DCC dirty laundry/fleet cars #LGOIMA

—

Related Posts and Comments:
18.9.15 DCC suddenly wakes up! *cough —after fleet car pointers from years back
● 16.9.15 DCC: Know your council ‘chair-leaders’ #pillowtalk [THE EMAILS]
4.8.15 Hundreds of DCC Staff receive fraud detection/prevention training #OMG
21.7.15 DCC: LGOIMA requests for the last month
24.4.15 DCC re Dr Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager

Belatedly….
19.9.15 ODT: Information requests irk councillors

The latest salvo came after Cr Lee Vandervis made public an email exchange with Crs Benson-Pope and Richard Thomson, copied to other councillors and staff, earlier this week.

Cr Vandervis did not respond to ODT requests for comment yesterday.

In his emails, published online, he blamed a lack of information coming from council staff for the “tedious” need to resort to Information Act requests.

Biblical proportion…. [thanks RMN]

Matthew 23:23-25
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence….

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr (online)

DCC: Know your council ‘chair-leaders’ #pillowtalk

It’s with some fascination if not repulsion that Whatiffers can observe bullying by standing committee chairmen continuing unabated on the mayor’s watch.

Cr Thomson’s historical on camera stunts of addressing or referring to Cr Vandervis as “my good friend” are, how shall I say, unchaste and deceptive in the context of what follows below.

Two emails received tonight.

—

Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:26 p.m.

█ Message: Differing Councillor views that may be of interest.
Cheers, Lee

—

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:41:19 +1200
To: Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone, Ruth Stokes
Conversation: OIA Request
Subject: Re: OIA Request

Actually Richard, the Lamborghini has become symbolic of many other very visible excesses, but let us stick to Council issues.

For many years I used to make all the information I had available in very candid discussions with staff, who often then failed to investigate appropriately. Citifleet is a prime example, and this and other examples has taught me that a publicly funded organisation is poorly motivated to investigate itself.
Without my LGOIMA requests the incredibly belated Citifleet ‘investigation’ might never have happened, as it did not happen for over a decade before. Have you counted the cost of that multimillion dollar fraud as a percentage of the cost of processing my LGOIMA requests?
Do you not realise that most of my LGOIMA request arise from questions and allegations from members of the public that I represent?

Even when an internal investigation does prove that for instance over quarter of a million of public funds was paid to a contractor to clear mudtanks and none were cleared, nothing appropriate seems to happen at the DCC without publicity. Hence my now having to get the public involved when things are not sorted internally.
When you claim that needing information “of how the information relates to possible wrong doing” is necessary to get information, this is absurd. It is much easier to simply search ‘Stihl chainsaws’ and forward what DCC files information appears. Similarly a vehicle registration number. Just search the registration number and forward the files – easy, quick, no thinking required, little time wasted considering whether ‘particular staff have been involved in possible wrong doing’ etc.

Why is it that our staff can have all this information, but not want to share it with us the supposed decision makers when we request it?
Answer – information is power – and bureaucracies generally do not want to share it, especially with supposed decision makers.

Don’t you dare suggest that I do not give a toss, as you have no way of knowing the state of my mind or the work that I do, and don’t you dare suggest that my approach has failed to identify fraudulent behaviour, as you similarly do not know what has gone into, for instance, Citifleet, Jacks Point/Luggate, mudtanks, Noble, Town Hall redevelopment, or the almost complete turnover of senior managers at the DCC in the last few years.

I will continue to carry on in the manner I believe to be appropriate, and I do not seek any advice on my manner from of you.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 9:48 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:

Actually Lee my concern is quite the opposite. If there is fraud taking place I want to see it caught. That is why in the Otago DHB when someone came to me with an anonymous tip off and no evidence to back it I initiated a full investigation within half an hour. And I know what some of the consequences are of taking action. They include having to have endless questioning of your integrity/intelligence/ etc by people such as yourself and your fellow travellers on the likes of What If. You have no idea how terribly amusing it is to regularly be accused, because you did the right thing, of “failing to notice the Lamborghini in the carpark”. Never mind that I never had a carpark so didn’t go in the carpark building, or that the fabled Lamborgini was only owned for a few days. Or indeed, had I gone in the carpark building for a random look around and spotted a Lamborghini I would probably have assumed it belonged to a surgeon anyway. So bearing that personal history in mind here is what really pisses me off.

When you make accusations but when virtually begged to make the information available to the CEO so it can be investigated you respond that the “only way you will be making the information available will be through the pages of the ODT”. As you did at the Audit Committee meeting.

When you put in OIA requests and refuse to give any indication of how the information relates to possible wrong doing. Lets think chain saws here. So in the end the only way the OIA can be responded to is to make general inquiries all over the place thereby pretty much ensuring that if there has been dishonesty the person involved will have plenty of time to bury any evidence.

