but seriously (no tourists were shoved aside to take these)
Destination Dunedin managing the trade-offs between risk and innovation….
*Enterprise Dunedin, hope you’ve got a section or three about that in your destination plan
****
On Monday I was quickly(!) photographing post-iD architectural details inside Dunedin Railway Station – it was absolutely no more than 3 minutes by smartphone – when an Asian tourist abruptly told me to get out of the way so her male partner could get a shot. Moi ? I was there first, just walking and clicking – there was no crowd – the visitor arrogance was slightly disgusting.
It could happen anywhere. People sheeple.
The following at ODT, however, is much much worse.
Quite frankly the residents of Baldwin St should seek police and legal action.
It’s YOUR homes, YOUR property, YOUR privacy that’s being abused.
The council can help. The ED can help.
[A steep street of No Trespass notices and snarling bullmastiffs has its own photographic charm.]
Good on Sharon Hyndman for speaking out.
I wouldn’t be in her shoes, for all ‘the world’.
At Facebook:
****
### ODT Online Wed, 29 Mar 2017 Privacy breaches upset resident
By David Loughrey
A sharp rise in visitor numbers to the world’s steepest street has resulted in one Dunedin resident speaking out about tourists she says are walking on to her property and peering in the windows. Baldwin St resident of 17 years Sharon Hyndman took her cause to a Dunedin City Council public forum yesterday. She said some tourists had “issues with the concept of privacy and private property”. That meant she had people walking down her drive, on to her deck, and peering in her windows, once or twice a week …. Others parked in her driveway, and did “not always co-operate” when asked to leave. One man had even entered her property and stood on an outdoor table to take a photograph. Read more
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.
### stuff.co.nz Last updated 10:31 30/07/2013: Dotcom tells hackers of National sites to stop
“It has come to our attention that the thousands that have marched against this bill has still not been enough to send John Key and Peter Dunne a message.” –Anon NZ
****
### ODT Online Tue, 30 Jul 2013 APNZ Doctom tells National Party hackers to back off
Hackers claimed to have taken down more than a dozen National Party websites overnight – but their actions have drawn the ire of internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom. The group calling itself Anonymous New Zealand said in a video it had taken “direct action” against the GCSB spy bill.
The video said the websites would remain down until their servers were patched or the bill was withdrawn and Prime Minister John Key has apologised to all New Zealanders and internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom.
The video was posted to YouTube on Sunday, the same day thousands of protesters marched against the GCSB bill. Among the sites that remained down this morning were Mr Key’s site, johnkey.co.nz, and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English’s site, billenglish.co.nz as well as a handful of sites belonging to other Cabinet ministers. However, the National Party website, which the group claims to have taken down, was live this morning at national.org.nz. APNZ Read more
The global Anonymous group is best known for takedowns of US government and corporation websites, with its members recognised for wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
### nzherald.co.nz 09:09 Tue Jul 30 2013 National trying to restore websites
IT experts are trying to restore National Party websites after an attack by activist group Anonymous over the controversial Government Communications Security Bureau Bill.
In a video message posted online, Anonymous NZ calls the legislation – which will make it legal for the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders on behalf of other agencies – “despicable”.
The group has taken more than a dozen National websites offline, including those of Prime Minister John Key and Speaker David Carter, and a number of other MPs, but the main National Party website “survived” the attack.
Anonymous says the sites will stay offline until National patches its servers, or apologises to internet piracy accused Kim Dotcom – who was illegally spied on by the GCSB – and all New Zealanders. AAP Read more
What if? Dunedin... 