Carisbrook discussion remains in private

3 weeks later your report shows up on the DCC web site - it certainly took its time.
I'm a little nonplussed by the graphic on page 3 which appears to show the souls of our children being sucked screaming into the stadium in some late-night bad horror movie sort of way.
Looking even more closely at the background landmarks it would seem that the stadium's been moved down to the wharf that Mr Harland so much wants to develop (either that or I'm looking at it backwards and you're planning on flooding George St).
I guess artists impressions are sometimes a bit off

You make it all sound like a time-share sale .... finding out information about the doings of our public institutions shouldn't involve arranging to listen to their propaganda first - part of the problem of course is that the stadium's being built by the CST, a quango with no public accountability. Try and ask them when they'll be filing their past year's accounts with the Trusts Office - I bet you they won't give you a date in their answer.

Easy. Get yourself a tour of the site either find out from a service club, citizens clubs if they have one arranged or ring and try and shirtail with one.
Nothings changed and all the info is out there. You must be referring to all the untruths that many on this blog enjoy spreading.

Honestly, what is the problem with allowing the public to hear or see the facts, whether it's meetings or the current stadium plans?
With a local body election months away it seems the less informed we are the better for some of the usual candidates. In particular, the plans for our stadium, especially when debate is raging on capacity and all Mr Farry can say is rubbish.
If I read the stadium capacity in the ODT as 30,000 again I will be spitting - the least they can do is properly state the facts

I would have thought that either might be a more accurate term, but never mind.

We must, however, separate procedures from 'debate' or 'opinion' on any matter.

Procedures are mostly required by statute. Others are traditional, but all are there for a reason.

In regard to "opinion", well I respect your views and the right, of course, to air them. In this case, those you express above essentially relate, of course, to accountability to the electors every three years.

No-one expressed it better than Edmund Burke, a major figure in modern Bristish political thought and who I once was very surprised to hear my successor as Mayor call "an Irish Potato Farmer"

In public life I have always stuck by his classic dictum that: "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you if he sacrifices it to your opinions".

One can only hope for a more literal debate as we head to October!

I guess it depends on which record. Although you may be lucky enough to have a paper copy of the minutes, citizens and ratespayers are still waiting for you to publish the minutes of the March meeting on the DCC web page - even though it occurred a week ago.

The "two latest" minutes I was referring to were the two latest sets published by the DCC Feb 8th and Nov 30th.

In some cities around the world they broadcast council meetings on local TV - I'd like to suggest again that you simply record all your meetings and provide them on YouTube the next day for citizens.

You say: : the latest 2 FSC meetings had a DVML report which was basically minuted as "Dave Davies gave a verbal report".

That is rather at odds with fact.

The most recent meeting of F&S was on Monday 15 March. I refer you to Item 3, Stadium Stakeholders Group Report. That report was in writing. Malcolm Farry attended and made brief comment. Mr. Davies was not present on this occasion.

Minutes are the formal records of proceedings and the decisions taken. They are not a verbatim account of proceedings. The supporting or background information is contained in reports or other papers attached to the agenda. Once considered they form part of the record of the meeting.

If you would like 'hard copies' of and particular reports and/or agenda papers, please contact Sandy Duncan, Administration Manager, DCC at 477 4000.

I trust this is helpful to you.

Richard WallsChair, Finance and StrategyDCC

Sadly the ODT saw fit to alter the meaning of what I had said in the above letter without noting that they had changed it - what I originally said was that I had actually attended meetings but having a job makes them hard to get to.

We can't all just zip down to the council during the day - perhaps you could start holding your meetings in the evenings when the public can attend?

Your committee's minutes also leave a lot to be desired in so far as keeping the public updated - the latest 2 FSC meetings had a DVML report which was basically minuted as "Dave Davies gave a verbal report": with nothing in the minutes about what he actually said. How about writing stuff down - or even better, record the meeting, throw it up on you-tube they'll do it for you for free.

Richard, No one doubts the competence with which you, if not most of your fellow councillors, discharge the purely procedural aspects of your council duties. Likewise, I have a feeling that many correspondents on this, and other sites, appreciate (and even have a grudging admiration for) the fact that you are prepared to get 'down and dirty' and instruct the 'great unwashed' in the errors of their ways.

However, that does not excuse, in any way, some of the positively bizarre decisions taken by council during the tenure of the current incumbents, and that is why a great many citizens and ratepayers wish them 'gone' in November, and replaced by new blood and new revitalised thinking which many feel is long overdue.

There is always the possibility that those who vote in a predominantly 'new' council, will usher into being a council of even less competence, although it is difficult to see that taking place.

Of course, everyone will remain coy about their candidature until after the first steel truss spanning the north and south extremities of the stadium is in place, at which time we are meant to stand and gape open-mouthed at what the present council has achieved on our behalf; and yes, we will stand open-mouthed, but not for the reasons the Mayor and council will be hoping.

By mid-year it will be even more abundantly obvious what a monstrous mistake it was to go ahead with this project. Wiser counsel further afield seems to be softening us up for a fact which some of the more perspicacious in our communities have known for some time, namely that a great financial bonanza from the World Cup is likely a delusion, and, in fact, it may well 'cost' New Zealand to host the event.

 I have a feeling that even Auckland, with the lion's share of the fixtures and likely all of those likely to make money, has gone a bit lukewarm on the prospect, and if that is the case, Dunedin, which has spent $200m plus and grovelled to Central Government for the finance to get them over an obstruction of their own making re private sector involvement, to secure a few insignificant crumbs, will likely be the laughing-stock of the country.

Let's face it, if it had ever been a viable business proposition, even demonstrated the potential to break even, the private sector would have been in like robber's dogs.

And as for fortunes in any way reliant on future performances of the Highlanders and similar sides 'mate! You're dreaming'. We simply haven't the catchment to make that possible, and once the big-money unions have been through the ranks, we will be forever lumbered with the 'dross'.

"The only things not public in regard to the stadium contract relate to contracts etc still to be let and price sensitive matters and on which it would be disadvantageous to disclose in advance," wrote Cr Walls. This is good news since it means that details of all contracts that have been let can be made public. And where matters had been price sensitive so disclosure could not be made public in advance, they can and in many people's opinion should, be made public as soon as "in advance" has passed.

This should apply not only to the stadium, of course, but to all matters involving money taken from the public as rates and other charges, including investments and the interest that they deliver. It is the perception of many that most of these investments, well-managed though they be, are no longer delivering to the many purposes that ratepayers want but are instead helping to fund the stadium while other opportunities are lost, even the opportunity to carry out core duties regarding sewage, storm water disposal, water delivery, the out of sight services on which we all rely.

That may be your perception but it is not the reality. What may be a list of items on a printed agenda may, in duration, be quite short. In fact, that is the norm.

**The Service Level Deed between council and the CSCT was amended by Council at its meeting on 14 December to reflect the change in responsibilities etc arising from the establishment of DVML. It was dealt with in non-public as it was, of course, then subject to negotiation with the Trust. The amended Deed signed by both parties was reported back to Council at its draft Annual Plan Meeting on 2 February. Although that was reported in the non-public section, the resolutions note that the Service Level Deed dated 27 January 2010 be released at a later date. I am checking whether that has been done or not. **

The figures relating to the CSCT are in the budgeted annual plans. As has been reported - again in public - they relate only to the responsibility/activity of the CSCT in regard to their responsibility to deliver the stadium to council as set out in the Service Level Deed.

All payments to contractors etc in regard to work on the stadium are processed by council, not the CSCT. Council management and staff deal with the detail and process payment, not the elected arm. Any exceptions within the established budget for the stadium must be reported to the Finance and Strategy Committee.

The tenders I was referring to relate to your earlier post and to those which council regularly deals with, i.e. for roading etc. Again, that is a management/staff responsibility, not one for the governance arm.

The only things not public in regard to the stadium contract relate to contracts etc still to be let and price sensitive matters and on which it would be disadvantageous to disclose in advance.

Progress reports are made to the Finance and Strategy Committee at its six-weekly meetings. The most recent was on Monday last, 15 March. My recollection is that this was subsequently reported in Tuesday or Wednesday's edition of this newspaper.

I invite you to attend some committee and council meetings and observe for yourself instead of relying on what are, understandably, condensed news reports.

