Basic questions arising for the City, unpublished by the newspaper

Received from John Evans
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 7:47 p.m.

—

From: John Evans
Date: Monday, January 16, 2017
Subject: KPI
To: ODT editor

The Editor, ODT

Sir,

We are often regaled by company directors, CEOs and bureaucrats with discourses on the importance of KPIs. KPIs?

Key Performance Indicators – one of many PR corporate speak Buzzwords.

Wikipedia’s definition is pretty broad but basically it means that certain measures designed by the company or board are measured against actual performances.

Recently, the term gained another meaning when KEY performance [was] reassessed in the light of John KEY’s resignation. Unfortunately his stellar career as Prime Minister seemed to be judged poorly by those political pundits doing the assessment.

The key word is Performance, the measure of which is judged in order to provide an increase in salary or measures which might lose the judged their position if they failed to meet the KPIs included as part of the employment contract.

The test is what performance is paramount and who is it paramount to.
These tests are important in worldwide businesses but is there a different reality in New Zealand? It seems to me that either the KPIs are set incorrectly or there is a disconnect because no one seems to fail, to not meet their predetermined KPIs.

[infront.com]

One example is the role of council lawyers. Why would council lawyers write in an employment contract a clause which gave the employee a golden parachute even if they failed to meet their KPIs? Or was it the employees themselves who wrote the KPIs for their own future benefit? Surely if this was so, the lawyers acting for the company or body they represent would refuse to condone the parachute for employees and directors after proven incompetence.

The Dunedin City Council and its management, and the council owned companies, are surely charged with KPIs and, one surmises, about the results of such indicators and the resultant effects on the council and its employees. Can we analyse a few actions of the council and what the KPIs may have been and whether they would meet them and perhaps the consequences of meeting them or not.

The first and most obvious one is the theft of 152+ cars.
What was the measure of acceptable theft? Was it 20 cars, 100 cars or was 150 cars sufficient to tip them over the edge. And as another example, what was the Police’s key indicator on this matter? Do they prosecute for the theft or conversion of 1 car or does it take 160 cars to prosecute somebody for being involved either in the theft or knowing receipt of a car or cars?

The next is the investment in land and development projects by Delta.
Was failure in one, two or three such projects acceptable or is the magic number 5 (Delta will do it again and we have not quite got there yet).

The Dunedin stadium KPIs. Is a running cost of some $20million acceptable as an annual loss to the ratepayers or should the losses be only $15million or shock horror only $5million. Or should the ratepayers be released from the financial burden which was never the choice of the majority?

Sewage Treatment KPI – Is it acceptable to process sewage to a point that it pollutes the ocean two kilometres out or are we entitled to potable water ex site at Tahuna?

Mudtank cleaning KPI – How many mudtanks cleaned would be an acceptable result, would a flood in South Dunedin suggest that measure was incorrect? Contractual performance and payment for same. Would a KPI for the DCC CEO include overall managing payments to contractors? If a contractor did not perform to those KPIs set within the mudtank cleaning contract, should the contractor be still paid?

Wastewater treatment – Is it an acceptable KPI for wastewater treatment that in high rainfall such overflows are discharged into the pristine Otago Harbour?

Delta KPI on pole replacement. Is 100 unreplaced tagged poles acceptable? Is 1000 acceptable? On suspect poles, is a KPI that the company changes so that they did not breach a previous KPI acceptable or should every company and council just change their KPIs to avoid failure, blame or the legal consequences?

Richard Healey, the “whistleblower” on Delta’s failures seems to have personal ‘built-in’ KPIs —including integrity, high quality job performance, peer safety and corporate responsibility. Just why do the CEO and directors’ KPIs apparently differ from these such that Healey has to resign for them to take note?

On Directors of the council owned companies, do their KPIs reflect their responsibility under the law or are they designed to protect the directors from prosecution under the law despite failure by other measures?

And where does the buck stop?

Just what are the KPIs upon which we judge the mayor, based? Is the only measurement his electability?

Are we the ratepayers not entitled to expect a KPI that includes retribution against failings in any DCC departments or DCHL companies? If we do not reward success and prosecute failure in some way are we not missing the whole point of Pavlov and his dogs? Should we not then close our prisons and let the perpetrators of violence, antisocial acts and any injustice roam free, surely this is the logical nett result of such an attitude of no judgement.

