Lee Vandervis – lee@vandervision.co.nz

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 22 October 2019 at 8:29 PM
To: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Aaron Hawkins <Aaron.Hawkins@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>, Jemma Adamson <Jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz>, “Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members)” <council.2016-2019@dcc.govt.nz>, Jules Radich <julesradich@xtra.co.nz>, Sophie Barker <Sophie@albatross.org.nz>
Subject: Re: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests

Dear Sue and Dave,

As the email trail below records, I have for seven months been trying to get the original Report and associated Memos from our Council owned lines company Aurora written by the ex-Aurora Manager of the Accelerated Pole Replacement Program Godfrey Brosnan, which ex-Aurora’s Richard Healey assures me provides data, evaluation and comment on exceptionally poor productivity in the $60 million Accelerated Pole Replacement Program entirely at odds with the series of Pole Replacement information updates supplied at various intervals to Councillors over recent years.

In addition to not getting this information, even after repeated attempts and application to the Ombudsman, I have also not been able to get information on how Aurora intends to fund its on-going extraordinary deferred-maintenance-driven increasing renewals spending, given Aurora projections of declining interest costs as below, line 23 cost of financing.

The costs of pole replacement has gone from around $7,000 [already very high given largest pole material cost of well under $1,000] over several years to anything from $10,000 to $14,000 per pole, largely it seems as a result of having to import line-gangs from outside Dunedin and because of on-going preferred relationships with DELTA who used to get inflated contracts from Aurora prior to my push to get the companies separated/possibly sold, but years later still have preferred contractor status with now separate entity Aurora.

My disappointment at being denied Aurora Accelerated Pole Replacement information and evidence has been compounded by DCC lack of action despite my own evidence collection of the replacement of perfectly sound concrete and tanalised wooden power poles [see attached as stored at my farm] as alleged by Richard Healey, and detailed to Dave Tombs and many others at the DCC this year.
I have subsequently publicised evidence of this particular Aurora waste on my blog and on FaceBook and still nothing has been acknowledged by you, our CEO, or by staff.
I have failed to get the ODT interested in investigating the Accelerated Pole Replacement issues, with Sir Julian Smith being less than helpful.

DCC decades-long failure to control our Companies Aurora and DELTA continues despite the structural separation and management changes.
I have recently been told by a DELTA staff member that DELTA staff no longer have access the Aurora staff room, with its extraordinarily expensive near $11,000 coffee machine, indicating general management culture problems, in addition to the specific alleged waste of half of the costs of the $60 million Accelerated Pole Replacement Program.

What I believe is needed with urgency in addition to release of the Brosnan Accelerated Pole Replacement Reports and Memos, is a comprehensive truly independent investigation of Aurora and DELTA management and operations: contracting costs and productivity, with full disclosure to our Dunedin shareholders of past, current and future planned expenditure, costs, productivity, deferred maintenance, debt and any dividends.

Looking forward to hearing by return what you intend to do regarding our biggest asset/liability/threat to DCC economic sustainability.

Regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 4:47 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests

Dear Cr Vandervis

DCHL is responding on behalf of Aurora Energy Limited to the information request contained in your email of 6 July 2019.

Pole replacement report information

You have re-requested information related to Aurora Energy’s Accelerated Pole Programme which you say was prepared by a named contractor who worked for the company in 2018. Our previous response to you dated 28 June 2019 refers.

Aurora Energy has previously set out its reasons, why it considers it to be inappropriate to release the requested material or any material that is provided in confidence and / or is likely prejudice the commercial position of Aurora Energy in conducting its business. This decision is consistent with the company’s published Information Disclosure Policy.

The company has previously advised that, last year Dave Frow, an experienced engineer and Director of Aurora Energy, was engaged by the Aurora Energy Board to conduct a review and investigation into various claims made around the company’s Accelerated Pole Programme. This review concluded that the various claims and assertions made were unfounded and not supported by evidence. The investigation report did acknowledge that there was some scope to make more general process improvements and these recommendations were made available to the Aurora Energy Management team.

Aurora Energy would like to extend again its previously signalled offer to meet with you to share further details of this investigation report, on a strictly confidential basis, if it would assist you to better understand the overall situation. If you want to take up an opportunity to see a fuller copy of the report on that basis, please confirm to me.

Aurora Energy has also again expressed to us its concern around potential privacy breaches and confidential information being released and asks that you please advise if you have in fact sighted any of the material to which you refer.

Coffee machine

The Company has previously provided you with a summary of the purchase and running costs of its staff coffee machine. You have requested copies of the original invoices and these are attached. We trust that the information provided closes this matter.

Kind regards
Jemma Adams

Jemma Adams

General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz

50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Saturday, 6 July 2019 2:43 p.m.
To: Jemma Adams <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>; Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>; Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>; Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>; Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>; Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com) <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>; Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members) <council.2016-2019@oa.dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests

Dear Steve, Richard, and Jemma,

Your Information Disclosure Policy specifies that “Aurora Energy recognises that there is a positive correlation between effective and responsive stakeholder engagement and the high performance of its business.” Both are now in question.

You have for the second time as below, this time just within timeframe limits, refused to forward to me the requested information of assessments of your Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme by your ex- Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme Manager Godfrey Brosnan. You have instead sent me unrequested information from former Director David Frow.
Your claim that you can not send me the required information from Mr Brosnan because it might impact Mr Brosnan’s right to privacy does not convince.

Has David Frow no similar immunity to disclosure due to privacy? #1`

The privacy issue you claim appears to be an excuse to never forward any information from anyone in your organisation that you do not want to get out.

Have you asked your ex- Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme Manager Godfrey Brosnan for his permission to forward his requested Pole-Replacements Assessments Reports and Memos? #2
If he agrees to his Accelerated Pole Replacement Reports and Memos being forwarded, will you then forward them to me? #3

Effective stakeholder engagement is not possible when, as you have, failed to respond to information requests with any acknowledgment as per your publicly advertised Information Disclosure Policy, failed to respond within the 21 working days, and then on subsequent information re-request hid all requested information behind a catch-all privacy claim which makes a mockery of your Information Disclosure Policy.

Re your most expensive coffee machine, why have you not forwarded a copy of the original coffee machine invoice that I specifically requested? #4

Can you please forward this copy of original invoice by return, with urgency in the public interest? #5

Looking forward to receiving answers to #1#2#3#4 and to #5 by return as this invoice copy must be very easily forwarded.

Regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 4:33 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests

Dear Cr Vandervis

DCHL is responding on behalf of Aurora Energy Limited to the information request contained in your email of 31 May 2019.

As you know, Aurora Energy  is not subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). It has, however adopted an Information Disclosure Policy (see here), which rests on a similar principle of transparency and adopts similar processes for the handling of information requests. Your request has been considered under this policy and we (DCHL) are providing this response on behalf of Aurora Energy.

Pole replacement report information

Your information request refers specifically to material which you understand was written, and provided to the company, by an individual whom you name.  Aurora Energy has expressed to us its concern around potential privacy breaches and confidential information being released. The company has asked you to please advise if you have in fact sighted the material you refer to.

Aurora Energy has sought advice on privacy considerations of responding to your request. The company has been advised that confirming (or otherwise) that the person you name did or did not submit the material described would be a breach of privacy. Therefore, while this response confirms that Aurora did receive material of a relevant nature, this response does not confirm that it was provided by the person you name (see Information Disclosure Policy Appendix 1 (x)).

Last year, an individual approached Aurora’s Chair seeking to provide material under the protections of the Protected Disclosures Act. The Chair considered that some of the pre-conditions under that Act did not apply and raised that with the informant. In the interests of transparency the informant was notified that the Board would proceed to investigate the matter as if a protected disclosure had been made.

Aurora Energy has decided to withhold the material that individual provided, for several reasons:

• Under Clause 3.2 of the company’s Protected Disclosures Policy an informant is entitled to have their identity protected and Aurora Energy is satisfied that it is not possible to release the material to you without compromising that expectation.
• Appendix 1(g)(i) of the Information Disclosure Policy also applies, as releasing material provided in confidence would be likely to prejudice the future supply of such information.
• Separately, the nature of the material is such that the privacy interests of other individuals on Aurora’s staff would also be compromised by its release.

However, consistent with Aurora Energy’s commitment to transparency, the company wishes to provide you general information about the concerns which were raised and about how those concerns were addressed.

Please find attached an extract from the conclusion summary of the investigation report of those concerns (“Preliminary Report on Investigation into 2018 Pole Programme”), prepared on behalf of the Board by its former director Dave Frow.

The Report was considered by the Aurora Energy Board at its meeting of 29 August 2018.  The Board was satisfied that the report provided a good basis on which to determine matters and although the terms of Reference had allowed for the possibility of further work on the issues it was concluded that none was required. Accordingly although marked draft, and described as preliminary, this report was accepted by the Board as sufficient to conclude its investigations into the matters raised.

Aurora Energy trusts that the information set out above and in the attached extract from the relevant investigation conducted in 2018 appropriately addresses your inquiry.

Aurora Energy would also be willing to meet with you to share further details of the investigation report with you, on a strictly confidential basis, if it would assist you to better understand the overall situation.  This would necessarily be a redacted version of the report in order to protect the privacy of individuals including Aurora Energy staff. If you want to take up an opportunity to see a fuller copy of the report on that basis please confirm to me.

Coffee machine

Your email also requested information about Aurora Energy’s purchase of a staff coffee machine.

Aurora Energy’s Halsey Street office coffee machine was purchased in February 2018. The investment cost was $9,348 (excluding GST). Its monthly depreciation cost is $130 and the book value as at the end of April 2019 was $7,400. The ongoing monthly costs to operate are approximately $1,622 per month, which is made up of milk, coffee beans and chocolate powder. This equates to approximately 72c per staff member per day.

Aurora Energy are according priority to the day to day wellbeing of its 121 Halsey St staff, especially given the company’s current workload, and to making the company an attractive place to work. The company is actively seeking to recruit and retain top quality staff. Their office is in an industrial area, and includes the Control Room, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Aurora Energy disagree with the description of their management culture as “self-serving”.

I trust this information addresses your request.

Kind regards
Jemma Adams

Jemma Adams

General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz

50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2019 5:26 p.m.
To: Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>; Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>; Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com) <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>; Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>; Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>; Jemma Adams <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>; Richard Healey <rjh@netcasterz.com>; Richard Saunders <Richard.Saunders@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests

Hi Richard and Steve,

I note I have yet to get an explanantion of why you did not comply with your own information response policy of acknowledging my request for information within 48 Hours, and not replying within 21 working days.

A belated response from Jemma Adams at DCHL has asked for more detail regarding the specific pole-replacement reports that I wish to see.

An ex-Aurora employee Richard Healey has confirmed that there was a report and memos detailing a fraught pole-replacement program written by your pole-replacement director Godfrey Brosnan, and that in it and in associated letters and memos he highlighted unacceptably low-productivity, replacement of many poles that still had useful life, poor planning, and unacceptably low production rates. I would like to see copies of these memos and reports, on a public information basis, or on a confidential to me basis if necessary.

Mr Healey also confirms that a self-serving culture in Aurora management is illustrated by the alleged purchase of an extraordinarily expensive coffee machine [$17,000+?], with extraordinary monthly running costs rumoured to be near 4 figures.

Can you please forward copies of the original purchase documentation showing how much was paid for Aurora’s most expensive coffee machine, along with copies of invoices detailing several months’ running costs for the machine.

Looking forward to rapid responses this time, in the public interest.

