Acklin firm wins seventh games deal

All DCC linked contracts should be open for public perusal. Who decided they should not? Secret bidding cannot be invoked under the Local Government Official Communication and Information Act 1987 Section 48 if public exposure of all bids is made clear when bids are called. But no doubt once again, faceless DCC staff will refuse to comment on this matter.

It is common in business not to release unsucessful tenders,and this is a business. I agree there is a tremendous pool of talent in Dunedin,from the very talented young artists who appear on the OXO CUBANS big night out,to the veterans of the Dunedin music scene, but, and this is where things are different. If the Masters Games was a showcase for Dunedin talent, fine, but it is not, it is the chance for 6000 people to let their hair down for 10 days/nights.

Have any of the people who are moaning actually been to the Games? I have attended seven Games in Dunedin and Wanganui and I can honestly say the entertainment has been 95% perfect for what the ocassion is.

As for farsighted's question, I do know what was included in the other tenders.

...same as last time?

There have now been 7 successive tenders granted to the same entity.  Without knowing what the other tenders are, since nothing has been made public, we have no way of assessing their respective qualities or whether or not there were repeat tenders from others.  So your point about others improving their tenders is just as invalid, as you have no way of knowing what they are.

We do however, have a fairly good indication (also from recent news reports) that the talent pool in the region is quite deep and for none of the alternatives to have been successful in the last 12 years is somewhat at odds with these reports.

Open tendering - publish list of all tenders and their respective submitted values, the shortlist under consideration, and the outcome - is the first step. 

In reply to emcq: You will find that Mr Acklin was given the okay to tender for RWC entertainment, no conflict of interest. There appears to be an organised campaign to discredit Mr Acklin by various members of the "public", or is it purely sour grapes of behalf of those who didn't get the tender. I find it rather laughable that people are going on about the awarding of these contracts to Mr Acklin. If the others were that good then they would surely have won them. I say to those who whinge and moan, come up with a better tender next time.

[Abridged]

I'm sorry, Drmusic "There was no conflict of interest, as stated in the original article" - says who? Acklin's council buddy, Bezett?  Who, coincidentally, has chaired the committee for each of Acklin's successful bids (of which Acklin has been a serving member for each)?  And yes, Acklin, did step down from the Games Committee - not several years ago when he started winning tenders, not even before the tenders were due this year (September 8th), but rather just before the announcement was made.  I personally knew about the result of the tender last week, so I don't know how Acklin couldn't have.  

Now why would he choose to step down just before winning yet another lucrative contract for his entertainment company?  Because he was just under scrutiny for winning the RWC entertainment tender?  Maybe because he's embroiled in the Octagon art scandal?  We could ask Lee Vandervis who resigned in disgust from the arts subcommittee, but, no, he's been sanctioned for revealing too much about what goes on behind council doors.(you'll note Vandervis sold off his business interests when he became a councillor).

And perhaps you should look up what a conflict of interest actually is...  Acklin has feet firmly in both camps, has long-standing relationships with all parties concerned, and should not (regardless of whether any impropriety actually took place) pursue business interests which directly coincide with his duties as an elected official. 

[Abridged]

emcq should actually get their facts right. The Council did not award the contract for the Entertainment for the Masters Games.There was no conflict of interest, as stated in the original article. Mr Acklin stepped down from his role.I also happened to know of one tender, and what was proposed would not have suited the Masters. It would appear that Mr Acklin is not allowed to pursue his business interests, unlike other councilors.

Autonomouse: What could it possibly say? The response is possibly muted because, for all we know, those who missed out don't want to be painted as spoilsports, even though they may have concerns about the process. Alternatively, they may feel that if they make a fuss this time there is no possibility of winning a future contract. The Acklin deal  gives the appearance of being a stitch up - something that would not happen if the process was totally transparent. Who were the other contenders? We have a right to know.

I see the rhetoric has started about the awarding of the NZ Masters Games to Bill Acklin Entertainments. I believe there is a severe case of sour grapes. The other tenders were obviously not good enough.

How many of the so-called experts have actually been to the Masters Games, which have a demographic of 30-65+, to see what the competitors like? With roughly 6000 competitors attending, 3000 of which do the "social" side of the Games, you can be assured that there are 95% who have a great time,a nd there will always be 5% who will moan, no matter who is playing.