The analysis of John Key’s contribution would suggest that electability and performance may well be poles apart. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson we can learn from the errors of judgement of recent times in our city.

John P. Evans
Otakou

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

COMPLETE Dis-satisfaction with DCC, DCHL, DVML, DVL, Delta….

Fake it til you make it, and hey, don’t lift the marigolds.

Sorry Daaave, looks like a D for your council’s governance. —Actually, for the avoidance of euphemism, make that D- and lower for DIRE Performance, accompanying Drivel, and Diabolical treatment of Residents and Ratepayers in the aftermath of emergency situations.

Listening to Yes People and your dwindling voter base isn’t your best hope to resolve ongoing multimillion-dollar losses being sustained by a couple of the council-owned companies, to the point where the holding company led by chairman Crombie, fronts with a “qualified audit” only on presentation of its annual report(?) to Council.

[In July 2015 Graham Crombie was appointed to the Commerce Commission as an Associate Commissioner for a five year term.]

Damages to employment, liveability and opportunity in a No-growth city keep stacking.

—

“It is also yet another example of good public service jobs being lost from our smaller towns and cities.” –PSA spokeswoman

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
ACC jobs to go in Dunedin
By Vaughan Elder
After consulting with staff since June, the decision had been made to relocate all the roles over the next 12 to 18 months to the larger Christchurch office and have “one centre for consistent customer and rehabilitation services across the Southern region”.
Read more

****

Asked about people who continued to be negative about the city, he said: “Negativity is an attitude, it’s not a fact.”

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
Survey ‘shows Dunedin on right track’
By Vaughan Elder
A survey showing Dunedin residents feel increasingly positive about their city shows the city is on the “right track”, Mayor Dave Cull says. […] the annual survey was not all good news. Last year’s June flood was picked as a reason for increasing dissatisfaction with the city’s stormwater system [down 13 points to 43%]. Satisfaction rates also fell when it came to public toilets, the suitability of the city’s roads for cycling and the availability of parks in the central city.
Read more

[Chief executive Sue Bidrose] said some of the areas where there had been negative results this year and in past surveys correlated to negative media coverage in the Otago Daily Times.

*1577 survey responses from 5400 residents randomly selected from the electoral roll,

The Talking Head (without helmet, unprepared)

█ Dunedin City Council (media release)
Residents’ Opinion Survey released 12 Oct 2016. Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cdn.guardian.ng – marigold, tweaked by whatifdunedin

Meanwhile . . . . #SouthDunedin

Received from Douglas Field
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 at 1:06 p.m.

—

Press Release: Greater South Dunedin Community Group

MEDIA RELEASE
18 September 2016

South Dunedin to grill election candidates this week

South Dunedin has emerged as a significant issue in the upcoming local body elections and as a result two candidate forums for councillors and mayoral candidates have been organised this week by the Greater South Dunedin Community Group, acting chair of the Greater South Dunedin Community Group Philip Gilchrist said today.

The forum meetings will hosted in the Mayfair Theatre on Tuesday 20th and Wednesday 21 September from 6.30pm – 9pm in order to provide all candidates with an opportunity to provide their views on the challenges and opportunities for this important part of the city.

An electronic survey sent out to the candidates before the forums has drawn responses from 34 of the 44 candidates standing for the Dunedin City Council. We believe the large number of responses is a recognition that issues concerning the future of South Dunedin are high on their list of priorities.

At the forums, candidates will be asked a question and then given two minutes to respond, and there will also be about 90 minutes when questions can be asked of the candidates from the floor. Previous meetings that our group has hosted have prompted vigorous and relevant questioning from the public and it is expected that this meeting will provide the similar level of interaction as the people of South Dunedin are now, at last, having their voices heard. The June 2015 flood has certainly brought South Dunedin to New Zealand’s attention.

We are pleased to be hosting the event in the magnificent Mayfair Theatre, which is the significant Heritage Building in South Dunedin, Mr Gilchrist said.

█ We attach a link to the survey responses:
The results are un-edited and can be downloaded or read online.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xylrw1b16ciaet/AACcsRBhqCw1XpJRqVecerGHa?dl=0

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

The following letter has had names removed, except those previously cited by broadcast and print media (public domain). -Eds.

—

Received from Neil Johnstone
Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 11:41 p.m.