Cr. Lee Vandervis

From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 3:08 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast

Dear Cr Vandervis

Aurora Energy passed your email below to Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, as per the agreed protocol of channelling shareholder correspondence with DCHL group companies through the holdings company.  We apologise for the delay in responding to you.

Please find below information from Aurora Energy in response to your questions.

We have also received your email this morning in relation to the cable ducts under the bus hub. We will co-ordinate with Aurora Energy and hope to respond to you by close of business tomorrow.

Kind regards
Jemma

1. Financial forecasts

What is your projected debt level projected to be over each of the coming 5 years?

Term debt forecasts for the three years ending 30 June 2022 were provided in the company’s draft 2020 Statement of Intent, and are re-stated below for ease of reference. As noted at the time, these forecasts were an emerging view and are subject to change again in the final document to be released by 30 June 2019.

To make these forecasts work, what increases in line charges have been assumed in each of the coming 5 years?

A wide range of revenue and expenditure inputs go into Aurora’s debt forecasts. Line charge increases are an area of particular uncertainty, as they derive from the price path determined for Aurora Energy by the Commerce Commission. Later this year, the Commerce Commission will be resetting the default price path (DPP) for all regulated electricity distribution businesses, including Aurora Energy, and that will determine our maximum allowable line charge revenue from 1 April 2020.

Aurora Energy also plans to apply to the Commerce Commission for a customised price path (CPP) for the five years from 1 April 2021.  As part of this CPP application we will set out our proposed expenditure plans for the CPP period and the expected impact on the line charges consumers pay. The Commerce Commission, following consultation with consumers and independent verification, will then set Aurora Energy’s expenditure allowances and maximum allowable line charge revenue under the CPP.

Those two Commerce Commission determinations will allow Aurora Energy to forecast five year line charge increases with more certainty. Those forecasts will be made publicly available through the 2021 and 2022 Statement of Intents, and in the case of the CPP, as noted, will involve consultation with consumers as part of the process.

Please note that the cost of finance line (line 23) of our Schedule 11a Report on Forecast Capital Expenditure only reflects the finance costs we forecast to be capitalised (under Financial Reporting Standards) into the cost of network assets we construct.

2. Pole programme

Aurora Energy regularly receives a range of advice and reports in relation to its fleet of power poles. Aurora has provided information in response to your questions below; they would require more detail in order to be able to identify a specific report.  Aurora believes the most relevant, and comprehensive, one in relation to your questions is WSP’s independent engineering review of the network published last November 2018. (WSP’s report is available in full on Aurora’s website here http://www.auroraenergy.co.nz/about/independent-review/.)

WSP carried out an engineering and risk assessment across all major network asset fleets, including power poles. In its report, WSP estimated there were 1,397 poles that presented a high risk and required remediation out of a total of 54,049 poles on the Aurora Energy network (see page 73 of the report). Their expert assessment was based on data analysis and in-field inspections including sample testing and drone inspections.

In the context of your broader question, on the drivers and cost of pole replacement, you refer to your previous questions on the Butler St concrete poles, which Aurora replaced early last year. By way of background to this work, the initial driver for the work on Butler Street was a severely compromised red tagged wooden pole. On pre-inspection at site the contractor noted issues with an adjacent concrete structure which was also red tagged (ie: we are not permitted to change load on a red tagged pole if it is adjacent to a pole that is being replaced so this concrete pole also needed to be replaced at the same time). The pole testing information Aurora had available at the time also indicated that there were a number of other red tagged concrete poles on Butler Street and a decision was made to replace them as part of the same job. This was considered to be the prudent response both from a risk perspective and in order to minimise the frequency and duration of supply interruptions to customers.

Aurora Energy’s ongoing pole renewal programme continues to focus on reducing the backlog of poles in need of priority replacement or reinforcement. The forward pole programme is set out in the annual Asset Management Plan and is publicly available on our website here http://www.auroraenergy.co.nz/disclosures/.

