has full access to CST documents pertaining to the stadium build. Most of the documents are not at the stadium and therefore ‘locking the door’ would not only be likely to provoke legal retaliation, it would be counterproductive in our working together to ensure DCC has the documents that we are legally required to have.
Kind regards
Sue
—
From: Bev Butler To: Sue Bidrose Subject: RE: Security of stadium documents Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:22:51 +1200
Hi Sue
Thanks for the email.
fyi
On reading the Service Level Agreement today on page 20 it states under Schedule 5 – Resources/Administration
3. All files, records and other information held by CST and DVML will be held at the offices of DVML and made available to CST and DVML Board members and staff as required.
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.
“The effective operation of the OIA is crucial to our system of open and democratic government, and this review will scrutinise how things are currently operating and set out a framework for systemic improvement where deficiencies are identified.” –Beverley Wakem, Chief Ombudsman
### NZ Herald Online 2:11 PM Tuesday Dec 16, 2014 Government offices selected for OIA review
By Isaac Davison – NZ Herald political reporter
The Chief Ombudsman says a major review of the Official Information Act will scrutinise all 27 government ministers’ offices. Dame Beverley Wakem today began her review of the way the public sector used the OIA, which she first announced in August.
Twelve government agencies have been selected for formal review, based on their size, number of OIA requests, complaints, and other criteria.
A further 63 agencies and all ministers’ offices have been asked to complete a detailed survey. At least one agency cited for good OIA practice would be included in the review.
The Ombudsman’s office would also seek input from past and present public servants, Opposition parties, journalists, academics and others.
Dame Beverley said the goal was to assess the quality and integrity of OIA practice in the public sector and to address any issues that were found. Read more
█ For more, enter terms such as *corruption*, *fraud*, *whistleblowers*, *dia*, *department of internal affairs*, *stadium*, *gambling*, *auditor general*, *oag*, *audit nz*, *orfu*, *nzru*, *sfo*, *pokies*, *ttcf*, *racing* or *rugby* in the search box at right.
A very experienced political journalist told me: “The whole culture of the Wellington public service towards the OIA is governed by two things – the need not to embarrass your minister or your department (putting your chances of promotion or even your job at risk ) and the need to uphold the law, which public servants are more conscious of than you might think. The result is that public servants block requests for as long as they can and delete as much as they can using whatever section of the OIA act that they can.” –David Fisher, NZ Herald
Link received Thu, 23 Oct 2014 at 8:15 p.m.
### NZ Herald Online 2:56 PM Thursday Oct 23, 2014 David Fisher: OIA a bizarre arms race
NZ Herald journalist David Fisher gave the following speech to an audience of public officials in Wellington on October 15. We republish it here to help the public understand the systematic difficulties faced by those seeking information on their behalf.
Good afternoon everyone. I am David Fisher, a reporter with the NZ Herald. I have worked as a journalist for 25 years, mainly in New Zealand but across a number of other countries.
I think there’s some value before I start in placing a context around the current situation in relation to the media and the OIA. In doing so, it should be said each of the following allegations is denied.
At the moment, there is an inquiry underway into whether a blogger gained some advantage in receiving information from the SIS for political purposes. There are also allegations of preferential treatment over the OIA involving the same blogger and the former Justice Minister.
The police are also facing allegations of trying to cover up juked stats by burying an OIA. And a former Customs lawyer has said his organisation preferred to let requests languish in the Ombudsman’s office than dealing with them.
In the 25 years I have worked as a journalist, there have never been so many questions, or such a loss of faith, all at once. Read more
I see that the mighty NZ Police have now decided to prosecute Nicky Hager over the fact that as a journalist he will not reveal who gave him copies of the emails that implicated so many of the National Party in downright crude manipulation and God only knows what else. Even that very friendly Speaker of the House has been forced to find that Key is a devious, slippery sod by not revealing his relationship with that scumbag Cameron Slater (watch the interesting exchange at yesterday’s question time here. http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/34526)
Isn’t it extraordinary that the NZ Police – such an independent body of public servants – jump so quickly whenever Donkey Jonkey and his mates want action, yet they are pleading under-resourcing for really serious crimes? Remember the infamous John Banks (you know, the little forgetful coot from Auckland) cup of tea PR stunt with Key? Key lays a complaint about the recording and the cops jump immediately. Collins, Key and others are shown to be dirty manipulators in Hager’s book and the cops immediately follow up. And how many others could say that their well-documented complaints have been diligently followed? I know of a few for starters, but let’s start with the Crewe murders and the bent cops who planted evidence. Did the cops diligently pursue anyone else when Thomas was pardoned? Not even when Rochelle Crew asked them to do so. The two bent cops were praised for their integrity and diligence by the very top cop after they died.
I could go on, but the perception out there is that the cops are politically driven.
### tvnz.co.nz Published: 7:34AM Tuesday September 23, 2014 US show mocks NZ over accent and National’s Eminem stoush
Source: ONE News
A British comedian has taken aim at an issue the National Party faced during its political campaign. In a clip posted on YouTube, John Oliver, who hosts the US show The Last Week Tonight, says New Zealand has re-elected Prime Minister John Key on Saturday, “despite a turbulent campaign with a major scandal that engulfed him earlier this week”. He then plays a ONE News clip, in which Wendy Petrie says: “Rap superstar Eminem’s become the latest to take pot shots at our Government.” Read more
█ What today’s ODT editorial doesn’t tell you, story sunk not headlining…..
“We may as well kiss democracy goodbye” –The Standard
By NATWATCH, published at 8:13 am, September 19th, 2014
The words of the title of this post are those of Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem …. Yet another typical scandal from the dirtiest government ever seen in NZ. Read more + Comments
Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem to launch wide-ranging inquiry after election in respect of OIA practices
### NZ Herald Online 5:30 AM Friday Sep 19, 2014 Ombudsman ‘appalled’ by ex-Customs lawyer’s OIA allegations
By David Fisher
A former Customs lawyer claim that he was told to bury bad news matches similar stories which have sparked a wide-ranging inquiry by Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem. She said she was “appalled” by Curtis Gregorash’s claim. “Having said that one of the reasons I am undertaking of selected agencies in respect of their OIA practices is that anecdotally a number of people have told me similar stories,” she said. She said a planned inquiry to be launched after the election could see the Ombudsman’s office using its Commission of Inquiry powers to compel evidence to be given under oath were there signs information was being hidden. “Ministerial offices will be figuring in our inquiry and that is all I will say.” Read more
****
Whistleblower Curtis Gregorash said he was subjected to an internal investigation after releasing information about Dotcom sought by the NZ Herald through the Official Information Act. The information released saw Customs staff discuss earning “brownie points” by passing on Dotcom information to the FBI.
### NZ Herald Online 5:30 AM Friday Sep 19, 2014 Ex-Customs lawyer claims he was told to bury info that could embarrass the Government
By David Fisher
A former high-ranking Customs lawyer says he resigned from his job after allegedly being told to bury information that could embarrass the Government. Curtis Gregorash said he was told by senior Customs executives to refuse Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests, which he believed was at the direction of former Customs Minister Maurice Williamson. It comes at a time the Prime Minister’s office is under inquiry over the release of intelligence material through the OIA and accusations that former Justice Minister Judith Collins was manipulating OIA responses for political purposes. [Mr] Gregorash quit his role as Customs’ chief legal counsel in March this year after more than a decade as a government lawyer.
The lawyer turned whistleblower said: “I’ve sat on it for a long time. But the story itself is so awful it needs to be told. I think people really need to see what ministers and some senior executives do.
He had decided to speak because he believed the alleged instruction “was unlawful”, undermined the way the public service was meant to operate and was given for what was ultimately political reasons. “The direction came down (from the minister) through the CEO (Carolyn Tremain) and group manager (of legal services) Peter Taylor to me saying ‘you don’t release anything – I don’t care what the OIA says, I’d rather fight it in the courts’.”