Subject: DCC and the LGOIMA

Message: I have read concerning comments on your site regarding DCC’s apparent failure to comply with its LGOIMA obligations. You may wish to post my account of my recent experience.

[begins]

Dunedin City Council took ten months to produce its second Infrastructure Report, entitled ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure During June 2015 Flood Event Follow-Up’ (Author: R. Stokes). On 28 January 2016 (still three months before the report surfaced), then DCC Group Manager Transport Ian McCabe told the Otago Daily Times “the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was robust, including an external peer review of its findings”. Mr McCabe went on to emphasise that “the report had been widened from an initial focus only on mudtank maintenance, and now also included a fresh look at the network’s design capacity”. That all seemed fair enough.

When the report was ultimately released in late April 2016, it contained no reference to any external (or other) peer review. However, when interviewed by John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme on April 22, shortly after the Report’s release, Mayor Cull repeatedly referenced “independent” peer review(s) as supporting (“parts of”) the Report’s content. Mr Cull stated that he didn’t know which parts of the report had been reviewed independently. “You would have to talk to her (Ms Stokes) about that,” he said. Presumably, therefore, he hadn’t seen the review(s) either.

On 17 May I sent a LGOIMA request to DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, asking for a copy of the review(s). On 20 May I received an acknowledgement from DCC which rather defeated the purpose of my request but, more importantly, indicated that I would receive a response asap, but within 20 working days. I immediately queried why it should take such a long time to simply send a copy of a recent review, and asked simply for confirmation whether the review actually existed.

This time I received an email from the Group Manager Corporate Services suggesting a “discussion” before they left for overseas. There was no mention of my straightforward query as to whether the review actually existed. I replied immediately, and asked again for a simple yes/no to that question. Again, the question was not answered.

A full month (the maximum allowable period of 20 working days having elapsed since my simple request) later, I received an email from DCC. They were able to report that they had received information from the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks thus: “The response to Mr Johnstone is that we have had a peer review done, however this is still in draft and yet to be finalised (as staff have been focusing on forward work demands, and we have staff away). Once the review is finalised it will be publicly released.” “Therefore we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available.”

I considered that response was unsatisfactory. The review, apparently under belated construction, was clearly not what I had repeatedly requested. I should by then have received the review referenced by Messrs McCabe (“external”) and Cull (“independent”), or received an acknowledgement that it did not exist.

Then on the evening of 6 July I was emailed by the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, a copy of a new review, seemingly hot off the press, and authored by Opus in Auckland. This obviously was not the review that I had requested back on 17 May, as all DCC personnel involved should have known.

On 9 July I wrote to Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, expressing my concerns. I asked the following key questions:

Why, almost two months after my original LGOIMA request, I had still not received an admission that the peer review sought did not in fact exist?
Or, alternatively, if it did exist, why had it not been provided?
Why it took a month after my initial request for me to be merely told (irrelevantly) that a (different) peer review was being prepared, but with no attempt to satisfy my simple, legitimate request?

Almost a week later, a DCC officer returned to the list of respondents. They advised that my (follow-up) enquiry was being treated as a new request, and (you all know the drill) would be dealt with as soon as possible, but within 20 working days of receipt at the latest.

Nineteen working days later I received an emailed response from a Manager Civic and Legal. None of the three questions (above) were answered. They stated that my enquiries had been answered as soon as possible, given the volume of other requests. But the most interesting part of their response reads as follows: “The reported reference in the ODT (Mr McCabe, cited 28 January) to the external peer review was actually a reference to work the Council was undertaking to investigate the performance of the mudtank maintenance contractor…..”

So external means internal in the DCC, and widening means narrowing?

If the manager had been informed correctly, then there was no external review. Why, in that case, was I not told that nearly three months ago? Why did the Mayor apparently believe there was an external (independent, to use his wording) peer review? Furthermore, why did DCC fail to answer my three questions above.

I could, of course, ask these questions of DCC via LGOIMA, but I could then only expect an interim response followed by 20 more working days of inaction and worse.

Instead I have initiated a series of complaints to the Ombudsman, and decided that the public should view yet another example of how our City Hall is operating.

My intent throughout has been to identify the true causes of the June 2015 flood, so that real solutions can be identified and “political” solutions avoided. I have no intention of stopping, despite DCC’s apparent resistance.