Aurora Energy’s urgent priorities are to address the backlog of red-tagged poles and test poles in high criticality areas and they are making steady progress. By the end of March 2019, Aurora had reduced the backlog of ~1000 red tagged poles (as reported in the 2018 Asset Management Plan as at 4 October 2018) to ~200. Given the age and asset health of the pole fleet, Aurora will continue to identify poles requiring replacement at an elevated rate over the next three years. The current total of red-tagged poles is ~500 including the ~200 poles already identified plus ~300 new discoveries from testing.

In relation to the costs of pole replacement, economies of scale are more easily achieved when building new sections of overhead lines. There are fewer opportunities for savings when replacing individual poles where the primary cost drivers are the complexity of the pole structure, network configuration and location.

Pole replacement costs can vary according to a range of factors, for example the complexity of the structure that is being replaced (e.g. in-line or tee-off pole, single or multiple circuits, low or high voltage), what network equipment it supports (e.g. fuses, switchgear), its location (e.g. ease of access, ground conditions), type of pole (e.g. steel, concrete or wooden) and size of pole (e.g. height, single or two-pole structure).

Jemma Adams

General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz

50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: 1 April 2019 at 9:21:05 PM NZDT
To: Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>, Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: “Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members)” <council.2016-2019@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast

Hi Steve and Richard,

Looking at your projected cost of financing [line 23] which diminishes to nothing in March 2024, and given your continued substantial Capex spend [line 27] which does not decrease over this 5 year period, what is your projected debt level projected to be over each of the coming 5 years?
To make these forecasts work, what increases in line charges have been assumed in each of the coming 5 years?

I understand that you have had an internal report from a senior staff member that addresses the issues of replaced poles and how many actually needed replacing [remember my questions over the Butler st concrete poles which were all replaced] and what the costs of pole replacement have risen to despite hoped for economies of scale with so many being done.

Can you please forward a copy of this pole-replacement report?

Looking forward to prompt replies,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

NZTA’s extraordinary decision to reclassify Limes as not a motor vehicle when they are a vehicle with a motor defied explanation. They should have been classified as mo-ped and not allowed on footpaths, as they were prior to Lime’s request in 2018.

Getting Limes off the footpath is the solution to an NZTA-created problem in my view, and France has done it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50189279

A DCC Deputy Chair position is a Councillor novice opportunity to sit in the Chair’s position in the unlikely event of the Chair being unavailable.
It carries no responsibility or opportunity to contribute in any meaningful way.
Deputy Chair is simply an empty title liberally handed out to give novice Councillors hope that they might be in a queue for real Mayoral promotion.

The Chairs under Mayor Cull have precooked Council agendas in influential ‘Chairs meetings’, and controlled Committee meetings, and get well paid for all this extra ‘work’.

I was Deputy Chair of Infrastructure Services many years ago when Andrew Noone was Chair, but was never allowed to attend a Chairs’ meeting.

A Chair of any of the main DCC Committees is therefore a real position of responsibility and influence, which neither Mayor Cull nor Hawkins has allowed me.
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/no-leadership-role-vandervis
Mayor Hawkins claims to value diversity and inclusiveness, saying divergent views around the Council table is healthy. By excluding Dunedin’s highest polling Councillor from the inner circle of Chairs, Mayor Hawkins continues the hypocrisy of saying one thing, while doing its opposite.
 

The Mayoralty is the position that can influence so many local Government issues and processes. What will Mayor Hawkins change?

Mayor Hawkins asked me what I would have done as Mayor in a wide-ranging and pleasant discussion. One of my plans which I relayed to him was to get rid of the Council Chamber platforms that raised CEO, minutes and presenting DCC staff above the level of Councillors, and to be a Mayor that abandoned the elevated throne for a Councillor level seat at the head of the big Council table, creating a physically level debating environment, rather than having Mayor and staff always talking down to Councillors. Little Mayor Cull would never dream of abandoning his high-chair, but Mayor Hawkins seems keen on reducing the elected member’s hierarchy, remuneration differences, and A-team/B-team issues. His choice of Deputy Mayor will indicate how much he values voter representation and Councillor experience over towing a party line.
I would also have made a number of changes to standing orders, including scraping the awkward requirement for speaking Councillors to stand, while all other DCC staff and Mayor could speak while remaining seated.
Mayor Hawkins replied that there were some traditions worth keeping like the Mayoral oil painting, with which I agreed, but the talking down to Councillors and having to stand traditions have long been symbolic of an elevated Bureaucracy wagging the dog of our so-called Democracy.
Opportunities abound for our new Mayor Hawkins to use his pivotal position to improve DCC decision-making.

Radio One Duel – listen here

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/informal-poll-points-duel

DCC lost Commuter Parking that I have long complained of but might be regained with social media pressure…

DCC Parking Manager claims “DCC does not have space to create 200 temporary parks…” – ODT today…

Again Mayor Cull shuts down appropriate questions asked at the appropriate time.

Email received yesterday as below, again well outside the legally required date to answer a question under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, again no answer as to WHY this motion received low priority for over 2 years, and again another version of ‘NO copy of the draft Unitary Council report was SENT to the ORC’ – it now appears that DCC CEO Bidrose HAND DELIVERED the draft Unitary Council report herself to the ORC but it was NOT COMPLETELY VIEWED BY ORC CEO Bodeker!

The now suppressed draft Unitary Council report that I have belatedly been allowed to view runs to 14 pages and sets out all the procedural steps for the formation of a Unitary Council plus some sparse redacted staff comment.

From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 4 July 2019 at 5:06 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, “Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members)” <council.2016-2019@dcc.govt.nz>, Official Information <officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Urgently required answers to Unitary Council report related questions
Dear Lee
I refer to your e-mail of 27 May 2019 which is attached below and I apologise for the delay in responding. I have copied your questions and provided responses to each question using your original numbering.
The responses are as follows:
1, why have you still not said why this particular report received such low priority? Does your answer to 4 imply that this low prioritisation decision was the CEO’s? Why “was no date aimed for, for the report to go to Council.”? These remain pivotal and unanswered questions.
Questions 1 and 4 were answered at the Council meeting on 28 May 2019 and so in LGOIMA terms the information is now publicly available pursuant to section 17 (d) of LGOIMA. The link for the recording is below and discussion that provides the answer to your questions begins at 1.25.03 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ46R_RZ36w&feature=youtu.be
4 does not answer the obvious question as to why the work was not done prior to August 2018. Please answer, as a more specified LGOIMA question, why this work was not done for 20 months prior to August 2018.
As advised in my response to question 1, there were other major projects which impacted on staff time, and after speaking to Committee Chairs in 2017, the report was scheduled for completion in 2018. Then the PGF work, requiring close collaboration with ORC, began.
8 – Was the draft version of the Unitary Council report viewed by, or sent to, anyone else other than senior DCC staff? Specifically was it viewed by, or sent to, the Mayor or any DCC Councillors?
No
9 interim equivocal answer not accepted by me, as a reliable source of information confirms that a copy of the draft Unitary Council report has been viewed by senior ORC staff.
10 Please confirm unequivocally whether or not the draft Unitary Council report was shown by DCC staff to ORC staff, whether officially through the proper channels, or unofficially without any DCC record of the transfer of information?
Questions 9 and 10
The report was never shown to any ORC staff member or elected member.
The DCC CEO and the ORC’s CEO of the time (Peter Bodeker) did discuss the Unitary Council process and his views on process. This was at a regular meeting between them, held on 30 March 2017. The former CEO of the ORC did not receive a copy of the draft report, although Dr Bidrose had an early draft of the “process of becoming a unitary authority” with her at that meeting among a selection of other papers. The draft report, which on 30 March 2017, was a high level outline focussed on process, was physically on the table during their discussion, along with a range of other papers. It was therefore technically shown to Mr Bodeker. However, he did not read the report although he did view the outline of what he referred to as “a table of contents”. Mr Bodeker has further confirmed that neither Dr Bidrose or any other staff member gave him or sent him a copy of the draft report. The current CEO of the ORC (Sarah Gardner) has also confirmed that she never saw or was sent a copy of the draft report.
I have cc’ed the reply to those recipients of your original email and to the LGOIMA team for noting the reply.
Regards
Sandy

On 27/05/2019, at 9:39 PM, Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz> wrote:
Thank you for your answers as below Sandy.
Regarding question
1, why have you still not said why this particular report received such low priority? Does your answer to 4 imply that this low prioritisation decision was the CEO’s? Why “was no date aimed for, for the report to go to Council.”? These remain pivotal and unanswered questions.
2 & 3 are answered by your attachment thank you
4 does not answer the obvious question as to why the work was not done prior to August 2018. Please answer, as a more specified LGOIMA question, why this work was not done for 20 months prior to August 2018. Your suggestion that “In August 2018 Councillors gave feedback agreeing to the work being done after the PGF (especially waterfront) work was completed “ is untrue in my case at least. I never gave feedback or agreed that the work be done after the PGF informally or otherwise. I did agree that the release of the report could be delayed at that time because of some suggested extreme ORC sensitivity while a Waterfront property deal was being negotiated.
This decision was in any event outside our proper decision-making framework. Having the CEO sidling up to individual Councillors over a cuppa suggesting the convenience of a delay in releasing the report in no way authorises staff to not do the work of duly confirmed resolution of Council.
5,6,&7 answers accepted
8 interim equivocal answer accepted, given time constraint, but an unequivocal answer is still sought under LGOIMA within LGOIMA time frames.
9 interim equivocal answer not accepted by me, as a reliable source of information confirms that a copy of the draft Unitary Council report has been viewed by senior ORC staff.
10 new LGOIMA request. Please confirm unequivocally whether or not the draft Unitary Council report was shown by DCC staff to ORC staff, whether officially through the proper channels, or unofficially without any DCC record of the transfer of information? I accept that this new LGOIMA request can only reasonably be actioned within normal LGOIMA 21 working day timeframes.
Looking forward to getting all the answers sought within 21 working days.
Kind regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

Looking back at early emails sent regarding Unitary Council possibilities:

Imagine Unitary Dunedin [with apologies to John Lennon]

Imagine there’s one rates bill,
It’s easy if you try
One group of Councillors to vote for
And rates that aren’t so high
Imagine all Dunedin, building the same way

Imagine no duplication
It isn’t hard to do
One environmental set of guidelines
No fundamentalism too
Imagine all our citizens, with permits from one place

You may say we are dreamers
But we’re not the only ones
I hope some day you’ll vote Unitary
And then Dunedin can be as one

Imagine that there’s public transport
Roads and parking all run by the same
Bureaucracy with no division
Harbourside roads stores with the same aim
Imagine Port Otago, main port for the South

You may say we are dreamers
But we’re not the only ones
I hope some day you’ll vote Unitary
And then Dunedin will be as one

LV25/1/17

Sensational sun and sand dunes at Sandfly Bay today…

From those who have read my supposedly vitriolic and “harassment, tantamount to abuse and bullying” emails, the first three public responses…

I have been asked why I have voted against this year’s DCC 5% rate increase on top of last year’s 7% increase. Some of the answers are in this video clip from the DCC Annual Plan meeting.

Home ownership is not usually about daring physical feats but nobody’s told outspoken city councillor Lee Vandervis. Kim Dungey reports.

Source: Labour of love | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News

Lee Vandervis knows that people either love him or loathe him and he doesn’t care. Kim Dungey finds out what drives Dunedin’s most controversial city councillor.

Source: Fighting city hall | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News