Mr Gregorash said the alleged instruction came during a briefing from Mr Taylor to the legal team in which he referred to Ms Tremain and meeting with Mr Williamson. “I resigned over it. I couldn’t stare my staff in the face and say this is actually serious conduct that’s being presented to you in a lawful way.”
Mr Gregorash said the alleged instruction to withhold information was general – but became specific in relation to “sensitive” issues, including entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, wanted for copyright violation in the United States. “Mr Taylor directed me to withhold all information and pass the same direction on to my team.” Read more
● In the public interest, lengthy citation of articles by David Fisher at New Zealand Herald (APNZ).
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.
### dunedintv.co.nz February 24, 2014 – 7:16pm Stadium proud of numbers despite opposition and projected losses
The Forsyth Barr Stadium is crowing over numbers through its gates, as the DCC debates a projected $1.4m loss for the facility.
Meanwhile, a stadium opponent is calling for reports from 2008 she says backed claims the stadium would run at a profit. Ch39 Video
24 February 2014
Reports tabled at the meeting of the Dunedin City Council:
Dunedin ratepayers are being informed by Sir John Hansen, Chairman of both Dunedin Venues Management Ltd and Dunedin Venues Ltd, that the projected $10,000 operating profit forecast for 2014-15 is now forecast to be a $1,400,000 loss, with similar or even greater losses forecast in future years. He puts this staggering reversal in fortunes down to the reality of costs of running the stadium, and few events occurring at the stadium.
But even these revelations don’t tell the full story of this stadium debacle and financial scandal.
Accompanying the annual injection of well over $9 million to run the stadium, are all of the costs of servicing the debt to build the stadium. Because these costs reside within DVL, they are not reported on in the DVML forecasts.
However some very basic questions remain unanswered.
Readers of the Otago Daily Times will recall a full-page advertisement placed by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust on the 31st of May, 2008, at the time the stadium project was being considered. Headed up “The Facts about the new Stadium”, it said: “The stadium will be profitable. The funding target establishes a debt free stadium. On this basis the business plan for the stadium shows that it makes a profit. Unlike nearly all other Council owned facilities it will not need annual funding support. This assessment has been confirmed by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms.”
These statements are unequivocal and cannot be misinterpreted.
Bev Butler has, for over a year, had an official request in to Mr Malcolm Farry, Chair of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust, to supply the names of those two leading accountancy firms and for the documentation supporting the validity of the claims to build a debt-free stadium and for it to run at an annual profit. Mr Farry has so far failed to deliver that information as required under the requirements of the LGOIMA.
“Mr Farry leaves me no choice but to submit an urgent complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. There is no reason whatsoever why Mr Farry shouldn’t supply this information, if it exists. Mr Farry has breached the requirement under LGOIMA to supply this information,” said Bev Butler.
How much notice was taken by members of the public and those Councillors and others who were considering whether it made sense to build a new stadium? Perhaps hard to assess. But surely it must not be too hard for Mr Malcolm Farry to reveal to Dunedin ratepayers just how it was that they would have a debt-free stadium and an annual profit instead of a stadium that is millions in debt and costing ratepayers further millions in its staggering operational losses.
The following article is reproduced here in full, in the public interest.
—
### NZ Herald Online 5:30 AM Thursday Mar 21, 2013 Ombudsman to investigate OIA response
By David Fisher
The agency charged with reining in the power of government is to investigate the way public bodies are releasing information as citizens complain of being shut out. The Office of the Ombudsman is to begin its own investigation into the way the public service is responding to the Official Information Act as allegations are made of a “paralysis of democracy”.
The office is struggling to cope with a large increase in complaints from the public who have sought help. Deputy Ombudsman Leo Donnelly has begun writing to those who have complained saying it doesn’t have enough staff to handle the work load.
In response to a complaint from The Herald, Mr Donnelly said the office had 450 complaints it had been unable to assign to investigators because of the volume of work. He said staff were dealing with 2800 complaints.
In contrast, the Ombudsman’s office told a parliamentary select committee it finished the 2011 year with 1359 complaints and the 2012 year with 1746 complaints. Mr Donnelly said this will be a factor in an investigation into the way the act was handled across the public service.
He said the inquiry would aim to discover if the delay was caused by the way public agencies responded to requests.
He said the law stated information should be released unless there was good reason to withhold it.
A recent investigation into the Ministry of Education’s handling of requests to do with Christchurch schools raised questions about the processes used by government agencies to deal with requests.
Constitutional lawyer Mai Chen said the problems raised questions about how well public servants understood a law intended to give balance to the “David and Goliath” inequality between citizen and government. “I am concerned that officials sometimes reflect their ministers. I’m concerned some of the reticence may reflect the priorities that ministers give to compliance with legislation.” She said the government expected citizens to comply with laws and it should do so with the act. “If they don’t mean to do it, they should repeal it.”
Both the Green Party and Labour Party have spokeswomen for open government – with Labour’s Clare Curran, saying it would become a ministerial responsibility when the party was next in office. “There is an emerging crisis with our watchdog agencies,” she said. “It is a paralysis of democracy.” NZH Link
### DScene 20 Mar 2013 Raw deal alleged on stadium rights (page 5)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin’s flash new stadium gets $7 million every 10 years in private funding, an Ombudsman investigation reveals. Newly released documents show the stadium receives $715,000 annually – $7,150,000 over 10 years.
D Scene has learned from an informed source that $5m of that funding comes from investment advisory firm Forsyth Barr in return for naming rights of the new $200m-plus state-of-the-art arena.
Stadium lobbyist Bev Butler said the new figures showed ratepayers got a raw deal on private funding. ‘‘In December 2007, Brian Meredith of The Marketing Bureau, commissioned by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust, addressed the council stating that the head naming rights were worth more than $10m,’’ Butler said in a statement.
‘‘This has been reported twice in the media. The mayor, councillors and public were left with the perception that Forsyth Barr had signed up for the rights for $10m. This latest revelation shows that this was not the case and that Forsyth Barr ended up paying no more than $5m for the naming rights.’’
Butler, who initiated the latest investigation, said the rest of the annual $715,000 in private funding came from other companies who had a high profile in the stadium.
{continues} #bookmark
Fourteen month fight to expose CST Marketing Contract Fiasco
New DVML CEO Darren Burden Signatory – raises question is he really best person for the job?
It has taken fourteen months but Malcolm Farry, chairman of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST), has finally released information to the Dunedin City Council (DCC) revealing further serious shortcomings in the competence of the CST and the last council. The release of these papers has been rigorously resisted by Malcolm Farry and he only agreed when it was made clear to him that under section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act he could be prosecuted for obstructing the release of official information.
The papers reveal the CST contracted an Auckland company, The Marketing Bureau Ltd (TMB) to raise private funds for the construction of the new rugby stadium. The CST agreed to pay:
● the Director/Manager and shareholder of TMB, Brian Meredith a $15,000 monthly retainer;
● another TMB employee a $5,000 monthly retainer;
● additional claims for “expenses” of approximately $5,000 per month;
● further claims of extra monthly work charged out at $350 per hour totalling an additional $5,000;
● a 2% commission on any private funding raised.
The amount paid out to The Marketing Bureau Ltd came close to half a million dollars.
However, the payments to The Marketing Bureau Ltd continued when the CST decided to terminate the contract thus opening up the CST to a termination payment of $222,187. This payment was approved by the CST Board and signed by Malcolm Farry, chairman, after legal advice for closing the deal was received from Farry and Co. Barristers and Solicitors.
The Marketing Bureau Ltd thus received a total of $652,809 and the question then arises just what have the DCC ratepayers received for this princely sum? It appears that “a few” reports were written suggesting uses for the new rugby stadium including papal visits, Royal Tours, major stock auctions, and Highland Tattoos as examples. Brian Meredith also reported that naming rights to the new stadium were worth “over $10m” when reality tells us all that Forsyth Barr not only paid a small fraction of this amount but only started making their first monthly payments in September 2011 after inferring in January 2009 that they had paid up front with a substantial amount.
But it is the failure of The Marketing Bureau Ltd in raising genuine private funding that reinforces the findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. DCC ratepayers were consistently told that $45m would be raised by the private sector for construction. This simply didn’t happen, and as the PwC report confirmed, advance money for services is nothing other than advance revenue and just over half a million was used for private construction.
Ratepayers were consistently told that they would be liable for $91.4m for construction, but sadly for Dunedin’s sake this figure was woefully inaccurate with ratepayers being liable for $170m.
The Carisbrook Stadium Trust was acting as an agent for the DCC in this project and ratepayers were told that the Board and its Chair in particular, were “sweating over every dollar spent”. However, it seems that the CST entered into a contract which ended up costing over $650,000 for little or no benefit, and equally it seemed that the previous CEO of the DCC, Jim Harland, approved these payments to The Marketing Bureau Ltd while being party at all times to their outputs.
Read in conjunction with the full PwC report on stadium construction, these papers reveal a sorry level of business competence from the person that signed off the contract, newly announced CEO of DVML Darren Burden, the Board of the CST, the previous CEO of the DCC, Jim Harland and those City Councillors of the last Council who were determined not to ask any questions.
Further information available on request:
1. Letter from DCC cc to Ombudsman
2. TMB contract signed by Darren Burden
3. Invoice from Anderson Lloyd
4. Invoice from Farry & Co Barristers and solicitors
5. Letter relating to the settlement paid to TMB and associated invoice
6. Original LGOIMA Request
7. Settlement invoice
8. Invoices from the TMB signed by Malcolm Farry
9. Spreadsheet summary of TMB invoices
10. TMB report dated Dec 2007
Note:
1. DVML – Dunedin Venues Management Ltd
2. CST trustees are: Malcolm Farry (Chair), Eion Edgar, Kereyn Smith, Ron Anderson, Bill Baylis, Stewart Barnett, John Ward
[ends]
TMB/CST contract which the CST board approved and Darren Burden signed (with no legal advice) leaving Dunedin ratepayers exposed to hefty payments. S042000033_1208221011000
(PDF, 647 KB)
Official Information Act (OIA)
“At present, the Ombudsman was in charge of investigating complaints under the Act, but did not have any wider responsibilities. […] An information commissioner could be created, who would perform a similar role to the Privacy Commissioner or Human Rights Commissioner.”
### ODT Online Thu, 26 Jul 2012 Review recommends broader scope for OIA
Source: NZ Herald
The Law Commission has recommended that all publicly funded agencies should be subject to official information requests, including courts, universities and boards of trustees. The commission has made more than 100 recommendations in “The Public’s Right to Know”, a review of the Official Information Act (OIA) which was tabled at Parliament yesterday. Lead commissioner for the report Prof John Burrows said main principles of the 30-year-old Act were sound, but it needed to be upgraded for the digital age.
“We think there’s a case now for saying if a body is receiving public funding and is performing a public function it should be accountable under the OIA.”
The review also recommended re-drafting some of the grounds for withholding information – such as “good government” and “commercial sensitivity” – which were unclear.
The Justice Ministry and Department of Internal Affairs would consider the recommendations, and were expected to act on them within six months. Read more
![bev_butler [ODT Files] bw tweaked by whatifdunedin 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/bev_butler-odt-files-bw-tweaked-by-whatifdunedin-1.jpg)
![Beverley Wakem 1 [nbr.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/beverley-wakem-1-nbr-co-nz.jpg)
![Sharon Murdoch (@domesticanimal) 5.12.15 Dame Beverley [Stuff.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/sharon-murdoch-domesticanimal-5-12-15-dame-beverley-stuff-co-nz1.jpg)
![Dirty Politics - Cameron Slater Nicky Hager [master - tvnz.co.nz] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/dirty-politics-cameron-slater-nicky-hager-master-tvnz-co-nz-1.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 