When you seek “all documentation” about a motor vehicle without giving a toss whether the inquiries around that might harm any investigation if there has been wrong doing because the people responding to the request will have no idea if they are going to tip off unknowingly a suspect.

It ought to be of some concern to you by now that your methods and approach have failed to catch any fraudulent behaviour but that the methods of Mr McKenzie that you so disparage have caught a number. Perhaps the fact that people do come to you with info might actually result in people being caught if you worked with people instead of carrying on in the manner you do.

R

[contacts deleted]

———————————

From: Lee Vandervis
To: Richard Thomson; Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2015 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: OIA Request

Re: OIA Request

I note Richard, that you and some others are quite happy to get on with running a city without knowing who is stealing what or how much things cost to run the city.
My regular voting against Council spending motions often arises because there is simply not enough information made available to justify voting for.
If staff reports provided adequate relevant information, and if rate-paid reports like the $300,000 Deloitte investigation information were made available to us who need to make related decisions, none of this tedious LGOIMA process would be necessary. It is a shame that I have to go to so much effort just get basic information, and that so few others can be bothered.

Cr. Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 5:27 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:

Hi,

Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.

on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city..

R

[contacts deleted]

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:27 p.m.

█ Message: And this…

—

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:50:07 +1200
To: David Benson-Pope, Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone
Conversation: OIA Request
Subject: Re: OIA Request

You might well have stopped for a moment David, to consider the cost of not making LGOIMA requests, or of the enormous savings to ratepayers had LGOIMA requests been honestly and promptly complied with as required by the LGOIMA Act.
It has been recently proven that ex CEO Harland misled Councillors making LGOIMA requests to find out what Farry and Co were up to with Stadium planning/funding, by falsely claiming that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust were not subject to LGOIMA information disclosure requirements. Ex-CEO Harland did this despite having two legal opinions, one local and one ex Wellington, saying that the CST were absolutely subject to LGOIMA information requests. Harland’s deceptions have only come to light as a result of many subsequent LGOIMA requests.
Had Harland processed LGOIMA requests as legally required during his tenure it would highly likely have saved ratepayers many millions in a variety of areas, if not hundreds of millions wasted on our Stadium liability.
If all my 2011 LGOIMA requests for Citifleet information, including all credit card information had been made available as requested under LGOIMA, think how many subsequently stolen vehicles would have been saved and perhaps even the life of a bent manager. Put a price on that David and make sure to request the full cost thereof.
The horrendous cost of not having required relevant information on which to make decisions is the reason we have LGOIMA.
In my opinion, not using the LGOIMA process suggests that you are not doing your job as an elected representative.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 6:04 pm, “David Benson-Pope” wrote:

While I agree with the sentiment … If he won’t I wil

This is therefore a request for full details of all lgoima requests made to the dcc by any councillor in the current triennium and the full cost thereof
Yours etc
David Benson-Pope
Sent from my Windows Phone

———————————

From: Richard Thomson
Sent: 15/09/2015 5:27 p.m.
To: Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Lee Vandervis; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone
Subject: OIA Request

Hi,

Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.

on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city.

R

[contacts deleted]

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: toonpool.com – Cat Whisperer by Goodwyn (tweaked by whatifdunedin)

Stadium: Fairfax business editor pokes DCC’s Fubar

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 05/03/2014
Business
Empty seats, empty pockets
By Chalkie
[…] Chalkie is concerned by a $48 million scheme to build a stadium in Petone for the benefit of the Phoenix A-League football team and its fans. From what we know of the proposal, the Hutt City Council – which means ratepayers – will be asked to contribute $25m towards building a “boutique” 10,000 to 12,000 seat arena at the southern end of the Petone Recreation Ground. […] The good burghers of the Hutt will be best placed to judge the practicalities of the scheme when further details are available, but the financial side has worrying similarities to the set-up of Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin. Arm’s length charitable trust controlling the budget? Check. Private sector funding promised? Check. Troubled sports franchise as anchor tenant? Check.

[…] In Dunedin, those involved in developing the city’s shiny new covered stadium are far from universally popular after ratepayers ended up with huge debts and an ongoing headache from running the thing. The original idea, itself controversial, was for ratepayers to contribute $129m – split between $91.4m from the city council and $37.5m from the regional council – towards the $188m cost of the stadium, with private sector funding contributing $45.5m. The balance was coming from local trusts and a government grant. In the end, the stadium cost $224m and the ratepayers were hit up for $200m of that. The private sector funding was virtually zero.

You could write a book on the series of failures that left a relatively small number of people – Dunedin has a population of about 126,000 – exposed to such high costs. But even in the short version written by PricewaterhouseCoopers it seems councillors were not well informed about the project and financial controls were inadequate. The controversy still simmers. Local campaigner Bev Butler, a determined and resourceful opponent of the stadium scheme, continues to unearth aspects of the process that do not reflect well on its management. One of the latest involves the relationship between Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, which runs the project, and the council.

The problem in this instance is the lack of transparency around public spending, even when there was obviously concern at the outset to keep a firm grip on it. More than that, Dunedin got in over its head and allowed itself to be the schmuck landed with everyone’s bill at the end.

Money from the council was supposed to be transferred to the trust only to pay for third-party invoices billed to the trust. An exception to this rule provided for the trust’s administration costs to be covered by a general monthly payment from the council. These “trust costs” invoices were for between $40,000 and $90,000 a month, running from July 2007 to January 2010. According to Butler’s information, which tallies with the council schedule, the payments totalled $2.2m over the period. An Official Information Act response from the council to Butler said the money was paid “to cover staff and administration costs” of the trust “to facilitate ease of administration”.

Chalkie can see that it would be easier to pay for the trust’s incidentals in this way. However, it opened a big hole in accountability for spending because the staff and administration costs detailed in the trust’s annual reports for the period total $1,068,796, more than $1m less than the sums invoiced. It is not clear from the accounts how the other $1.1m was spent because no combination of other costs – marketing, PR, fundraising or project administration – seems to come close to the right figure. Chairman of trustees Malcolm Farry told Chalkie he could provide documents to clarify the details last week, but unfortunately they were not yet available as we went to press.

There are several lessons for the Hutt City Council, including to beware of using a charitable trust as the development vehicle, to ensure private sector money is paid up front with a buffer for contingencies, and to ensure there is no ambiguity about costs.
Read full article

● Chalkie is written by Fairfax business bureau’s Tim Hunter.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue

Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) —operating losses and compounding debt

—

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Oct 2013
DVML loss bigger than forecast
By Chris Morris
Ratepayers will not be hit in the pocket again despite the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium missing its mark by nearly $700,000. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd on Monday revealed a $986,000 loss for the 2012-13 year, which chief executive Darren Burden said represented progress after a $3.21 million loss the previous year. However, the company had been forecasting an even better turnaround, with a $298,000 loss predicted for 2012-13 in a statement of intent published in July last year.

In the end, the $986,000 loss was $688,000 worse than expected, the company’s annual report confirmed.

Mr Burden said the loss could be covered internally using income from other sources, such as ground memberships and other private sector sponsorship arrangements.

Mr Burden said the forecasts for 2012-13 were actually completed in early 2012, about 18 months before this week’s results were released. Because of that, they were also based on only about six months of trading by DVML, he said. For those reasons, there was always going to be ”a level of uncertainty”, but the accuracy of future forecasts should improve, he said.
Read more

—

Associated comments at ODT Online, in the public interest:

Really?
Submitted by overit on Thu, 03/10/2013 – 9:24pm.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, these figures may not be true reflection of the FB Stadium earning its way. Now that DVML has other income streams from the Railway Station and the Dunedin Centre it would be very interesting to see what the separated financial result for FB stadium is rather than DVML as a whole.

Maybe the ODT could report on this?

A grip
Submitted by russandbev on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 6:38pm.

MikeStK, the Larsen report and the PWC report – both of which were published in the ODT – made it plain that the whole basis of the stadium’s finances were nothing than hyperbole. Huge under-estimation of costs of construction, huge over-estimation of economic benefits, and under-estimation of on-going operational costs. By now, surely most proponents of this White Elephant can see how completely destructive this project has been on Dunedin’s well-being. The only people or groups to have benefited directly from this project have been the very fortunate land owners who sold at round 3 times the budgeted amounts, the private CST who received regular fees for their management of the project, the various “consultants” who provided glowing future forecasts for stadium usage which have all proved to be optimistic at best, the ORFU who have been bailed out, the few promoters that have received subsidies for bringing in the few shows that have been staged at the stadium, the anonymous economic impact analysts who provide regular non-peer group reviewed reports on mythical income, and of course the highly paid executives of the entities themselves who seem to make sure the balls are continually being juggled to obscure the true position.

And of course the people to pay for all of this are the ratepayers. Behind it all are the potential governance people who, it seems largely, want to just pretend that all in the garden is lovely. Well, everyone now has the opportunity to make your views known. If you don’t vote, then you are as much to blame as those that made this mess happen. Vote wisely.

Diverting debt repayments
Submitted by MikeStk on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 1:26pm.

Now just a minute – back when we were pretending that income from memberships were really “private fundraising” rather than pre-purchased ticket sales the city borrowed $45m to cover the fact that this money wasn’t going to be paid up front but would instead dribble in over 5-10 years. If Mr Burden’s now going to divert this money that was supposed to be used to pay off the debt borrowed against this future income to paying off his own losses who is going to pay off the actual $45m in principal and associated interest?

This whole rugby stadium thing appears to be a giant game of cups and balls.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin Venues logo overstitched (re-imaged by Whatifdunedin)