I also observe that while you feel free to criticise council for things you disagree with (and I respect that), I have never read anything positive from you e.g. acknowledging the management of our investments and the 'dividend' it delivers to ratepayers - presumably including yourself - each year and which put Dunedin amongst the seven lowest councils for rating.

In the last financial year, only $100 (approximately) separated Dunedin and Christchurch (the lowest), the only other city that benefits from its range of investments as we do.

So, with due respect, how about opening your own window and letting some fresh air in? It's a lovely day! Now back to the cricket!

Richard Walls
Chair
Finance & Strategy - DCC

NB: The editing at about 6pm to the original post was to make minor amendments to two references and correct some spelling errors. (I should have done the post in draft form on MS Word and pasted it, the panel keeps jumping around)! I have also subsequently amended the paragraph marked ** to insert the correct title of the agreement the council has with the CSCT, the date of the council meeting and to update information in the original post.

And yet every set of minutes of your committee I've ever read shows it descending into secrecy for the third of a half of the business. I invite readers to check out the minutes themselves on the DCC's website. Since you're now publishing tenders let's see the tender and contract for the stadium - so far all you've done is released a copy with many of the figures whited out.
Let's see the whole thing - the same goes for your contract with the CST - we've never seen anything in writing describing how that quango relates to the council, nor have we ever seen a copy of the council's budget for the CST. Why not open the windows and let a little fresh air in?

The Statements of Intent of all council 'entities' (by which, I assume you mean the CCTO's and CCO's - in short, the companies ) submit their annual Statements of Intent to Council. Their six-monthly and annual reports are subject to audit by Audit NZ and again considered by Council. All are public documents and dealt with in public by council at Finance and Strategy Committee, as indeed was the case last Monday, when we considered the six monthly reports for the period ended 31 December 2009. Council transacts very little of business in non-public and where it does so, it is either because it involves other parties and/or would itself be financially disadvantaged by disclosing its negotiating position in advance. Figures are made public after any particular transaction is completed. This also applies to tenders.
Richard Walls
Chair Finance and Strategy,
DCC.

When the ratepayers are prevented by "commercial sensitivity" firewalls in the form of separate entities formed which do not (or, we speculate, because they do not) have to make their accounts and processes visible to us, the people who in the end have to pay, and all the other excuses for keeping us in the dark, speculation is all that is left. And it's uncanny how often speculation has turned out to be correct once the facts have been painfully dragged out into the daylight.

Surely it's the market that will set the price of the properties you want to sell, not how much you paid for them. You should use the market rather than try and stifle it.

I think the council's culture of secrecy goes too far. Making anything that involves money secret by default was not the intent of the Local Govt Act's clauses that allows it - in fact, they say that your should be acting as transparently as possible wherever you possibly can.

For example the council would do better when letting tenders or selling properties to use an open tendering system - publish all tenders online and allow better competing tenders to come in, or pending tenders to be revised when faced with a better competing bid. Keeping it all secret doesn't advantage the city at all as it's anti-competitive - even TradeMe does a better job of this stuff than the council does.

I'd like to know when the council started to care about the financial disadvantage to ratepayers. There didn't seem to be too much concern when the Stadium project was signed off or when the council bought Carisbrook.

Seriously though, thank-you for explaining the meeting background.

As Cr. Wilson noted in her reported comment, the sale of the Carisbrook properties is provided for in the current LTCCP once the lease held by the ORFU runs its course.There is a formal process to be followed under the Local Government Act if that is to change.

The Finance and Strategy Committee at its meeting yesterday, simply canvassed that position and other options that have been suggested or may present themselves in relation to the future of the properties.The discussion was held in non-public simply because the information before it included financial information which, if made public, would likely disadvantage council (and thus the ratepayer) in any commercial transaction to sell the properties.

A formal report will be on the public agenda for the next meeting of Finance and Strategy at its next meeting on Monday 26 April.Consultation with directly interested parties and the public will then follow.

Anything else is pure speculation.

Richard Walls

Chair, Finance and Strategy - DCC

So that mayor said 'no decision on the future use of Carisbrook would be made until after "extensive discussion and consultation"' but when the time comes it's all secret and behind doors. This is just business as usual as far as the mayor is concerned.

Cr Wilson is right, the council should be open and transparent - the people's business should be freely available to the people. Let's vote out these guys (and they are all guys) who continue to say one thing and do another.