Tag Archives: Sir John Hansen

DCHL & DVML: Call for directors

ODT 4.10.14 DCHL directors advert p21ODT 4.10.14 (page 21)

Is it our collective good fortune that “Don’t you know who I am?!?!” Sir John Hansen is ending his tenure as chairman for the sympatico boards of DVML and DVL?

Although, here is evidence that the Fubar Stadium GOES ON………..

We know public release of the Stadium Review initiated by DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose is pushed out until November. It’s all VERY messy, that nothing will DIE —regrouping the DVML board for the $20 million pa loss-making stadium won’t turn the structure into crushed aggregate and salvaged steel (for sale) at pumpkin hour.

A few bunnies will apply. We’ve had bunnies all along at DCHL —look what that’s cost Dunedin ratepayers and residents. Same applies for DVL and DVML. No change will happen while the stadium continues to drain the finances of Dunedin City Council under Liability Cull’s mayoralty of disasters and increased spending.

Remember this BS?

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
DCHL Names New Directors

This item was published on 31 Oct 2013

Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) has announced the appointment of two new directors to the parent company board and another two to its subsidiary company boards. More than 50 applications were received for the DCHL Board. […] DCHL Chair Graham Crombie says the new directors bring strengths that will add valuable skill sets to the boards they have been appointed to. “We needed people that could make informed business decisions, but at the same time complement the skill set of the directors already around the Board table. Following on from last year’s result we needed people comfortable working in a highly visible public arena to help us build on the excellent work done by the previous directors and maintain the forward momentum.”
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
30.9.14 DCHL financial result
25.9.14 DVML on Otago Rugby and Rod

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

24 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA

Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 24 Jun 6:20 p.m.

I am disappointed in the complete indifference of the local press regarding info I have sent them on the scandalous $1.3 million of new flatscreen TVs DVML bought when they already had 94 TVs and were already grossly unable to meet budgets. –Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:54 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [ODT; Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: stadium
Subject: Re: stadium

Hi Chris and Debbie,

My understanding is that mothballing the stadium is not being seriously considered, but that it should be to at least give us a sunk-costs base-line to recognise how much keeping the doors open is costing us.
The one-off cost of buying and paying the interest on the stadium is damaging enough with out the continuous massively subsidised ridiculous running costs.

It is a shame that DVML have been allowed to run as an out-of-control Council Trading Organisation for far too long, and that DCC failure to get DVML to operate responsibly as required by their Statement of Intent has encouraged profligate spending, such as buying $1.3 million of new flat screen TVs with fancy computer controls, when they already had 94 new flat screen TVs. [see attached DVML LGOIMA responses] Spending $1.2 million on unauthorized temporary seating, and buying an unauthorized specifically Council-denied growlight system [to keep the turf growing] are two other examples. Despite this the Mayor and other Councillors seem to be happy for years now to keep throwing millions at DVL/DVML.
I have often said that before we seriously consider closing the stadium doors we should strip DVL/DVML of their staff, directors and overheads, appoint a DCC in-house manager to run the stadium along Edgar Centre lines using volunteers including Rotary as was done with Carisbrook, fit a low-maintenance artificial turf to allow everyday use, and see how cheaply the stadium could really be run. Only then would we be in a position to decide whether keeping it open was possible long term.

I have sent original info re DVML’s profligate spending on newer TVs and their disposal of ‘old’ flat screens in separate emails.

Cheers,
Lee

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 1

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:59 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response and new questions
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response and new questions

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:45:59 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response and new questions

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response to your request in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 9 May 2014. Attached also is a record of the payments made by staff and Directors for the purchases of the second hand televisions.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Record of Payment (PDF 836 KB)
ClrVandervis030614 (PDF, 129 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 2:47 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response and new questions

Thank you Kim for Mr Davies responses to my questions.