Cronyism? No, just a very simple fact: the other tenders weren't good enough.

The council should be ashamed of itself.  The council should do itself a favour and disqualify Acklin's tender, citing the conflict of interest, and put the other offers forward for public consideration. 

I happen to know that one of the unsuccessful tenders was of exceptional quality, and it would indeed be very interesting to see who Acklin has managed to secure in his own to make his the 'unanimous' choice. [Abridged]

I too have heard the Acklin Band, which, in my experience, represents the lowest common denominator of the listening experience. However, this is Dunedin, and for many that is sufficient, especially when anaesthetised against the worst effects of the auditory onslaught by copious quantities of alcohol. There is no doubt, in my mind, that there must surely be much better groups existing in Dunedin, but which are not being heard. There is always an opening for such as the 'Acklin Sound'; in my youth, for example, it was provided by the Joe Brown organisation which didn't exactly scale the heady heights of the musical experience, either, although, no doubt, there are those who would beg to differ.

Lowest tender price is not, and never has been, the single most important factor for selection.

Your scenario has to include the possibility that an alternative tender was priced higher, but represented a better entertainment package.  That's a far more subjective decision and far harder to provoke "jumping up and down".

It seems that many think it strange that in the same issue we hear of the region's massive talent pool for the ODT Big Night In and the Masters Games contract has stayed the same for so long. 

I heard Cr Acklin's band play at the stadium opening.  They keep time, play in tune but it's bland.  They did manage to get the crowd on their feet though (by playing How Great Thou Art and the National Anthem). 

No cloak & dagger stuff here, just an assumption that if an alternate entertainment provider had put in a tender that was considerably less that Acklin entertainment's tender (which has been publically released), then you'd think that the said alternate entertainment provider would be jumping up and down and loudly voicing their displeasure through the multitude of mediums available to them.

No such mumerings have been forthcoming, so what does that say to you?

Who exactly is on this panel that has decided for the seventh time to award the contract to Cr Bill Acklin? We know Cr Bezett is on it as was Bill Acklin- till last week.

I think we're fogetting the competitors/audience here. There are athletes that return to Dunedin year after year to compete. We're subjecting them to the same old stuff year after year. They are bored. I've been told this by numerous entrants over the last few years. Show them the variety and diversity of the talent we have, not just 10 middle of the road covers bands. The only upside is that visitors will be forced to spend thier money at alternative venues. I like Bill, but it's looking a bit selfish now.

Once again, how on earth can there be any commercial sensitivity after a contract has been awarded as per Acklin? Has the legally required procedure been followed in this case? Was the reason for commercial sensitivity stated at a council meeting where the public was present, or could have been present? Council staff are loath to pass comment about commercial sensitivity . Why?

Autonmouse says "it's up to the alternate entertainment providers to
come forward, and the fact that they haven't leads me to
surmise that no injustice has taken place", which hints to me that he or she knows who the other contenders were and what price they put forward.  Please share, because the details of why the contract was awarded as it was are, at present, obscured by the usual claim of commercial sensitivity. [Abridged]

I'd say it's up to the alternate entertainment providers to come forward, and the fact that they haven't leads me to surmise that no injustice has taken place as if the alternates had tendered considerably less I'm sure we'd hear about it.    By the by, I've been subjected to Acklin's "entertainment" in the past, definitely not my cuppa tea.

I  am a musician in a band recently described at a DCC Octagon gig as iconic, who has once again been excluded from playing at the masters games due to not been on Bill Acklin's tender. I can't accept this decision was based on merit, and am reminded of the saying - "If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks, then it probably is a dog."

The Watcher seems to want a searchlight shone into another of the DCC cosy-looking arrangements.  I think TheWatcher will find that there are just as many reasons for the council and its various departments avoiding transparency, citing commercial sensitivity as an excuse, as there always were.  The faces may change but the reasons never die. 

As proof of his desire for "more transparency" that he was voted into office on, will Dave Cull insist that the value of the other two losing  bids plus the company names for Masters Games "entertainment" be divulged? It is impossible to visualise any reason for so-called commercial sensitivity about this contract.