[ends]

—

Neil Johnstone is welcome to publish emails supporting his story; it appears most if not all of the emails he received pertain under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and therefore reside in public domain. However, the Ombudsmen are best to advise on these matters. In the meantime DCC is welcome to correct any factual errors, in the interests of accuracy and balance. -Eds.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

DCC: Snow White cause of substantial loss + DRAFT Annual Plan

Vestiges of Purity for ALL [ethical cleansing HITS town]

—

‘Some of the unfavourable variance because of divestment losses’

### ODT Online Wed, 30 Mar 2016
City pays cost for divesting
By Timothy Brown
Some of the Dunedin City Council’s divestment decisions have cost the city, it was revealed at yesterday’s council finance committee meeting. […] The council voted last May to scrap any investments the [Waipouri] fund had in the munitions, tobacco, fossil fuel extraction, gambling or pornography industries and to bar future investment in those industries. […] The fund had produced $783,000 in profit during the eight months to February 29. However, this was $1.657million down on the budgeted $2.44million profit.
Read more

█ Agenda – FIN – 29/03/2016 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
This agenda includes the reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Public Forum [page 4]
2 Apologies [4]
3 Confirmation of Agenda [4]
4 Declaration of Interest [5]

PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)

5 Financial Result – Period Ended 29 February 2016 [6]
This report provides a commentary of the financial performance of Council for the period ended 29 February 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the eight months to February was $5.878 million or $381k worse than budget.

6 Financial Result – Period Ended 31 January 2016 [31]
This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 January 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the seven months to January was $6.668 million or $36k worse than budget.

Related Posts and Comments:
26.3.16 Dunedin: Erosion issues at St Clair and Ocean Beach
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
27.12.15 Pop Mashup(s) + Independent UK…on attack to local democracy
21.11.15 Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
27.4.15 She’s right: “We are a very poor city.” —Cr Hilary Calvert
6.4.15 Energy, a little picture #wow
25.5.14 Whaleoil: Rodney Hide on Dunedin’s Luddite Council
21.1.14 Jints, this one’s forya
13.1.14 Taking to water like a duck on oil

****

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Annual Plan consultation begins

This item was published on 24 Mar 2016

Should we be spending more on economic development in Dunedin and/or boosting funding for community grants? These are some of the questions the Dunedin City Council is asking residents as part of its 2016/17 Annual Plan and budget consultation, which opens today.

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says recent changes to the law mean the Council is taking a different approach to how it seeks feedback from residents on what should be included in the 2016/17 Annual Plan: “Just last year we went through a rigorous process developing a 10 year Long Term Plan (LTP), which sets out the city’s financial and strategic path. This year we are asking the community to comment largely on things we are proposing to add or change.” Some of the proposed changes are things that have already been discussed with the community and agreed on, but were either not funded in the LTP or not funded beyond the current 2015/16 year. Examples include the funding proposed for GigCity, UNESCO City of Literature and Dunedin’s Arts and Culture and Environment Strategies.

Mr Cull says the planned increase in economic development resourcing is effectively a return of funding taken out several years ago because of budget constraints: “The proposed $790,000 increase in funding is largely community driven. One of the consistent messages emerging from residents is that job creation and business encouragement are vital for Dunedin. Our business sector is also telling us we need to market the city better to visitors and businesses.”

Funding has also been provided for investigations into South Dunedin groundwater/ sea level rise issues [WHAT ISSUES – WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ?], and to investigate coastal erosion in other areas. Other proposed funding includes an extra $120,000 for community grants because there are always more requests than money available.

These suggested changes can be achieved within the proposed 2.9% rates rise.

█ The consultation document is now available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP. Public consultation on the Annual Plan closes at 5pm on 20 April. People are encouraged to provide their feedback early and, if possible, use the online form.

A snapshot of what is proposed, presented in a map fold newsletter, will be delivered to every Dunedin household. Information will also be available at DCC service centres and libraries and at the Customer Services Agency in the Civic Centre. There will also be a public meeting and workshop, and six drop-in sessions with the opportunity for face-to-face discussion with Councillors. These will be held around the wider city during the consultation period.

█ Comments on the DCC Facebook page and tweets to @DnCityCouncil using #DunedinAP will also be considered as feedback. The consultation period will be followed by hearings and deliberations in May and a final Annual Plan will be adopted by the Council in June.