Unfortunately some of my questions have not been answered.
Question 2 asks whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new Stadium TV software package that the existing 94 TVs were incompatible.
Can you please respond – yes or no – whether DVML realised they were buying a software package that was incompatible with the stadium existing 94 TVs?

Question 5 asks who was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”.
My ‘who’ question has not been answered – was it a management requirement lapse, or was it simply a staff member filing error, or some other subcontractor’s recording lapse?

Question 6 asks who was responsible for the damage causing seven TVs to be discarded? Does the “where no blame can be attributed” response mean that nobody was held responsible for the destruction of these seven TVs? Was any insurance claim made for the damaged TVs?

Question 7 requests copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs supplied to DVML staff and directors. Thank you for supply copies of invoices, but it is proof of payment original paperwork that I have asked for. Can you please forward copies of this ‘confirming payment was made’ paperwork?

Your response also raises some additional questions which I wish to pose now as an additional LGOIMA request for information:
TV sale invoices variously describe TVs as “new” “second-hand” or just as “TV”.

Question A – are the “new” TVs so described actually new, and if so why are these new TVs being sold so cheaply? Are the sold ‘new’ TVs from the original 94, or from the subsequent 165 TVs? Are the second-hand TVs from the original 94 or subsequent 165 TVs or both? Of the TVs sold to staff/directors that are neither described as new or second-hand, which were new and which were second-hand?

Question B – why do the TV sale invoices vaguely refer to a generic TV type and not specify the actual TV unit by way of model number or serial number as is required in “a description of the goods” on a GST invoice?

Question C – What is the total number of TVs now in the stadium, and how many are from the original 94 TVs and how many are from the more recent purchase of 165 TVs?

Thank you for the information that you have provided so far as it has helped to clarify some aspects of the $1.3 million cost of the second full stadium TV system excluding the original stadium 94 TVs system.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 2

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:07 +1200
To: Debbie Porteous [ODT], Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:02:38 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 1 April 2014 along with copies of invoices as requested.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Staff purchase invoices (PDF, 615 KB)
ClrVandervis290414 (PDF, 101 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2014 10:17 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim,

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”?
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 1/04/14 5:48 PM, “Kim Barnes” wrote:
Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

—— End of Forwarded Message
{See also correspondence via posts made on 3 April 2014. -Eds}

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
14.6.14 NZRU ‘hustles’ towns and cities to build stadiums
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[Punctuation in the string of correspondence lightly edited and highlighting added; all email addresses removed. -Eds]

32 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, What stadium

DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

Received from Lee Vandervis
Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:37 p.m.

Interesting to note how little of the below ended up in the ODT story!

—— Forwarded Message
From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:48:04 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

.
Attachments
ClrVandervis310314
Samsung-TV-invoice-1
Samsung-TV-invoice-2
Media Release 310314

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis’ reply, a further LGOIMA request:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:17:25 +1300
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis sent Kim Barnes’ email with attachments to Chris Morris [ODT] with this cover message:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:33:30 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

Hi Chris

Again as with DVML purchase of Turf Grow Lights which Councillors had decided were not to be bought, DVML disappoint at every turn in their spending and disposal of so many TVs.
They have taken an unacceptable 8 weeks to respond to my request to account for Stadium televisions whereabouts and to provide original purchase invoices.
It appears that they wish to blame an unidentified group or individual for buying the original 94 ‘old technology’ stadium TVs which they claim were unsuitable and that they have bought 165 newer TVs which are an “essential tool in any stadium”. I wish to know who decided to buy the first 94 TVs and on what advice, and whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible.
The 165 newer TVs costing $145,000+ are claimed by DVML to “provide increased revenue opportunities” because they can be operated by a ‘Cisco Stadium Vision software package’ allowing individual imaging.
DVML claim to have gone through an involved process to determine the value for sale of the first 94 ‘outdated’ TVs, but “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
28 of the original 94 TVs continue to be used around the stadium making a total now of 193 stadium TVs, more than double the original number.
7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been terminally damaged and who has been held responsible?
Sales of the original TVs have been made “to staff and two DVML board members, Sir John Hansen and Peter Stubbs”. I have asked to see original paperwork confirming payments by staff members, and payments by DVML Chairman Sir John Hansen and Board Member Peter Stubbs.

My request for confirmation of stadium TV whereabouts was made in response to public questions to me concerning purchasing accountability at the stadium.

I look forward to getting further answers to more questions raised by DVML’s unacceptably slow response.

Kind regards
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

DVML Letter (page merge) clrvandervis310314

Media Release 310314

Related Post and Comments:
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Flatscreen TV [pngimg.com AFP] 2OFF THE BACK OF A TRUCK | RECEIVING | POSSESSION
This story finally broke and not without its share of cover-up still in place. TVs for the boys. Ratepayers paid. Woops, no papertrail.

### ODT Online Thu, 3 Apr 2014
DVML defends TV sales to staff, board
By Chris Morris
A decision to sell surplus televisions at Forsyth Barr Stadium to the venue’s staff and board members is being defended by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd. The company, responding to Otago Daily Times questions, confirmed it sold 18 of the stadium’s older screens to DVML staff, board member Peter Stubbs and board chairman Sir John Hansen.
Read more

█ Stay tuned. More to come from deep inside DVML.

****

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 10:03 am

Posted today on McPravda’s comments in response to the latest DVML larrikin as reported in McPravda ….TVs this time. As I feel that its appearance there is unlikely, here it is:

“There is but one auction house in Dunedin, and I check its general goods auctions every week, and have done so for decades. As far as I know their nearest competitor is in Alexandra. I recall their sales of Carisbrook surplus items well.

I do not recall seeing bulk lots of high quality 26″-40″+ sized TVs offered for sale at this venue in the recent past. Or even individual ones that match this description. They usually have a good record of getting rid of stuff if the price is right and it looks like at $380 the price that they were prepared to accept was right – for SJH et al at least.

I do not doubt that the consignment records that would confirm their purported attempts to sell these items by public auction have also gone missing…..? Anyway, there’s always Trade Me – although how glass-fronted TVs that hang on the wall above head height get ‘badly scratched’ on a routine basis eludes me.”

Anyway one would have thought that ‘badly scratched’ second hand TVs were more of a student market – wouldn’t one?

It’s also odd that the DVML board appears to have had a precise knowledge of the availability of the company’s surplus TVs on the second-hand market, while at the same time being (apparently) completely ignorant of their previous CEO’s more-or-less concurrent availability on the same surplus/second-hand market!”

[ends]

****

Received from Anonymous
Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:30 a.m.

Stadium Flatscreen expanded text [refer ODT 3.4.14][ends]

****

Comment received from Russell Garbutt
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 11:09 am

This is yet another shameful episode in the long history of the stadium and everything that flows from it. The sense of entitlement by those in power is probably not surprising, but unless those that are sucking voraciously on the teats of the public purse for their own nourishment are dealt to, then nothing will change.

I don’t believe for an instant any of the PR crap that has come from DVML in recent or past days and this includes this nonsense of finding TV sets are incompatible to the system now installed at the Foobar.

The Cisco system does use touch screens for some things, but for God’s sake, ripping out nearly 100 HD TV sets which would have been high quality models and hocking them off to the affluent Board members etc at rock bottom prices is nothing short of institutionalised incompetence in my view. Where is the DVML asset register? Quite clearly what went on here and it doesn’t take a genius to realise that there will be lots of bum covering going on.

I don’t accept one word about these things being scratched – just crap!!! Hansen should front up and show us pictures of where he has installed his new TV sets, ditto with Stubbs. Might be difficult if he has on-sold….

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, ‘Money for jam…..fig jam’ [Guy Hedderwick story]
19.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner, theft or fraud?
17.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner on ratepayers
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
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 [see recent comments and historical links]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

17 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums