Tag Archives: Ratepayer funding

Democracy, a little strange looking here and there

ODT 12.5.17 (page 16)

Not sure the above is the “nature of democracy”.
Ownership more often than not has rights to what Democracy might be, for better or worse. Democracy is the dull moving target around traction of tolerance and accommodation, alternately characterised by recklessness, drilling, handholding, gutless audacity and full oppositional war. And finally, perhaps, it is Comedy of Errors (the big CE) – to do with pique, vanity, providence, chess-like cunning, ill temper and quarrelsome kicks, artful dodging, strange bed fellows, lousy cracks at definition, ruthless assaults and incursions, “Territory”, chiming disgust, stiff ultimatums, the surrender to power, corruption or fraud…..and all notions, wagons, bonfires that encircle ‘the final word’ and last stands, angry trumpet votes to Brexit, chaste lookalikes, injury, ill health….. Jesus weeps.

### ODT Online Wed, 12 Apr 2017
Hospital rebuild: back off but don’t back down
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION If we asked Otago people what they most want from health services it would likely be health service delivery in the province at least as good as the rest of New Zealand. For example, whatever qualifies for an operation here should be the same that qualifies those up north. The Dunedin School of Medicine is vital to us as well. […] What if harassing of the Government in an imagined party political fashion just makes the Government determined to not give us what we want, since we will likely vote two local Labour people into Parliament this year? If we concentrate on telling the Government what we most want, and stop trying to tell it how it should deliver the services, we have a much better chance of getting the best result.
Read more

Comment to What if? Dunedin:

Diane Yeldon
April 14, 2017 at 11:10 pm
“Harassing of the Government in an imagined party political fashion.” Well said by Hilary Calvert. Spot on!
Here’s the meeting video for 21 Feb. Starting from 1.58.24 into the video, you can watch the discussion on the resolution which authorised the [Dunedin Hospital SOS] campaign. This was the Notice of Motion put forward by Cr Benson-Pope and seconded by Cr Hawkins.
There was no information in the agenda about how much the ‘asking for support’ would cost or how the ‘asking for support’ would be carried out. Nor did any councillors ask questions about this. Their attention was focused solely on discussing the rights and wrongs of the hospital siting (with only a couple of councillors saying they didn’t think it was any of their business.)
I can’t help wondering if many of the councillors did not understood that this ‘asking for support’ would result in unleashing a full-blown advertising campaign with leaflet drop, website and newspaper ads costing so far $12,000! I wonder if the motion had been taken in two parts with the second part only about the campaign and its full extent and costs disclosed the majority would have still voted in favour.

Dunedin City Council Published on Feb 26, 2017
Dunedin City Council – Public Forum + Council Meeting – 21 February 2017
Minutes, agendas and reports related to this meeting can be found at https://goo.gl/Eis3sK

[decisionmaker.co.nz] formatted by whatifdunedin

Related Posts and Comments:
● 8.4.17 Questions over Council’s Dunedin Hospital SOS campaign
● 6.4.17 ODT editor comments strongly #tick —Dunedin Hospital rebuild
● 27.3.17 Site Notice #DunedinHospital
● 26.2.17 Dunedin Hospital Redevelopment
● 6.2.17 Let the Ombudsman recommend for democracy at SDHB
● 24.1.17 SDHB/Govt : Physio Pool GRIEF
● 9.1.17 Audit NZ admonishes commissioner Grant and SDHB #Health
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
20.11.16 Delta at Dunedin Hospital #worseluck
7.11.16 SDHB #FAILS with Healthcare Communication and Governance

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: batmanrobin by Mike Luckovich 2016 @njc.com [via truthdig.com] tweaked by whatifdunedin

Advertisements

32 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Health, Health & Safety, Heritage, Hospital, Hot air, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, SDHB, Site, Technology, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Questions over Council’s Dunedin Hospital SOS campaign

Received from Diane Yeldon
Fri, 7 April 2017 at 4:06 p.m.

OPINION

What’s wrong with the DCC Dunedin Hospital SOS Campaign?

If you clear away all the smoke from the party-political bluster, bickering and name–calling arising over this campaign, has the Dunedin City Council really done anything out of order? Or were some councillors, in fact, a majority, just trying to do their best for the people of Dunedin?

Unfortunately, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. A council communication cannot be a political advertisement.

The Electoral Act more or less defines a political advertisement as anything which persuades or encourages voters to vote in a particular way. But our democratic rights to participate in government decision-making are not limited to voting once every three years. Citizens also have the right to petition Government, make submissions to select committees and other public authorities and deliberative bodies, and lobby MPs and Government Ministers.

If local councillors had been presented with a motion which proposed the following : that the Council encourages and persuades voters to choose candidate A, they would have rightly been horrified and would have rejected it.

In comparison, a single, short and final paragraph in a council motion which proposes that the Council should ask for public support for ONLY its own preferred position on a central government decision, and that people make such views known to central government, looks harmless and is quite likely to pass unnoticed – and, in fact, did. But it is just as political. It encourages people to use their democratic rights in a particular way.

The council staff should have alerted councillors that this was the case and that such political activism was beyond the proper scope of any local body. The difference in wording may be subtle but the democratic principles involved are significant and far-reaching.

Monday, 3 April 2017

[ends]

Dunedin City Council’s Dunedin Hospital SOS petition states:
“I demand that central government redevelops Dunedin Hospital in the centre of the city. The government must also make a clear commitment to retain a top flight teaching hospital for Dunedin and the wider Otago/Southland region.
Save Our Site. Save Our Services.”

Petition at the DCC-managed SOS website [framed screenshot]

At the bottom of the webpage, DCC says:
“Dunedin Hospital SOS
The Dunedin City Council (“DCC”, “we”, “us”, or “our”) operates, hosts, or manages a number of websites, including DunedinHospitalSOS.nz. This site was created and funded following a Council resolution (21 February 2017) to communicate to Government its complete opposition to a rebuild of Dunedin Hospital outside the central city. It is not a permanent website.”

How the petition got off the ground by Council vote (21 February 2017) on the Notice of Motion:

[screenshots – click to enlarge]

DCC Council 21.2.17 Agenda – 15 Notice of Motion Dunedin Hospital Rebuild

DCC Council 21.2.17 Minutes – 15 Notice of Motion Dunedin Hospital Rebuild

****

The DCC Dunedin Hospital SOS flyer and Facebook campaign cost Ratepayers $7,102 (excl GST). Ratepayers also find themselves footing the bill for a DCC-led SOS media campaign:

ODT Online 8.4.17 [screenshot]

Related Posts and Comments:
● 6.4.17 ODT editor comments strongly #tick —Dunedin Hospital rebuild
● 27.3.17 Site Notice #DunedinHospital
● 26.2.17 Dunedin Hospital Redevelopment
● 6.2.17 Let the Ombudsman recommend for democracy at SDHB
● 24.1.17 SDHB/Govt : Physio Pool GRIEF
● 9.1.17 Audit NZ admonishes commissioner Grant and SDHB #Health
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
20.11.16 Delta at Dunedin Hospital #worseluck
7.11.16 SDHB #FAILS with Healthcare Communication and Governance

█ For more, enter the terms *hospital*, *sdhb* and *swann* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

61 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Education, Finance, Health, Hospital, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SDHB, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Stadium costs, read uncapped multimillion-dollar LOSSES

Forsyth Barr Stadium critic Russell Garbutt, of Clyde, is not surprised by reports of looming stadium losses.

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Stadium costs predictable, so why the surprise now?
By Russell Garbutt
The ongoing revelations on stadium losses detailed today (ODT, 21.2.14) come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this debacle from when the Otago Rugby Football Union first gathered the Carisbrook working party together until now, when a succession of different managers, directors and councillors are all realising that what was promised is as chalk is to cheese.
While not directly specified in the article, the turnaround of an expected $10,000 profit to a $1,400,000 loss in 2014-15 is in the operational budget, and it seems Sir John Hansen, chairman of DVML, is putting most of the blame for this truly stupendous reversal of fortunes down to costs of running the stadium.

While ratepayers continue to face annual injections of over $9 million into the stadium, this is by no means the real figure.

The ”realities” of the real costs of running the stadium are now being recognised, it seems. But let us all just remember a few things that occurred when the stadium was being proposed and then built.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
20.12.13 DVML: No harassment policy or complaints procedure, really?
3.12.13 DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]
30.11.13 DVML in disarray
18.11.13 DVML: Burden heads to Christchurch #EntirelyPredictable
12.10.13 DVML works media/DCC to spend more ratepayer money
4.10.13 DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue
20.8.13 DVML foists invoices on DCC
20.6.13 Stadium: DVML, DVL miserable losers! #grandtheftdebt

For more, enter *dvml* or *stadium* into the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, Highlanders, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Otago Museum strife

Mayor Dave Cull said he wanted it on public record the councillors appointed to the museum trust board – Crs Kate Wilson, Syd Brown and Colin Weatherall – were not there as representatives of the council; instead, their role was to do their best for the board. The council appoints one board member, a role filled by board chairman Graham Crombie.

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Feb 2012
Call to cut DCC funding for museum
By David Loughrey
Dunedin City Council critic Lyndon Weggery has called for the city to reduce its annual $3.7 million funding of the Otago Museum, claiming that would be the best way to force change at the institution. Mr Weggery, speaking at a council public forum yesterday as an individual, rather than as a member of the Dunedin Ratepayers and Householders Association, continued the debate over claimed problems at the museum.
Read more

Related Post:
18.1.12 D Scene exposes museum director’s salary

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

9 Comments

Filed under DCC, Economics, Hot air, Media, People, Politics, Project management

Can it be true? Nahhh #peepshow

Initially, did Ngai Tahu (Kai Tahu) get turned down for Dunedin City Council project funding towards the Haka Peep Show (‘black penis’), now resplendent in the Octagon?

Did Ngai Tahu then come back to DCC saying, more or less, that if DCC didn’t front up with the $50,000 then Council wouldn’t get any co-operation from the tribe with resource consents, etc?

No! This didn’t happen. In any case, the minutes of the Art in Public Places subcommittee (if released), or those of the Community Development Committee (which turned down the APP’s $100,000 funding request) wouldn’t be so specific as to the politics, surely?

No. No. No. A vile rumour, completely fictitious.
Not the way we do things in Dunedin!

****

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Sep 2011
Councillors join Ngai Tahu working party
By David Loughrey
Dunedin city councillors Fliss Butcher and Jinty MacTavish have joined a working party that will find “opportunities and mechanisms” for Ngai Tahu to contribute to the city’s decision making.
Read more

ODT columnist Dave Cannan has been asking questions about the artwork. In today’s ‘The Wash’ (ODT, 21.9.11) he says, “The cost of Rachael Rakena’s much-discussed installation is “in the vicinity of $115,000″, although some accounts are still being finalised.”

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

39 Comments

Filed under DCC, Events, Hot air, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Town planning, Urban design

Is there a conflict of interest?

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Sep 2011
Conflict of interest claim denied
By David Loughrey
Anti-stadium campaigner Bev Butler has again taken aim at the people who worked to build the Forsyth Barr Stadium, but this time she has got no backing from a former ally, now mayor, Dave Cull. Ms Butler’s latest target is Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) director Mike Coburn, who has also worked on the project delivery team that made sure the stadium was built. She claimed there was a conflict of interest in the role, and that two invoices she unearthed to Mr Coburn’s company Ruboc Holdings for “casual corporate suite rental” last year for the All Blacks v Wales game, showed about $6000 that should not have been paid for by ratepayers.
Read more

****

This morning, Bev Butler emailed the following notes and information to What if? Dunedin…

She says:
• Attached are 23 Ruboc Holdings invoices.
• Below is the covering note with [Mike] Coburn’s explanation.
• My overall comment: “The public will be shocked at the pure unadulterated greed.”
• My comment on the covering note by Coburn is “Pathetic”.

Notes:
DCHL director Mike Coburn’s company, Ruboc Holdings Ltd, invoiced the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST), then paid for by DCC, for casual lease of a corporate box for the All Blacks vs Wales test game last year.

The invoice was for $4,429.69 (incl GST). This was approved by Malcolm Farry, CST chairman. Note also the invoice is dated 12 May 2010 and payment made a month in advance of the rugby All Blacks test.

Another invoice was for Additional Test tickets $2,409.69. From the invoices this was a day out for the Project Delivery Team and ……..

Total of all Ruboc invoices: $83,370.04 (incl GST)

Coburn started claiming fees from 9 March 2009. This is before the Hawkins contract was signed on 27 April 2009. He was right in there from the start.

Some invoices claim expenses for meals, taxis, phone, parking and accommodation. Not sure where the accommodation would fit in as Coburn lives in Dunedin and there are no claims for travel elsewhere.

Mike Coburn is the sole director and sole shareholder of Ruboc Holdings Ltd. He is the company.

Mike Coburn was being paid $1000 per day as Project Delivery Team member to push the stadium construction further while failing in his duty as a director of DCHL to inform DCC that DCHL was unable to supply dividends to pay off the stadium debt.

Mike Coburn invoiced the CST $4,429.69 for the one day casual hire of his corporate box so that the Project Delivery Team could watch the All Blacks vs Wales test match.

This invoice was approved by Malcolm Farry then sent to DCC for payment under the guise of construction cost.

Mike Coburn also invoiced CST $2,409.69 for extra Test tickets for the same All Blacks vs Wales game.

[Malcolm] Farry then claimed this as a construction cost of the stadium.

Did Coburn also claim $1000 payment for attending the test match day as well because he was ‘working’?

Who were the other tickets bought for?
Who are the members of the Project Delivery Team?
Are these members all being paid $1000 per day and did they all get paid $1000 to attend the rugby as well as their tickets paid for?
Do any of these other members also have conflicts of interest?

Covering note from DCC:
Dear Bev
As previously indicated, here is the covering note for the release of Ruboc invoice information.

“Please find attached the information requested regarding Ruboc Holdings Ltd invoices. All the invoices held by the Council have been released. The invoices, in the main, cover Ruboc Holding’s[sic] time in respect of the many meetings attended relevant to the delivery of the stadium project including those with the PDT, DCC committees, Council meetings, University, DVML and Hawkins.

“Two invoices relate to the rental of a suite at Carisbrook. The hosting of contractors at Carisbrook was an exercise by the PDT to strengthen the working relationship primarily between the main contractor Hawkins, subcontractors and Arrow International Ltd at a time when they were facing significant challenges to reduce costs to remain within budget. Initially there was only sufficient interest to fill part part the suite and Ruboc committed to the balance but as word got around, enthusiasm grew as did the numbers, and Ruboc had to forgo the balance, hence two invoices.

“I trust this answers your enquiry.”

Sandy [Graham]
[DCC governance manager]

The invoices:
Ruboc Holdings – 00000041 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000047 – $2,025
Ruboc Holdings – 00000053 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000065 – $1,800

Ruboc Holdings – 00000069 – $1,487.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000075- $5,580
Ruboc Holdings – 00000112 – $2,180.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000125 – $2,197.50

Ruboc Holdings – 00000130- $2,120
Ruboc Holdings – 00000133 – $3,937.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000138 – $3,583.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000148 – $2,141.95

Ruboc Holdings – 00000150 – $4,459.25
Ruboc Holdings – 00000167 – $3,240
Ruboc Holdings – 00000180 – $3,330
Ruboc Holdings – 00000190 – $4,680

Ruboc Holdings – 00000198 – $4,950
Ruboc Holdings – 00000213 – $4,275
Ruboc Holdings – 00000221 – $2,475
Ruboc Holdings – 00000234 – $4,725

Ruboc Holdings – 00000246 – $5,625
Ruboc Holdings – 00000253 – $2,700
Ruboc Holdings – 00000261 – $4,050

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Economics, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Controlled funding pies and the suit-wearers for professional sport

A new home for the academy was signalled as part of the $15.7 million Logan Park redevelopment plan, initially released in 2005, and the cost would come from that budget. The city agreed to provide the academy with a headquarters when Dunedin was picked as its South Island home. Sparc confirmed a $1 million grant for the two-storey building. The Dunedin City Council would meet the remainder of the cost.

The building would be owned by Dunedin Venues Management and run by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd . . . the academy would occupy one end of the building, and the Highlanders the other.

Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry said he expected the facility, with input from the scientific community, the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic, along with technology work by Dunedin businessman Ian Taylor, could eventually attract more international interest than the stadium itself.

### ODT Online Tue, 31 May 2011
Piling begun for academy building
By David Loughrey
Work has begun on the new Academy of Sport building on the north end of the Forsyth Barr Stadium, which later this year will house both the academy and the Highlanders rugby team. Dunedin City Council community life general manager Graeme Hall said piling work had begun last week, and the two-storey structure was still on track to be completed before the Rugby World Cup begins in September.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Tue, 31 May 2011
Boost for academy
By David Loughrey
The Otago Community Trust has donated $65,000 to the New Zealand Academy of Sport South Island, the trust announced yesterday. The funding would be used to build a high-performance floor for the new facility. The floor would have a seamless surface with an indoor track built into it. The money would also help build a recovery centre with a heated hydrotherapy spa.
ODT Link

****

Related Posts
14.12.10 New Zealand Academy of Sport, South Island
2.12.10 Stadium: private sector funding
29.7.10 Perceived conflicts of interest, what’s new?
1.6.10 Surprise! (yawn) Shift them out.
10.3.10 The bull**** from National continues unabated
3.3.10 Yep, Kereyn Smith thinks like ‘stadium boys’
22.12.09 DCC appoints Highlanders’ Board representative
30.7.09 Logan Park hits the brakes

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, DVML, Economics, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design