Baron de Gurgelaars on “Accountability” @ #DUD #Delta

Received.
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 at 7:34 p.m.

The Pimp from hell is back.

Le Baron de Gurgelaars on de French political system.

Le Interviewer: a qvestion

Le Cull de Mare- Cur, can you pls advise your council’s response to the suggestion that Delta is not involved in electricity generation.

Le Cull de Mare- Ve vill not find any vone guilty.

Le Interviewer- During 2016 your council has stuffed up on flooding, mud tank cleaning, paying Delta for a truck that did not exist in Dunedin, reducing the value of all houses in South Dunedin and not charging for water takeoff on the peninsula. What do you have to say about diese errors of judgement.

Le Cull de Mare- Ve vill not find any person guilty, particularly me.

During 2016, You personally blamed the flooding of South Dunedin on climate change. Do you believe that heavy rain did not fall on Dunedin prior to man’s intervention?

Le Cull de Mare- naturlich- Dunedin was a Desert.

During 2016- Fulton Hogan was exposed for not having any vehicle capable of cleaning the mud tanks and thus completing their mud tank contract. Did you consider a drawback of over $200,000 on their unperformed contract?

Le Cull de Mare- Nein, how can DCC staff get their Christmas bonuses without recourse to increase in rates unless they are allowed contractual licence (see poetic licence)

Le Interviewer- Today Cull de Mare, some properties in South Dunedin particularly Victoria street had reduced QV values. Whilst that will reduce their rates by 1%, their valuations can cause mortgagee sales by banks, increased weekly payments apart from divorces and suicides.

Le Cull de Mare- vot are you saying, you blame me for naming climate change for causing these personal catastrophes, you tink I am ze cause, vot u think I vant diese resulten?

Do u think I am Adolf Hitler?

De Interviewer-

Not Yet.

But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: cartoonswallpapers.net – Futurama Bender the Pimp

Carisbrook: DCC losses

Dunedin City Council – Media Release

Carisbrook documents released

This item was published on 03 Jul 2013.

A large number of documents relating to the purchase and subsequent sale of Carisbrook have been released publicly today.

These can be found at www.dunedin.govt.nz/carisbrook-documents

The DCC bought the sportsground, surrounding houses and some vacant land from the Otago Rugby Football Union for $7 million in 2009. With the sale of Carisbrook confirmed last week, all the properties have been sold.

Contact DCC on 477 4000.

DCC Link

### ch9.co.nz July 3, 2013 – 6:35pm
Carisbrook sale costs city $2.3 million
The Dunedin City Council’s purchase, then sale of Carisbrook, has cost the city $2.3 million. But that figure, confirmed at a media conference today, is not the only drain on ratepayers. And while the release of costs ends a controversial era for the city, the vagaries of commerce, rather than the decisions of politicians, were blamed in the wash-up.
Video

### 3news.co.nz Wed, 03 Jul 2013 6:11p.m.
Ratepayers question Carisbrook sale
By Brooke Gardiner
Dunedin’s Carisbrook Stadium has been sold for $3.3 million, which is less than half what the Dunedin City Council paid when it bought the place three years ago. Construction company Calder Stewart bought the former sports ground for almost $4 million less than the council forked out to the Otago Rugby Football Union in 2009. And it could be three years before the council sees any money. The deal went unconditional last month, but the council’s only just released the finer details of the agreement.

“They have three and a half years to pay for it. We’re leaving the finance in and they’re paying us 5.5 percent on that money.”

Ruing the loss of ratepayer funds, Mayor Dave Cull says they should never have bought the stadium. “I opposed it at the time. I don’t think we should have bought it. I think we were buying it for the wrong reasons, but the choice over whether to buy it or not was not this council’s,” says Mr Cull.
Read more + Video

### ODT Online Wed, 3 Jul 2013
DCC confirms $2.3m Carisbrook loss
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has confirmed a $2.3 million loss from the sale of Carisbrook, and revealed a complicated financial arrangement with the new owner. Mayor Dave Cull, at a media conference this afternoon, confirmed the council would recoup $4.7 million of the $7 million it paid for the historic sports stadium in 2009. However, Calder Stewart, the company that bought the ground off the council, had only been prepared to pay $3 million up front, Mr Cull confirmed. Instead, a deal had been struck that meant the company would pay at least $3.3 million, but deferred for up to three years, with payments made as the ground was subdivided and sold by Calder Stewart, he said. The sum paid would rise to $3.5 million if demolition was not completed within six months, meaning the council would keep a $200,000 bond paid by the company, Mr Cull said. The deal would also see the company make up any difference at the end of three years, meaning the council was guaranteed its money, he said.
Read more

● Full report in the ODT tomorrow

—

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.13 State of the City —DCC or Dunedin?
28.5.13 Carisbrook: Auditor-General #fails Dunedin residents and ratepayers
23.5.13 Carisbrook: Calder Stewart to demo Dunedin’s historic stadium
20.3.13 Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby
20.2.13 Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

● List of Carisbrook posts back to 19 August 2008 [comment]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Ch39 Dunedin News (3.7.13) – Paul Orders, Robert Clark, Dave Cull [screenshots]

Carisbrook: Auditor-General #fails Dunedin residents and ratepayers

Dunedin residents Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt each sought an inquiry into the Carisbrook deals.

(see my comment and other comments received)

—

### ODT Online Tue, 28 May 2013
No Carisbrook inquiry, auditor says
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council’s possible multimillion-dollar loss from the sale of Carisbrook does not warrant an investigation, the Office of the Auditor-general says.

”We do not regard the purchase and disposal as raising issues that relate to our Delta inquiry, which is focused on the property investment actions of a council subsidiary.”

OAG staff have confirmed that there will be no investigation of the council’s purchase, and pending sale, of Carisbrook properties, which could end up costing the council more than $4 million. That followed two separate requests received by the office in February, asking for the Carisbrook deal to be added to a wider OAG investigation of land purchases by council-owned company Delta. An OAG statement yesterday said the decision not to proceed came after reviewing council documents, which showed the issue ”does not warrant further inquiry”.
Read more

—

Related Post and Comments:
15.2.13 Carisbrook: Call for OAG investigation into DCC / ORFU deals

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Calder Stewart to demo Dunedin’s historic stadium

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 22/05/2013
Carisbrook ground demolition plans under way
By Wilma McCorkindale – D Scene
Plans are afoot to demolish Dunedin’s historic rugby ground, Carisbrook, tender documents show. The company that has signed up to buy Carisbrook – Otago construction company Calder Stewart – has issued tender documents inviting demolition companies to register their interest in clearing the site this year. Calder Stewart co-managing director Peter Stewart declined to confirm the tender or give details. The company was still under a conditional contract for Carisbrook with the Dunedin City Council, therefore he would not comment on the project, Stewart said.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Thu, 23 May 2013
Plans to demolish Carisbrook
By Chris Morris
Calder Stewart has plans to demolish almost all of Carisbrook. The company bought the old stadium from the Dunedin City Council in a conditional deal in February for $3.3 million. Confirmation of the purchase appears to be due next month. Documents released to the Otago Daily Times yesterday confirmed the company planned to clear almost every structure from the former home of Otago rugby for future development.

The consent documentation also showed the demolition work was expected to cost the company $350,000.

Only the Neville St turnstile building would be spared, at least for now, as the Dunedin City Council and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust continue to discuss a covenant to protect the category one-listed structure. However, the Speight’s, Neville St, Rose and Railway stands would be demolished, as would the terrace hospitality complex, built for $4 million in 1994.
The details were spelled out in two building consents issued by council staff to Calder Stewart last month, and released to the ODT yesterday.
Read more

Related Post and Comments:
20.2.13 Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

For more, enter “carisbrook” in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Images (from top):
Carisbrook Stadium, two models by totara (sketchup.google.com)
Rugby at Carisbrook (3news.co.nz)
Carisbrook seating plan (ticketseating.com)
Carisbrook, Neville St turnstile building (historic.org.nz) [Jonathan Howard]
Carisbrook (teara.govt.nz) [file: p-22728-odt]

Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20 Mar 2013
Rant or rave: your say
Missing million (pages 8-9)
By Terry Wilson – Parkside
We see in D Scene that the Dunedin City Council paid $7 million for Carisbrook while their confidential valuation was for only $2.5m.
Mayor Dave Cull said that the purchase was to shore up the finances of the Otago Rugby Football Union.
If the real purpose of the sale was to donate an overpayment of $4.5m to the ORFU, then the DCC has misled the public during the public consultation on the matter. It might be inappropriate for me to suggest that the $7m non-confidential valuation of Carisbrook was procured by the DCC for the purpose of justifying the undisclosed $4.5m overpayment to the ORFU.
The validity of this valuation seems very questionable to me. Following this $7m payment, the ORFU required a further DCC bailout. One factor in this is that they only received $6m, not $7m.
The DCC has been questioned many times about what happened to the missing $1m, but they won’t say.
I think the public wants to see more honesty from the DCC.

Mayor Dave Cull replies: ‘‘$7 million was paid to the ORFU by way of $5m in cash and a $2m offset of a loan of $2m previously lent from the council to the ORFU.’’ #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20.2.13
End of the line? (page 1)
The famed Carisbrook sports ground has found a buyer, but the deal seems unlikely to derail criticism of the sale process. See page 3.

Mayor won’t confirm or deny details of sale (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull will neither confirm or deny the possibility the city has made a deal in lieu of an immediate cash sale for Carisbrook. Cull said he could not comment on reports a joint venture between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and construction company Calder Stewart is incorporated into a deal for the sale of Carisbrook – the sale of which was announced a week ago.

‘‘I can’t confirm or deny the detail,’’ Cull said. ‘‘There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned it’s a sale. Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that. ‘‘What I’m saying is I can’t divulge those because they are commercially sensitive at the moment, confidential. As far as I’m concerned in the big wash-up this is a sale of that property to Calder Stewart.’’

Two critics of Dunedin City Council have this week laid formal complaints to the Office of the Auditor-General and asked it to incorporate the Carisbrook sale into its current investigation of council-related property deals.

DScene asked Cull if Calder Stewart was paying for the ground upfront in cash once the sale went through. ‘‘I didn’t say that,’’ he said. ‘‘I just said it’s a sale to Calder Stewart. The details of how they pay for it are part of the confidential part of the details. I can’t comment on that.’’
{continues} #bookmark

—

Editorial: Council secrecy creates bad blood (page 8)
By Mike Houlahan
Announcing a conditional sale to an anonymous buyer for an undisclosed amount was never going to be a sustainable position.
{continues} #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Channel 9 interviews Cull

### ch9.co.nz February 19, 2013 – 6:59pm
Nightly interview: Dave Cull
The Carisbrook Stadium hit the news last week, when it emerged building company Calder Stewart had put in an offer of $3.3 million for land. All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the media in relation to the sale of the ground, which was bought by the Dunedin City Council as it developed Forsyth Barr Stadium. Mayor Dave Cull joins us to shed some light on the issue.
Video

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Dear Dave . . .

Received from Rob Hamlin
Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05 p.m.

—

Dear Dave

I see that in the ODT today you signed off with the following statement:

“A valuation is not a promise.”

Is it not indeed, Dave. Well if it not a promise, then what is it? A registered valuation costs money, a lot of money and they registered valuers are members of a professional association – that’s why they are called REGISTERED valuers. A registered valuation may not be promise to get a value right to within the dollar, but I would say that such a valuation a professional service on which serious decisions are routinely based and as such it IS a promise to get the value right to within a reasonable margin of error. 100% plus is not a reasonable margin of error – Nossir!

I note however that the ‘registered’ bit is missing off your statement above. This raises a number of interesting possibilities. Let’s deal with them one at a time:

1) —You simply forget to put the ‘registered’ bit into the statement above and you really do hold a registered valuation that is in line with the price that the DCC paid the ORFU for Carisbrook and the adjoining properties. If that’s the case, then I think that you really do need to have a serious word with this individual, and that you may have to get in line with the Valuers Registration Board who deal with complaints. The following is lifted from their website at http://www.linz.govt.nz/valuation/valuers-registration-board#apply

Complaints about a registered valuer
The VRB may discipline registered valuers who do not meet its standards and requirements in carrying out their work. If you are not satisfied with the valuation done by a registered valuer on a property, you can formally apply to the VRB to have your complaint investigated.

Contact
Valuers Registration Board
PO Box 5501
Wellington
Phone +64 4 460 0110 FREE +64 4 460 0110
Fax +64 4 498 9699

If you hold a registered valuation that is for this amount then the registered individual who provided it may be culpable to a major degree in the loss of $3 million plus of ratepayers’ money and a formal complaint is not only recommended, but actually forms a public duty that you MUST perform. If they did indeed tender this valuation to you as a registered valuation, then either this individual was misled in their brief, in which case the nature of the misleading should be clear from their valuation report, or their professional services would appear to fall very far short of reasonable expectations, and they need to be publicly identified and dealt with pronto before they do any more damage of this scale and nature. As I have said previously, a Barbary Ape can value a property to within 20% in a stable market – I think it is very unlikely that the board would have much basis to seriously argue the point if you get the ball rolling now.

2) —You mean what you say and the valuation was not supplied by a registered valuer. Valuers have to undertake a good deal of training before they can become registered valuers. There is a reason for this, as I stated above major decisions are routinely made upon the basis of the valuations that they provide, and for this reason they must be accurate to within an acceptable margin, and many would think that 20% is the outer limits of this.

If for whatever reason a registered valuer was not the source of this information, then this is a serious matter. Paying this much for a property on the basis of a non-registered valuation would appear to be at the least grossly negligent and at worst reckless. The latter would be a perfectly reasonable charge given that the value is grossly out of line with not only the CV of the properties concerned, but also with other professional reports that assessed the value of the properties when budgets for the finding of the Forsyth Barr Stadium were being presented as a justification for approving the project. Incidentally, these valuations (acquired by stripping blacking off censored documents released by the DCC – see What if? Dunedin for details) appear to have been pretty much exactly in line with the price that you have been offered by Calder Stewart. They were presumably supplied by a registered valuer and it might serve you well to attempt to obtain a copy for the purposes of comparison.

Recklessness, of course, also opens up any elected member who voted for the purchase at this price or was in any way implicated in it to personal liability under the Local Government Act. A strong case for personal liability could be made with regard to this purchase if this is the valuation did not come from a registered valuer. If it did, then a Feltex-type defence on the basis of accepting professional advice in good faith may be made – but only if the source of the valuation was a registered valuer – a professional in the eyes of the law.

3) —You may have been misinformed and no valuation of any type was acquired at all before Carisbrook and adjoining properties were purchased for the amount of $7 million.

If this is the case, then all of the comments relating to Option Two above apply, plus it may be possible to add deliberate deceit to the list. The problem with deceit as with perjury is proving intent. However, in this case it is hard to see how an assertion that a registered valuation formed a basis of the decision to purchase could be made inadvertently in the absence of the valuation that is being cited. I seem to recall that a valuation has been cited on multiple occasions as a justification for paying this price.

All in all, Dave, it’s a messy situation that looks likely to get a lot messier. Both you and the ODT are on the back foot here – information is leaking out of the DCC like a sieve, and the wider public who have been largely snoozing through the events of the last four years finally seem to be waking up in numbers to just exactly what has been going on.

So, if you value your political neck and your mayoral chain, I recommend that you release this valuation document forthwith. It is now a historical document and has no current commercial value, so forget about that line of defence if it is offered to you. Ignore privacy claims for the valuer. If it is a registered valuation, then it is a professional document provided for money, and it’s yours to do with as you please. You can post A1 sized copies of it in all the public loos in the City if that’s your fancy – although you may be wise not to comment on its merits, subsequent events will do that more eloquently than anything you or I could produce. If it’s not a registered valuation, then I would be pretty confident that the same rules apply if a fee was charged for it.

If you can produce a registered valuation for $7 million, then I cannot see that either you or any of your colleagues have any sort of a problem. All the problems will be at the door of the valuer and their professional body – which is why I am mystified as to why you have not yet produced it – if you have it.

If it was a verbal valuation, and you can establish that it does not exist, then I suggest you come clean about it, and identify those responsible for making the decision to purchase Carisbrook at this price without it right now. I do not think that you were involved, so why should you sacrifice your political career in an attempt to protect those who are?

If the document has been ‘lost’ then I would suggest that you make vigorous attempts to find it. Failing this, you may wish to establish who provided the valuation – the possibilities within this community are manageable. You may find that the identity of the valuer has been ‘forgotten’ by all involved. OK, these people keep records. Get copies of the Yellow Pages back to 2009 and go through every registered valuer in the region, call them and see if any of them can recall issuing this valuation. Enlist the help of Valuers Registration Board. I am sure that they will be interested if their members’ reputation is being collectively put on the line by a bunch of amnesics.

You may both end up drawing a blank, but at least it will be a decisive one that you can report to the community and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Think it over Dave, but don’t think too long. This time I don’t think that you have the luxury of leisure.

Rob Hamlin

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT Online: ‘Gone, deleted, it never happened, Councillor’

All is safe, RT. We know nothing!

Elizabeth @ What if? Dunedin
Submitted on 2013/02/10 at 12:39 pm | In reply to Hype O’Thermia.

This one sent to http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/244913/do-maths-stadium-costs hasn’t aired, thrown into the ghost bucket, I guess:

Public accountability, arithmetic
Submitted by ej kerr on Sat, 09/02/2013 – 6:49pm

There’s reason to be grateful to members of the public quickly leaping on superficialities put out by the councillor, as ‘spokesman’ for the DCC on the loss making stadium.

The city council in its wisdom formed a series of shells to ‘see through’ the stadium project; these have resulted in a lack of transparency in governance, a resounding loss of accountability, and multiple opportunities for potential misrepresentation to citizens and ratepayers.

The cumulative bid to foster acceptance in the community for ‘intergenerational debt’ being loaded on citizen ratepayers – as if ‘sustainable’, as if ‘logical’, for future fortunes to be made and shared – was/is a highly immoral behaviour that council politicians are ultimately responsible for.

At the Milton Hilton rests a flag-waver to a board’s lack of diligence and knowledge of its own accounting systems. We don’t need another flag waver, councillor…. not in apology to the city council’s callous disregard for financial prudence.

UPDATE 11.2.13
No longer at the Milton Hilton, the crim-flagwaver has been moved to a 4-bedroom house in “the grounds” of another HM’s establishment near Christchurch.

Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.13 Editorial bias
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Editorial bias

Received today from Russell Garbutt [email].

Have readers of the ODT online site noticed the failure of the ODT Online Editor to acknowledge that they are abridging comments or simply wiping them?

Two examples of mine recently spring to mind and the context shows where the sympathies of the ODT lies. The first was in response to a comment made by speedfreak43 who noted that the GV of Carisbrook at the time the dear old DCC masquerading as a body acting in the interests of the ratepayers was about $1.5m when the purchase price from the ORFU who really run the DCC, was $7m. This is what I wrote, which simply vanished into thin air:

“speedfreak43, I think you are pretty close to the mark with the recollection of a GV of about $1.5m for Carisbrook. That makes this story even more worth pursuing by the ODT. Here we have a previous owner in the financial doodah for $7m – interestingly because of their purchases of Auckland bars to carry out their pokie fund rort – bailed out by a Council decision to purchase at a price many times more than what is clearly a market price. All backed up by “valuations” that appear to be nothing other than part of the shonky deals done behind closed doors. All replicated almost exactly with Luggate and Jack’s Point. Bearing in mind that every $1m of spend without income that this Council does equates to 1% on the rates and you can see that these 3 property deals alone have cost Dunedin ratepayers close on 15% of rates increases. My question again – who is going to hold these Councillors accountable?”

Now why this sensitivity? The ORFU were involved in a rort and everyone knows that. Were there shonky deals done behind closed doors? Well, we have Carisbrook, Jacks Point and Luggate as examples that are in the public domain. Is it that the ODT don’t want some Councillors to be exposed for what they are? Well here my posting in another thread with the deleted portion emboldened.

“If the promoters are well aware in advance of sound issues at the stadium and have prepared accordingly, then a simple question remains unanswered. Why do patrons who shell out money to see and hear acts at the stadium rate the sound quality over the PA systems as “abhorrent”? While pondering that answer, why is it that, after we were all told that the surface was the most high-tech, durable and incredible surface ever devised that the recent soccer fixture rated the surface as being the worst they had played on? When considering the answer to that question, readers may like to consider just how much they have paid in their rates to achieve these levels of mediocrity. Perhaps Malcolm Farry and the stadium Councillors could provide some answers?”

So, the ODT had printed stories about the sound quality and the turf quality so they couldn’t take exception to that, but they didn’t want Farry and the Stadium Councillors being asked to be held accountable.

This I suggest, is a very clear indication of where the ODT’s sympathies and probable support will be for any forthcoming Council elections. Can it logically be seen in any other way?

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
23.1.13 Editorial spin, disagrees?!
1.1.13 Journalist sums up 2012, against the ‘odds’ how does it rate ?
10.6.12 What won’t get printed on ORT’s front page (pssst, about the Albatross…….)
3.8.12 Extraordinary editorials
28.7.12 Pokie fraud: ODT fails to notice own backyard
26.6.12 Defamation
7.5.12 ODT: “the cupboard has been bare” [still is]
4.2.12 Editor pitches for rugby nursery
31.12.11 Dishonourable mention
4.10.11 Something hyped in the news
[the list goes on . . . ]

Editorial Note:
When the What if? moderators enter “abridge” in their dashboard search box up come 74 items of observation and complaint on multiple threads about comments being abridged or not published after submission to ODT Online.
Spot the trend.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr