Tag Archives: Representation

Vandervis apologises to Mayor Cull #councilpowerplays

vandervis-mayor-cull-dcc-2[DCC profiles]

█ Refer to the Agenda for the Council meeting on Tuesday 25 October 2016.

Dave Cull initially offered highest vote scoring councillor Lee Vandervis the chairship of Hearings as well as two deputy chair positions in Infrastructure and in the Bylaws and Regulatory area. Cr Vandervis turned these down thinking Hearings would lie outside Council. However, Cr Vandervis received encouragement from various colleagues to pursue what was offered…. After receiving clarification from senior staff the councillor wrote an apology to Mayor Cull in the hope of securing the positions. We await further news.

Mayor – Dave Cull
Deputy Mayor – Cr Chris Staynes

Mayor Cull says (via the Agenda and associated reports):

COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

6. I establish the following Committees as committees of the whole:
a) Finance and Council Controlled Organisations
b) Community and Culture
c) Infrastructure Services and Networks
d) Planning and Environment
e) Economic Development.

7. I further establish the following Subcommittees, with some membership to be confirmed:
a) Hearings Subcommittee (directly to Council)
b) Bylaws Subcommittee (directly to Council)
c) Audit and Risk Subcommittee (directly to Council)
d) Grants Subcommittee (reporting to Community and Culture)
e) CEO Appraisal Subcommittee. (directly to Council)

CHAIRS AND DEPUTY CHAIRS FOR COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

Committees

Finance and CCOs
Chair: Cr Mike Lord | Deputy Chair: Cr Doug Hall

Community and Culture
Chair: Cr Aaron Hawkins | Deputy Chair: Cr Rachel Elder, Cr Marie Laufiso

Infrastructure Services and Networks
Chair: Cr Kate Wilson | Deputy Chair: Cr Jim O’Malley

Planning and Environment
Chair: Cr David Benson-Pope | Deputy Chair: Cr Damian Newell, Cr Conrad Stedman

Economic Development
Chair: Cr Chris Staynes | Deputy Chair: Cr Andrew Whiley, Cr Christine Garey

Subcommittees

Hearings
Chair: [Cr Kate Wilson] | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Bylaws
Chair: Cr Andrew Whiley | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Grants
Chair: Cr Aaron Hawkins | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Audit and Risk
Chair: To be confirmed but an independent member | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

CEO Appraisal
Chair: The Mayor | Deputy Chair: Cr Chris Staynes

8. I have made the following Councillor appointments to Community Boards:
Mosgiel Taieri Community Board – Cr Mike Lord
Strath Taieri Community Board – Cr Christine Garey
West Harbour Community Board – Cr Aaron Hawkins
Saddle Hill Community Board – Cr Conrad Stedman
Otago Peninsula Community Board – Cr Andrew Whiley
Waikouaiti Coast Community Board – Cr Jim O’Malley

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION – BRIEFING FOR THE INAUGURAL COUNCIL MEETING 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Clause 21 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that, at the inaugural meeting of the Council and Community Boards following the triennial election, the Chief Executive Officer must provide a general explanation of the following legislation:
a) The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987;
b) The Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968;
c) Sections 99, 105 and 105A of the Crimes Act 1961;
d) The Secret Commissions Act 1910; and
e) The Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:
a) Notes the advice regarding key legislation that applies to members of Council, its Committees and Community Boards.

Related Council report
[worth skimming the discussion of each Act as it applies to Councillors]

****

Fri, 21 Oct 2016
ODT: Rejected position; apology ensued
The Dunedin City Council’s committee appointments may be in for a change before they have even been approved, after Cr Lee Vandervis refused a role then realised it could have been “an acceptable position after all”. Cr Vandervis apologised to Mayor Dave Cull after realising a hearings committee role he had declined “as a sop to council involvement” was in fact a more responsible appointment. But by that time, the role had been changed and offered to another councillor. Cont/

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, People, Politics, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Town planning, What stadium

DCC encourages Election Candidates

FYI Dunedin Issue 41 July 2016 (PDF, 251.1 KB)

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Chief Executives Desk

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Call for Candidates (1)

Read online or source back copies at:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/fyi-dunedin

█ HOT PRESS.— Fees and Charges
Most DCC fees and charges will rise by an average of 3% from 1 July.

IMPORTANT DATES
Nominations for candidates open Friday, 15 July and close 12 noon on Friday, 12 August.

ENROLMENT TO VOTE
Check your enrolment details online at www.elections.org.nz or at any NZ Post Shop.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: screenshots by whatifdunedin

99 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, What stadium

Dunedin City: Representation Review determination

Received.
Friday, April 08, 2016 11:04 AM

From: Donald Riezebos [mailto: Donald.Riezebos @dia.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Mick Lester (HDC); Belinda Smith Lyttle; Brian Miller; Carissa Cooper; Chalmers Community Board; Colin Weatherall; Geraldine Tait; Leanne Stenhouse; Martin Dillon; Moira Parker; Mosgiel Taieri Community Board; Otago Peninsula Community Board; Saddle Hill Community Board; Strath Taieri Community Board; Sue O’Neill; Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee; Waikouaiti Coast Community Board
Subject: Local Government Commission Representation Review Determination – Dunedin City

Attached is a copy of the Local Government Commission’s representation review determination for Dunedin City, along with our media release. These are embargoed until 11.00am at which time the media will be advised.

Regards

Donald Riezebos | Principal Advisor
Local Government Commission Mana Kawanatanga a Rohe

Media Release
8 April 2016

Commission announces decision on representation arrangements for Dunedin City Council

The Local Government Commission today announced its decision on the Dunedin City Council’s membership and ward arrangements for the 2016 local elections.

The Council had proposed that:
• The council be elected at large (rather than from wards)
• The number of councillors remain at 14
• The boundaries of the Chalmers, Otago Peninsula, Saddle Hill and Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards be altered by transferring two areas between communities and excluding other areas from communities altogether
• A Rural Taieri Community Board be established comprising the Strath Taieri Community Board’s area and the rural part of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board’s area

There were 16 appeals against the Council’s proposal.

After hearing from the Council and the appellants the Commission has decided to:
• uphold the Council’s proposal for the Council to be elected at large
• retain the existing community board system (apart from renaming the Chalmers Community Board as the West Harbour Community Board and two boundary alterations).

The boundary alterations are the transfer of an area above Sawyers Bay from Waikouaiti Coast Community to West Harbour Community and the transfer of Quarantine Island from West Harbour Community to Otago Peninsula Community.

The Council’s representation arrangements for the 2016 local elections will therefore be as follows:
• A Mayor and 14 councillors elected from the City as a whole
• Six community boards as follows:

Strath Taieri Community Board
Waikouaiti Coast Community Board
Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board
Saddle Hill Community Board
West Harbour Community Board
Otago Peninsula Community Board

• Each community board will have six members and one councillor appointed to the board by the Council

The determination is available on the Commission’s website: http://www.lgc.govt.nz

Summary of the Representation Review process

Councils are required by law to undertake a representation review every six years. The following is a brief outline of the process:

• The Council makes its proposal
• The Council invites submissions on its proposal
• The Council considers submissions and makes a final proposal
• People can object to or appeal against the proposal to the Local Government Commission
• The Commission may hold an appeals hearing
• The Commission makes and releases its Determination

Ends

Media contacts:
Donald Riezebos | Principal Advisor | Local Government Commission
Simon Cunliffe | Communications Advisor | Local Government Commission

Downloads:
4549539DA – Blank Document [Determination 7.4.16]
Dunedin City – Media Release

Related Post and Comments:
11.6.15 DCC representation review

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Resource management

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board threatened with demise

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 at 12:32 a.m.

[Undated email by excerpt. -Eds]

From: Maurice Prendergast
To: Bill [Feather]
 
In response to your e-mail below in which you seek feedback from Board members on the recommendation of the Representation Review team, I offer my comments as described below.
 
Effective representation and fair representation; while enshrined in legislation, are really just haughty ‘weasel words’ because while members may masquerade during election campaign as being representative of a particular catchment/community; once elected they can freely abandon their ‘fine principles’ and commit their loyalties to quite alien causes. Case in point: Rural electors who thought they would be effectively and fairly represented by a rural Councillor/ representative of the huge City hinterland found that same Councillor voting to remove their one precious budget consideration (the seal extension budget) and curiously voted for the same amount of funding to favour the provision of cycleways. Conclusion: there is no discipline that binds elected members to the principles of fair and/or effective representation. Cr Wilson has demonstrably personified this. This segment of Local Body law should be removed and pronounced unworkable.
 
Number of Councillors: The most effective Councils since re-organisation in 1989 were those with 21 and 18 councillors. Why? Enhanced salaries for (presumed) talented chairmen of Committees generates a ‘dash for cash’. Currently (at 14 Councillors) the mayor ‘cabals’ by having guaranteed loyalty from his six Committee Chairmen whose salary he has enhanced by bestowing upon them lavishly paid Chairmanships; thus securing an implied loyalty to the Mayor (or be sacked). Peter Chin introduced this draconian practice. When I was Deputy Mayor back in the mid-nineties the Mayor (Turner) relied on trust and appointed for three years. Peter Chin changed that to annual reviews – just to stop his footmen straying from loyalty to him I guess. So having secured six avaricious troopers, on any given issue he can be sure of six votes plus his own (7) which curiously is half of 14 and in the event of a tied vote he can exercise his casting vote to get across the line. That is what is so magical about the number 14, and that is why it will be strenuously defended (or even reduced). So a decision to have only 14 Councillors gives the Mayor a guarantee that he will preside over his ‘Fiefdom’ This was never possible when (say) there was 18/20 elected members. There was always up to 14 and then 12 (when the number dropped to 18 Councillors) who were not ‘tainted’ by having accepted gratuities from the Mayor. In a perverse way this always guaranteed honourable behaviour and reasoned decision making by Council and ‘debt laden vanity projects’ never saw the light of day. I don’t expect a ‘buy-in’ from the public at large because the rank and file electors (largely) don’t like Councillors, and if there were more I would anticipate an ‘uninformed’ revolt – which is a pity because this would be guaranteed means of discipline. But my analysis is that an addition of (say) six more ‘back-bench’ councillors at (say) $50,000 per annum, ($300,000) would be about the best investment the ratepayers could have made in the recent past. And the remedy is staring us in the face. Who was that philosopher who said “those who ignore their history shall be condemned by it”. The exercise of power that currently burdens us in debt is the product of having insufficient disaffected/ unsullied members – members who have retained the capacity not to be corrupted.
 
Community Boards: I am ambivalent about the Review Team’s proposal. Community Boards have never worked as expected by the Commissioner when established in 1989, and while I have served on six or seven Boards during the 35 year life of the ‘new City’, with the exception of the Strath Taieri Board it has been an unrewarding experience. The Boards suffer from not having any decision making authority and consequently suffer from having no sense of purpose. Initially each Board was granted $2000 per annum (euphemistically referred to by the CEO of the day as ‘drop dead’ money) – such was his limited respect for the function of the Boards and intended for the most menial of chores like keeping the toilet paper and light bulbs up to their community Halls etc. Then a Committee/Working Party was established to review the function of Boards with power to decide – a committee stacked with Community Board members and unsurprisingly the annual grant went from $2000 to $10,000 pa; but this change was not intended for any particular purpose. Without any strict purpose set down for these funds it has often generated an exercise in a kind of cronyism where conflicts of interest seemed to flourish. The distribution of these funds is attended by a set of criteria which is carefully described as ‘Guidelines’. Of course nobody can be nailed for imprudent expenditure of these funds because their distribution is bound by the discretionary word ‘Guidelines’. I attempted to get some kind of discipline on board at a recent Board meeting by changing the operative word Guidelines to a more disciplined caption ‘Rules’ but I did not even get the support of a seconder for my motion. Therefore every other member seemed to be comfortable with the freedom of having no rules associated with this ratepayer funded slush fund, and this kind of caballing is in my view why the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board is being abolished. I cannot raise an argument against that recommendation. E&0E)
 
Sincerely,
 
Maurice Prendergast
 
————

From: Bill Feather
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:10 p.m.
To: Sarah Nitis; Martin Dillon ; Maurice Prendergast; Blackie Catlow; Mark Willis
Subject: Representatation Review
 
Good afternoon all,

You each will have received a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Hearing panel released last evening. If not a copy of the report is attached.

The Council are to consider this report at an extraordinary meeting on Monday 15th June at which a number of Community Board Chairs including myself will attend.

I am interested to gauge the feeling of the community over the Review Panel’s recommendations and would like for you to forward to me your assessment of community support or otherwise that you learn of over the next day or two for the recommendations under consideration. The media broke the news this morning in the ODT and are planning a follow-up in more detail in either tomorrow or Saturday’s edition.

Your thoughts are important please respond earliest.

Regards

Bill

[Bill Feather, Chairman, Mosgiel Taieri Community Board]

Related Post and Comments:
11.6.15 DCC representation review

█ For more, enter the term *mosgiel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

DCC representation review

Updated post Thu, 11 Jun 2015 at 11:10 p.m.

DCClogo_landscape (1)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Representation Review Report Released

This item was published on 10 Jun 2015

The Representation Review Team has completed its review and will discuss its findings with the Dunedin City Council at an extraordinary Council meeting on Monday.

The independent panel reviewed the Council’s representation arrangements after hearing people’s views on the structure we have for electing representatives, whether we have the right number of Councillors and how our wards and community boards meet the needs of our communities.

The Representation Review Team’s recommendations include that the Council be elected at large (which means there would no longer be wards and Councillors would be voted for by all residents) and that the number of Councillors remains at 14.

The Review Team recommends several changes to community boards, such as establishing a Rural Community Board to cover the Strath Taieri and Taieri rural communities. It recommends adjusting the boundaries of Chalmers, Otago Peninsula, Saddle Hill and Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards and reducing the number of elected members on each community board from six to four. The Council would continue to appoint a Councillor to each board. 

Review Team Chair Associate Professor Janine Hayward says, “The Review Team is grateful to everyone who participated in this process. We heard from many people from all parts of Dunedin with a wide range of views and perspectives. It is heartening to see how highly people value our local democracy. We encourage everyone to continue to participate in the next phase of consultation also.”

Members of the Review Team will be present at Monday’s meeting to discuss their recommendations with the Council, which will then agree on a proposal that will go out for public consultation.

Councils are required by law to look at their representation arrangements on a regular basis.

The other Review Team members are Len Cook, Paulette Tamati-Elliffe and Mayor Dave Cull.

Report – Council – 15/06/2015 (PDF, 8.6 MB)

Report – Council – 15/06/2015 – low resolution (PDF, 1.9 MB)

Contact Associate Professor Janine Hayward, Representation Review Team Chair on 03 479 8666.

DCC Link

### ODT Online Thu, 11 Jun 2015
Wards’ abolition proposed
By Shawn McAvinue
Dunedin city’s three wards should be abolished and council candidates should vie for the votes of every resident, a team including Mayor Dave Cull has recommended. Under the plan, the number of community boards would be cut from six to five, with fewer members on each board.
Read more

Is this really the end of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board ?? The board with the mostest…. conflicts of interest, and greatest propensity to misuse city council grants ?? HAPPY DAYS.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

88 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Economics, Fun, Geography, LGNZ, Media, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

DCC Representation: LEGAL to remove ELECTED Councillor voting rights ??

Comments received today:

Anonymous
Submitted on 2015/05/02 at 2:07 pm

Discussion - DCC representation 2.5.15(Anonymous)

Anonymous
Submitted on 2015/05/02 at 8:11 p.m.

Discussion - loss of representation 2.5.15 (Anonymous)

Dunedin City Council
Councillor Lee Vandervis has had his voting rights removed for two months:

Meeting of the Dunedin City Council on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 at 1:00 PM, Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers

Agenda – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 96.6 KB)

Report – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 172.7 KB)
Conduct Committee Report to Council

Resolutions passed at meeting of Dunedin City Council 28.4.15 (14. Conduct Committee Report to Council)

█ Download: Conduct Committee Resolution 28 April 2015

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, New Zealand, OAG, People, Police, Politics, SFO, What stadium

DCC Representation Review: Electoral wards and boundaries

### ODT Online Tue, 23 Sep 2014
Central ward questioned
By Chris Morris
Dunedin could consider scrapping its central ward – and even the need for some councillors – as part of a shake-up of its local body electoral system. However, exactly what – if anything – will replace the current arrangements remains up for debate, as the council searches for panel members to consider the alternatives. Dunedin’s representation review was required by law this term, but councillors at yesterday’s full council meeting voted to extend the deadline for recruiting panel members until November 3.
Read more

Report – Council – 22/09/2014 (PDF, 77.3 KB)
Representation Review – Update on Appointment of Review Team

DCC Ward and Community Board Maps 2013

[click to enlarge]
2013 Central Ward Boundary Map2013 Mosgiel Taieri Ward Boundary map2013 Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers Ward Boundary map

Related Posts and Comments:
26.6.14 LGNZ #blaggardliars
29.9.13 Alert: Dunedin voters —Mayors gain more powers
17.7.13 Dunedin, ‘small government’ —Calvert
8.6.13 DCC electoral candidates 2013
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
24.9.12 DCC against imposition of local government reforms
25.7.12 Local government change: council rates, core services, efficiencies
19.3.12 Local government reform
30.11.11 amalgamation, Anyone?
9.8.11 CRITICAL Dunedin City Council meeting #LarsenReport
26.3.10 Dunedin City moves to three-ward system
16.6.09 ‘Super ward’ + Stevenson chasing votes over apology (ODT)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, What stadium

Council appointments (rumbles)

ODT 1.11.13
Vandervis rejected other posts, including subcommittee role: Cull

While the detail might be considered “divisive”, the following email exchange is in the public’s interest. Readers can make up their own minds on the content and politics.

Received.
Friday, 1 November 2013 10:37 a.m.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:49:07 +1300
]To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: Appointments
Subject: Re: Appointments

Hi,

Clearly my long business and Council experience has been sidelined by Mayor Cull as all inside Council Committees positions were closed to me, not just the really influential Chair positions but all other Council Committee positions as well. This is what Mayor Cull meant when he said of positions of responsibility – ‘I have given you nothing’.
The supposed ‘roles’ outside Council Committees that have been offered have been roles of so little use or interest that the Mayor was having trouble getting any Councillor, experienced or otherwise, to go on them. I volunteered for three of these outside Council Committee ‘roles’ but again was denied all of them.
Many of these outside Council ‘roles’ have been recently scraped or numbers of Councillors on them reduced, recognising that they are largely a waste of Councillor’s time. In the past the Mayor has had trouble finding Councillors willing to serve on them, and then trouble getting Councillors to show up once they had agreed to attend. At least when I was on such outside Council committees like Olveston , Regent Theatre, Settlers Museum, etc my attendance record was second to none, and I have done my long stints on minor committees, inside and outside Council since 2004.
My three years on the Otago Settlers Museum outside Council Committee was particularly frustrating as I was unable to influence the waste of vast amounts being spent on ridiculous items like the $700,000 glasshouse for the AB Steam Locomotive with cheap reflective glass!, or the insincere pushing of an insane observation tower to boost other budgets.

The Mayor should make up his mind whether he stands by his statement that ‘I have given you nothing’ or by his other claim that he has offered me roles. He can not claim both. The ‘roles’ he now claims have been offered to me are are all outside Council Committees and of so little consequence that the Mayor can not even remember which ones he has offered me. There is nothing to ‘work hard’ at or points to prove in such outside Council roles offered. My record of hard work and attendance on Council stands second to none.

I do not recall the Grants subcommittee offer, but I would have rejected it because I have done Grants before and am opposed to the wholesale degradation of the Grants process which used to promote Community Projects when I was first elected in 2004, but now has become largely a rate-paid gravy-train for the well-connected.

Hopefully that fully answers the contradictory claims by Mayor Cull that he both has, and has not, given me nothing.

Kind regards,
Lee

On 31/10/13 9:54 AM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:

Hi,

A couple of follow-ups from your email.

1. You haven’t really directly addressed the second question in my original email (below) – how you can claim to be sidelined when you were offered roles, albeit ones you didn’t really want, and turned them down?

2. The mayor says you have, to some extent, sidelined yourself by declining roles you didn’t like. Would you not have been better to accept whatever you were offered, and work hard at it to prove a point, than say no?

3. The mayor says you were (either in writing or via staff) offered at least three roles – the Toitu board role, a spot on the grants subcommittee, and a third one he can’t recall. Do you recall the grants subcommittee offer? And, if so, why did you turn that down (my understanding is that subcommittee would be an internal role)?

Chris.

On 30/10/2013 6:40 PM, Lee Vandervis wrote:

Re: Appointments

I was refused all 3 outside appointments that I indicated I would be prepared to work at, as well as all possible inside appointments by Mayor Cull.
I was only belatedly offered Toitu [which I had already just served 3 years on] and one other reserve nothing type appointment because staff could not get anyone else to agree to serve on them.

Mayor Cull has been unusually true to his word when he said “I have given you nothing”. That he now tries to pretend he has given me something after all is laughable.

I do not just claim to be sidelined, but to have been personally abused by Mayor Cull who has accused both me and Cr Calvert on nationwide TV as ‘having shonky policies’ without saying what these are.
I have great ability and experience which the biggest-spending and money-wasting Infrastructure Services Committee desperately needs and now will not get as its Chair because of a petulant Mayor who can not bear being exposed or criticised, and has given the Chair to a well-meaning Councillor with irrelevant legal training and no engineering understanding.

I wanted the University role because I have strong University connections, knowledge and mutually beneficial ideas for the University/DCC relationship which has stagnated in recent years. My wife is a senior lecturer there, I still have staff relationships for when I got my degree there, I have been a provider of sound and lighting system to the University for 30 years [and lived in Dundas st for 15] and want to improve parking, 30 km safety zones, better conference business cooperation rather than the current competition, and get real Uni/DCC joint ventures happening.

I wanted Otago Museum because I have worked there [eg supplied Butterfly House and other sound] because it is a Committee I have never been on before, and because Dr. Ian Griffin is a brilliant bloke who is open to new ideas. We share a love of astronomy and technology which few other Councillors understand.

Gasworks is again a Committee I have not been on before, and the opportunities for what could be done there became evident in my time as Chair of the Heritage Fund, and Heritage Buildings re-use Committee. Love of technology and its history also make this attractive.

My time on the Toitu Board was unrewarding mainly because of a management [since moved on] that were impervious to suggestions or my input. The extraordinary amount of money that was not well spent on the Toitu development was kept out of reach in terms of information [especially by Graeme Hall] and then Linda Wigley. I always felt that I was being treated like the proverbial mushroom when trying to get better value for the enormous spend at Toitu.
I am unaware of being offered any 3rd role unless it was some reserve Committee that nobody wanted to go on and staff were trying to get anybody at all.

On 30/10/13 3:02 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:

Hi Lee,

You’re probably aware I’ve had released to me today some emails relating to your run-in with Mayor Cull over the appointments process. In particular I’ve had emails relating to the outside appointments process released. They show you went for three roles, including the University Council role, but also that you were offered (and turned down) the offer to continue in your Toitu board role. Cull has also told me, in a subsequent interview this afternoon, that you were offered at least two other outside appointments verbally, the grants subcommittee and another (which he couldn’t recall), but also turned them down.

I’m interested in your comments on all this, particularly given your comments last week about the Mayor wanting to “completely sideline” you.

Can you respond to the following by 5pm:

1. Why did you turn down the outside appointments?
2. How can you claim to be sidelined, when you are offered roles and reject them?
3. The Mayor says you have sidelined yourself – what is your response?
4. Why did you want the University Council role, when it is (I’m told) traditionally always taken by the Mayor of the day?
5. Why did you want the other two roles (Otago Museum and Gasworks)?
6. Why did you consider your time on the Toitu board “unrewarding”, and the offer to continue in that role “insulting”? Aren’t there other councillors that have also accepted roles they would rather not have?
7. What was the third role you were offered and turned down? Were there any others, and why did you say no?

Feel free to add anything else and I’ll take a look.

Cheers,

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

Above, Cr Vandervis says: I do not just claim to be sidelined, but to have been personally abused by Mayor Cull who has accused both me and Cr Calvert on nationwide TV as ‘having shonky policies’ without saying what these are.

[Interviewed by 3News before the elections] Mr Cull says he’s quietly confident he’ll get another term in office, and isn’t worried about his eight rivals. “Six of them have no public office experience, and the other two that do have a pretty shonky record at public office experience. You know, extreme, nutty policies.”

Mayor Cull screenshot [3 News 7.10.13] 2Screenshot —Mayor Cull (3News 7.10.13), read and view the item here.

Related Posts and Comments:
31.10.13 FYI Dunedin, through the post
29.10.13 DCC: First meeting, tidy or not
26.10.13 Mayors ‘more culpable for their council’s failings’
25.10.13 Dunedin: “no-growth city”
20.10.13 Doh, low growth for Dunedin
18.10.13 DCC: Final vote tally + St Clair boat ramp
13.10.13 Pressuring Cull and his GD Party . . .
29.9.13 Alert: Dunedin voters —Mayors gain more powers

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

32 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, What stadium

Local body elections: Voting papers due #Dunedin

The *calibre* of unknown candidates, known candidates, and all those “standing again” for the lack of transparency and non-accountability to continue at Dunedin City Council… is set to rack and torture all good voting citizens who want the council SORTED financially. Bankrupt DCC, we hear you say?

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Voting Papers Out Soon

This item was published on 18 Sep 2013.

Voting papers for the October local body elections will be arriving in letterboxes from Friday.

The Electoral Officer for the Dunedin City Council, the Otago Regional Council and the Southern District Health Board, Pam Jordan, says the elections are held by postal vote and voting papers will arrive from 20 September to 25 September.

Voting papers must be mailed back in time to be received by 12 noon on Election Day, Saturday 12 October.

If you have not received your voting papers by 26 September, you can cast a special vote. To get special voting papers posted out phone 03 477 4000 or email specialvotes @ dcc.govt.nz. Alternatively, people can visit the Special Voting Booth in the Plaza Meeting Room in the Civic Centre, which will be open from 20 September. The booth will be open Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 5pm, and also on the morning of 12 October.

The Dunedin City Council and Southern District Health Board elections will be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, while the Otago Regional Council will be elected under the First Past the Post (FPP) system.

Election information, including details about STV, is available at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/elections.

This year, names on the voting papers will be in random order for the DCC, ORC and SDHB. Each voting paper will be unique.

Contact Electoral Officer on 03 477 4000.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Museums, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Architecture + Women • New Zealand

Architecture + Women NZ screenshot 1

Updated post 26.10.14 at 6:57 p.m.
The following information is reproduced in the public interest.

Architectural Theory Review, 17:2-3, 280-298

LIMITED VISIBILITY – Portraits of Women Architects (PDF, 721 KB)
By Sarah Treadwell & Nicole Allan

Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2013

This paper considers the visibility of women architects across three New Zealand sites: the institutional architecture journal, the national architecture award system and a local website that allows for self-representation. The website, Architecture + Women, was set up in 2011 in anticipation of an exhibition of the work of New Zealand women architects planned for 2013 as an anniversary of an earlier event, ‘‘Constructive Agenda’’, held in 1993. The website accumulates images of women in New Zealand who identify as architects. The paper considers the portrayal of women architects in each of the three sites, juxtaposing a sociological viewpoint with the biographical, seen as distinct yet overlapping modes of representation. Five portraits from the website are selected for detailed discussion as they reflect upon representations of femininity, colonial encounters, nature and the limits of the discipline—issues that are persistent for women architects in New Zealand.

To cite this article:
Sarah Treadwell & Nicole Allan (2012): Limited Visibility: Portraits of Women Architects, Architectural Theory Review, 17:2-3, 280-298

Architectural Theory Review, founded at the University of Sydney in 1996, and now in its eighteenth year, is the pre-eminent journal of architectural theory in the Australasian region. Now published by Taylor and Francis in print and online, the journal is an international forum for generating, exchanging and reflecting on theory in and of architecture. All texts are subject to a rigorous process of blind peer review.

Sarah Treadwell is Associate Professor at the School of Architecture and Planning (National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries), University of Auckland. Sarah’s research investigates the representation of architecture in colonial and contemporary images. Motels, gender and volcanic conditions of ground are also subjects of interest. Sarah has published in various books and journals including Architectural Theory Review, Architectural Design, Space and Culture, and Interstices. Her book Revisiting Rangiatea was the outcome of participation in the Gordon H Brown Lecture Series in 2008. Professional association: NZIA

Nicole Allan is an Architectural Graduate Practicing. Nicole works in the Christchurch Studio of Warren and Mahoney architects.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZIA, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Urban design

You are here: Mapping Auckland — Auckland Museum Tamaki Paenga Hira

Maps capture fleeting moments in history. They reveal the knowledge, perspectives and plans of particular groups of people at specific moments in time.

You Are Here shows Auckland as a city that has been planned, designed and drawn many times over. See maps from the rich, vast collection in Auckland Museum’s library.

What did Auckland look like on paper 70 or even 170 years ago? How did early Aucklanders depict the space around them? And what stories do these maps have to tell?

Created by Auckland Museum, The University of Auckland and Unitec.

Now open | Auckland Museum
Pictorial Gallery (2nd floor)
Open daily, 10am – 5pm
FREE entry


Maps have real impact on the shape of the land. This short film plays in Auckland Museum’s You Are Here exhibition and shows how they reconfigured Auckland City’s waterfront — most dramatically at Freemans Bay. Film made by Lakshman Anandanayagam (www.linechecker.tv)
Concept researched by Solomon Mortimer.

http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/1632/*you-are-here—mapping-auckland

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Project management, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Elections: Local authorities’ representation

This thread has been created to absorb recent off-topic comments occurring in other threads.

The Editors.

****

An important message just to hand, sent to What if? anonymously, it says:

To Calvin, Peter and Russell

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

11 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, People, Politics

Dunedin City moves to three-ward system

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
MANA KĀWANATANGA Ā ROHE

Determination of representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Dunedin City Council to be held on 9 October 2010

Download:
1980346DA – Doc1 (Word document, dated 26 March 2010; 12 pages)

Go to item 40. for the Commission’s Determination.

****

THINK HARD

Does the determination lead to Dunedin residents having their democratic rights eroded as the Dunedin City Council adopts — or is forced by central government to adopt — council-controlled organisations (CCOs) for governance of council activities and finance, including the stewardship of council-held community assets?

As mentioned at What if? recently, there will be a vicious substantial loss of democracy for residents in the Auckland super-city. Dunedin City is not immune. The bulldozing through of the Otago stadium project gives us a strong basis for suspicion.

The October elections may land us in a heap of worse trouble. Starry-eyed idealists baying for a clearance of all existing councillors have to open their minds a little more. The devil(s) we know…

Residents must do their research, nominate strong election candidates, exercise their voting rights, and avoid burying heads in sand thinking they have no critical interest or responsibility in the affairs of community and local government.

Look where the shifting sands got us. A quaint place of darkness and flipflops, awash with sharp shells and bloodied feet: non transparent corporate behaviour from Dunedin City Council.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

14 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, Politics, Project management, Stadiums, What stadium

‘Super ward’ + Stevenson chasing votes over apology (ODT)

### ODT Online Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Super ward supported – now it’s over to the public
By David Loughrey
Plans for a “super ward” that could give voters a far greater say on which councillors represent the city have been supported by the Dunedin City Council. It is now the turn of the city’s voters to have their say on the issue before a final ruling is made.
Read more

Stevenson is prone to abstain from voting when the going gets tough; she isn’t backing the super ward idea. This councillor has served a long term and not picked up any chairing or senior responsibilities in all that time. She’s probably feeling a bit threatened by the prospect of representational change. And so she should.

What comes next?
June 22: Council to consider yesterday’s vote.
July 4 to August 4: Public consultation period.
September 15: Final council decision.
October 15: Close of appeal period.
April 10, 2010: Final date for Local Government Commission decision.

****

### ODT Online Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Stevenson apology sent to ‘third party’
By Chris Morris
Cr Teresa Stevenson has sent a second apology to Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin, but doubts it will be good enough.
Read more

This is nothing more than a bid on Stevenson’s part to attract voter sympathy – but actually we’re sick of it. This protracted stoush between Chin and Stevenson doesn’t deserve the exposure. Grow up.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

Calling all Dunedin City councillors

Cr Andrew Noone bravely took up the challenge to appear at the Port Chalmers public meeting.

It is rumoured that a meeting will be held in South Dunedin.

We invite all Councillors to hold public meetings in their Wards, to explain their stance on the stadium project to constituents.

Nothing more, nothing less. Let’s get to the heart of it.

Leave a comment

Filed under CST, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Inspiration, Politics, Site, Stadiums