█ A range of supporting documents and an online submission form are available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP.

Contact The Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
23.2.16 Hold on! DCC Annual Plan 2016/17 #CommunityEngagement
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
12.9.15 Cr Kate ‘Cycleways’ Wilson —(disingenuous) fails constituents
22.8.15 DCC cycleway$ now tied to more ‘urban de$ign’ $pend, after reha$h…
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
24.6.15 DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)
29.5.15 Design alternatives to (pre-selected) bridge not canvassed by DCC
5.5.15 DCC financial position | DCC reply: “$20M cash on hand” #LGOIMA
4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation
5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact… | consolidated council debt
27.6.14 Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
17.11.13 Cull, MacTavish: (to borrow a phrase) “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: sisterlondon.com – SW + dwarves, tweaked by whatifdunedin
(many thanks to Disney)

Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood

█ PUBLIC MEETING – SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOOD
South Dunedin MP Clare Curran is convening a public meeting on Monday 7 March at 6:00 p.m. in the Nations Church Auditorium, 334 King Edward Street, to look at why South Dunedin “flooded” on 3 June last year. All Welcome.

—

Received from Jeff Dickie
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 8:09 p.m.

Message: Snapped Fulton Hogan diligently sucking for all they’re worth this afternoon in St David Street. Still. Probably better now than waiting for the anniversary!

Fulton Hogan for Hire, St David Street 25.2.16

—

Only recently, there was a comment to ODT from Phil Dowsett complaining of a sucker truck working in a Dunedin residential street at 6:30 a.m. on a Saturday.

What’s happening out there. Or.
Everywhere but not South Dunedin ?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

Dunedin City Council has extended the Further Submissions period for the second generation district plan (2GP) to Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 5pm.

All members of the public are eligible to make submissions on the Summary of Decisions Requested to the proposed 2GP.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

██ Have Your Say at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/submissions.html

██ Search for Summaries of Decisions Requested and Submissions at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/submit/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 16.2.16 DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]

Copy of DCC internal correspondence received.
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 7:01 a.m.

—

On 12/02/16 4:53 pm, “Simon Pickford” wrote:

Good afternoon,

A quick update on the 2GP: we have found a technical issue with the reports that were produced in response to the submissions on the 2GP. As a result the reports need to be reissued and this means that we are outside the 10 day minimum statutory period of the current consultation and will have to re-notify.

We are assessing whether there will be an impact on the timing of the 2GP hearings and the remaining consultation process, but it will require us to re-advertise our consultation period. We are updating the website and making sure the necessary adverts are in place.

Regards

Simon

Simon Pickford
General Manager Services and Development
Dunedin City Council

****

I forwarded this yesterday without knowledge of Mr Pickford’s email:

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 10:51 p.m.
To: Simon Pickford; Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose
Subject: FW: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear All

I received the below DCC email on 5 February, and was prepared to make a further submission before the closing date of 26 February 2016.

Today, confusion at the DCC website with regards to further submissions – given two updates provided.

The first said, in effect, that the closing date for further submissions would be put back [because of an internal stuff up] and the new closing date was going to be publicly notified. [I didn’t make a screenshot of the message]

This was followed by another, replacing the first, which said:

Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

This last made no reference to public notification of an extended closing date for further submissions.

Given the date of issue was 12/02/2016 this suggests that by now all submitters should have been emailed individually about something having gone wrong with the process and to await further information from DCC.

I hope the technical error which affects all those making further submissions is properly recognised and a public notice will be issued that extends the closing date for submissions.

Otherwise I imagine the Council will leave itself open to challenge.

Please could someone clarify how the process is to presume, and accurately.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Kerr

—

From: Teresa Gutteridge
Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:28 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear Elizabeth Kerr
Dear Submitter,
Please see the public notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested for the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan below.
It would be appreciated if you contacted the 2GP Team at the times and through the options laid out in the public notice rather than by responding to this email.
Yours Sincerely

Anna Johnson
City Development Manager

[ends]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC 2GP further submissions [update]

Updated post
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 at 5:36 p.m. Last updated 10:59 p.m.

Two updates were issued today by DCC on the 2GP further submission process.

In the first, DCC said it had withdrawn the 2GP Summary of Decisions, and the closing date for further submissions would be put back and publicly notified.

The second update made no reference to the closing date or public notification:

DCC says: Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

Awaiting clarification and advice from DCC.

—

Have your say
IGNORE THIS DATE – The Further submission period is open from Wednesday, 10 February to Friday, 26 February.

What can a further submission cover?
A further submission can only be made in support or opposition to a point raised in an original submission on the 2GP.

Who can make a further submission?
The RMA limits who can make further submissions to:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest
● any person that has an interest in the proposed plan greater than the interest that the general public has
● the local authority (the Dunedin City Council).

It provides an opportunity for people who may be affected by an original submission to have their views considered. You do not have to have made an original submission to participate. If you have made an original submission you do not need to repeat submission points made in that submission as they will already be considered.

Summary of decisions requested
The Summaries of Decisions Requested are a concise summary of the decisions requested in the submissions on the 2GP which closed on 24 November 2015. It is not the full or exact content of submissions. It is prepared to enable the further submission process which is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ The Summary of Decisions Requested and copies of all submissions will be available from midday Tuesday, 9 February.

Hard copies of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports will also be available for inspection at:
● 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday
● public libraries and/or service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

Submissions Map
The submissions map indicates the spatial location of submissions seeking a change to the proposed zoning (management zones only not overlay zones), new heritage precincts, or changes to scheduled items. It reflects the information in the submission point address field of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports. Through pop-ups, the map provides links to relevant submissions.

DISCLAIMER: This map has been prepared as an aid for people wanting to understand the scope of submissions related to an area. The accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and people should read original submissions. In some cases, the information contained in submissions was not detailed enough to accurately map the scope of the submission. In these cases, the mapping has been either omitted or approximated where possible.

How do I make a further submission?

Online submissions
The RMA requires further submissions to be in a prescribed form (Form 6). An easy way to make a submission is using the 2GP on-line submission system, which ensures submissions are in the prescribed form and allows you to link to specific submission points

Other ways to make a submission
Hard copies of the submission form and submission guidelines can be downloaded below or paper copies can be picked up at the 2GP drop-in centre or from the DCC Customer Services Agency located on the ground floor of the Civic Centre at 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

For written submissions
Post to: Further submission on Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058

Deliver to: Customer Services Agency, Dunedin City Council, Ground Floor, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

Email to: districtplan @ dcc.govt.nz

Serving a copy of further submissions on submitters
IMPORTANT: Any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that further submission on the person who made the original submission no later than five working days after lodging the further submission with the DCC. A copy of the addresses for service for all submitters is provided in the Submitter Details Report.

● DCC 2GP Have Your Say Page
● DCC 2GP Index Page

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more at What if? Dunedin, enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

2GP commissioner appears to tell Council the outcome before hearings commence #hazardzones

Cr David Benson-Pope is the chairman of the council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee.

This week Benson-Pope has been named as one of the councillor hearing commissioners for the Proposed 2GP.

At the full Council meeting held on Monday, 30 November last year, this report was tabled:

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553.9 KB)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event

In discussion of the item, Councillors provided individual views on low-lying land, flood conditions and future assistance for affected property owners.

Cr Benson-Pope was observed to say:
(confirmed by today’s YouTube release of the video record of the meeting)

2:54:38
“It is this Council’s policy that sea level rise and global warming exist, and I don’t think it’s useful for Councillors to keep propagating the myth that it’s all someone’s fantasy.”

Cr Benson-Pope continued:

2:58:47
“The other issue around this, of course …. is the fact that a lot of these issues are already being addressed in an incremental way over a longer term by the discussions that are happening now as part of the second generation plan, and I am hopeful as we all should be that the regulations and suggestions that are incorporated in that document will hold through the public process, so that management of the issue can be as good as it possibly can.”

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015

—

Cr Benson-Pope appears to be telling the Mayor and Councillors, and the general public, what in his view the outcome of the review of the district plan (2GP) should be.

Like the seasoned politician he is I expect the Councillor will look to the symantics and tell us that was not at all the impression he intended to give in the heat of the moment.

But, People, he said it. Let’s think about that. Predetermined.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses

Election Year : The following opinion is offered in the public interest. -Eds

“On almost every measure we provide a more extensive range of services for less money.” –Sue Bidrose

### ODT Online Sat, 30 Jan 2016
Dunedin rates value defended
By Vaughan Elder
Dunedin ratepayers are getting some of the best value for money in New Zealand, Dunedin City Council chief executive Sue Bidrose says. In response to questions from Cr Mike Lord during this week’s draft annual plan deliberations, chief executive Dr Bidrose said its residential rates – which in the 2015-16 year averaged $1996 per household – were in the lowest quarter in New Zealand and “certainly” the lowest among large cities.
Read more

█ ODT: Mayor defends rates increase

█ At Tuesday’s pre-Draft Annual Plan meeting Cr Hilary Calvert put a direct question – on the public’s behalf – to the group manager water and waste services about the mudtanks at South Dunedin, referring to these as “the hippopotamus in the room” (or some other water-based mammal)…. The question was circumnavigated and passed to the new group manager transport who similarly went sailing. Link

█ Delta in 2015 paid DCC a dividend of $2.5M. Without this in future years there will be significant rate rises each year. –Christchurch Driver Link

—

One for SB, Dave, Councillors and Staff…
shimmers, lightness, fairy-like proportion, ratings, foils to decorum, tens, the completely ethereal

EllieGouldingVEVO Published on Dec 9, 2015
Ellie Goulding – Army (Live from the Victoria’s Secret 2015 Fashion Show)
From the new album DELIRIUM [latest release]
When I’m with you, I’m standing with an army….

[We’re required to be wowed.]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
29.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision ● Some forensics
28.1.16 New Zealand local government T-shirt #haze #corruption
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
21.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision
● 21.1.16 DCC LTAP 2016/17 budget discussion #ultrahelpfulhints
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
12.1.16 Stone the freaking crows #SurfsUp #SeawallNightmares #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
8.1.16 Jafas, come hither…. it’s alright here if warped
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
15.12.15 Noble property subdivision aka Yaldhurst Village | Mortgagee Tender
21.9.15 DCC: Not shite (?) hitting the fan but DVL
20.7.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA #LGOIMA
1.4.15 Christchurch subdivisions: Heat gone?
24.3.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA
23.3.15 Noble property subdivision: “Denials suggest that we have not learned.”
17.3.15 DCC —Delta, Jacks Point Luggate II…. Noble property subdivision

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

hoopla words….

TheWeekndVEVO Published on Dec 9, 2015
The Weeknd – Can’t Feel My Face (Live From The Victoria’s Secret 2015 Fashion Show)

TheWeekndVEVO Published on Dec 9, 2015
The Weeknd – In The Night (Live From The Victoria’s Secret 2015 Fashion Show)

last word (valediction)

EllieGouldingVEVO Published on Dec 9, 2015
Love Me Like You Do – From “Fifty Shades Of Grey” (Live From The Victoria’s Secret 2015 Fashion Show)
From the new album DELIRIUM
Yeah, I’ll let you set the pace ’cause I’m not thinking straight

Santa Cull’s idea of standing orders 14.12.15 #xmasface

Mr Cull to Cr Vandervis: “You, sir, are a liar. Now leave.” [screenshot]

—

Texts received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 15 Dec 2015 at 7:48 a.m.

█ Message: Feel free to publicly contrast what I said to ODT reporter Chris Morris with what he said I said on today’s front page.

Lee, just checking – you planning on take big any action over the mayors comments today? Chris @ ODT

Not planning any action over Mayoral comments today because action over Mayor Cull previously defaming me as shonky’ finally got an unreserved apology from him but cost a lot of time and ratepayers money as did the farcical Code of Conduct sideshow. Shame that after all the evidence that I have provided especially what has been confirmed regarding my 2011 Citifleet allegations, that our new Procurement Policy still has not resulted in an independent Procurement manager position to oversee all individual managers’ contracting behaviour . Unfortunately my email programme died last Thursday and is still inoperative. Cheers Lee

—

REAL TIME
Otago Daily Times Published on Dec 14, 2015
Councillor Lee Vandervis asked to leave a DCC meeting

—

Exchange erupts on discussion of DCC’s new procurement policy and ‘historical’ kickbacks.

### ODT Online Tue, 15 Dec 2015
Cull, Vandervis cross swords at council meeting (+ video)
By Chris Morris
A furious bust-up saw Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull call Cr Lee Vandervis a liar and order him to leave yesterday’s Dunedin City Council meeting. The extraordinary scene saw both men on their feet, their voices raised as they roared over the top of each other, before Cr Vandervis packed up in silence and left with a parting shot.
Read more

█ Report – Council – 14/12/2015 (PDF, 143.8 KB)
Procurement Policy (Proposed), December 2015

—

Related Posts and Comments:
14.12.15 Epere arrested
14.12.15 ORC, DCC – must be the season, minus goodwill, plus fear! and generous pay!

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr (elf)

ORC, DCC – must be the season, minus goodwill, plus fear! and generous pay!

O me miserum, O Christmas Tree, WHYYYYY (Santa will look after us, won’t he)
THERE IS NO BULLYING, NOPE

—

The survey showed staff were particularly unhappy about the council’s executive team of five directors and Mr Bodeker.

### ODT Online Mon, 14 Dec 2015
Unhappy at ORC, staff say
By Vaughan Elder
Otago Regional Council’s chief executive has denied there is a “culture of fear” in the organisation after top management were singled out for criticism in a staff survey. Peter Bodeker, who was appointed chief executive in 2012, made the comments after the “2015 Employee Survey”, which was answered by 123 staff (95%), was leaked to the Otago Daily Times.
Read more

—

Proposal in response to failed attempts at super councils in the North Island.

### ODT Online Fri, 11 Dec 2015
Councils may share services
By David Loughrey
A proposal to amalgamate some services of the six Otago councils is not a move to a super council, mayors say. […] Under the proposed system, local representation would stay as it is, but areas from payroll to IT, legal services, water, wastewater and roading services could be shared.

—

Steady stream of resignations and redundancies taking its toll.

### ODT Online Thu, 3 Dec 2015
‘Culture of fear’ at DCC
By Chris Morris
Morale within the Dunedin City Council is taking a hammering as criticism and upheaval fuel a “culture of fear”, staff say. The concerns come from past and present staff, who have told the Otago Daily Times about the impact of constant restructuring, stretched budgets and redundancies.
Read more

—

Related Post and Comments:
3.12.15 DCC factory crew issues, ELT, CEO….

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: westword.com – Charlie Brown Christmas, re-coloured by whatifdunedin

DCC: South Dunedin flood | higher learning for chief executive

ODT health reporter Eileen Goodwin looks at the welfare of those adversely affected and speaks to health authorities about what they are doing to help.

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Oct 2015
It’s been ‘a constant battle’ since flood
By Eileen Goodwin
Months of stress and insurance hassles are taking a heavy toll on some people long after most have moved on from the June flood. […] The flood response lacked co-ordination, and [Aurora Health Centre GP Dr Jill McIlraith] says the likes of the health board and city council should have considered appointing a flood ombudsman or similar position as a central clearance point for three to six months.
Read more

****

Dr Bidrose said she had also faced a “pretty rough” first year in the role, grappling with the fallout from the Citifleet fraud.

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Oct 2015
Council boss’ UK trips supported
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has spent $36,000 sending chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose to leadership training courses at England’s prestigious Oxford University. Details of the four trips, which were supported by Mayor Dave Cull, were confirmed by Dr Bidrose last week, in response to Otago Daily Times questions.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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)

DCC rates increase, despicable 3.8%

### dunedintv.co.nz June 29, 2015 – 6:09pm
DCC to raise rates for the coming financial year
A rates rise is being implemented by the city council for the coming financial year. The council’s just adopted its long term plan, which sets out rates. That’s resulting in a 3.8% increase for the 2015/16 financial year, starting on Wednesday. The council previously set itself a 3% limit on annual rates increases, but big ticket items like the proposed Mosgiel swimming pool have put pressure on councillors.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

****

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Jun 2015
Long term plan to be decided
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council will sit today to decide on a long term plan that should result in a 3.8% rates rise when rates are set for the next financial year. What Mayor Dave Cull called “a bloody big agenda” will include debate on the Government’s Remuneration Authority review of councillors’ pay, under which Mr Cull’s pay will rise in the new financial year by 2.9% to $150,150, and councillors’ up 7.3% to $54,500.
Read more

—

█ Agenda – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 124.3 KB)

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Setting of Rates for 2015/16 Financial Year

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 96.4 KB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 6.5 MB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan – Introduction, Sections 1 and 2

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 14.6 MB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan – Sections 3 – 7

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 421.8 KB)
Management Report on the Audit of the LTP Consultation Document

█ Other Council Reports

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr