Monday, 31 August 2020

Burn marks: Aurora line into contact with a 33,000V line owned by Talla Burn

 

Fried truck tyres left these marks


Richard Healey

post on Facebook

Monday 31 August 2020

Last Thursday a contractor on the Aurora network brought an isolated and earthed Aurora line into contact with a 33,000V line owned by Talla Burn generation livening up three trucks, the 11kV line and the consumer fusing.

Near miss is not an adequate phrase to cover this event. The images are some of the burn marks left by truck tires as the 19,000V traveling through the lines overcame the impedance of the tires to track to earth.

In the last couple of days Aurora have confirmed that:

1; They HAD NOT TOLD TALLA BURN that they were undertaking work close to their lines

2; After their line had caused the Talla Burn line to trip, they contacted Talla Burn to tell them the breaker connecting them to the network had opened - but STILL DID NOT TELL THEM THAT THEY HAD A CREW WORKING NEAR THEIR LINE.

3; The first contact from Aurora System Control to Talla Burn confirming that an incident involving an Aurora contractor took MORE THAN 40 MINUTES.

For people not involved in the electricity supply industry I should point out that knowing who is working near your lines is a fundamentally important element in ensuring the safety of those workers. You absolutely need to know that workers are present to avoid turning the power back on and getting them a second time.

Talla Burn confirm that they have operational control of the line and could have relivened at any moment after the first trip. Thank god Talla Burn do not have auto-reclose configured on the line. If that had been an Aurora line the chances that they would have reclosed it are very high indeed. That would have resulted in the worksite, once again, instantly reaching lethal voltage.

What Aurora HAVEN'T SAID is that 22 minutes after the fault Talla Burn discovered the fault themselves while patrolling the line. The dozen or so linemen standing around the worksite were a pretty good clue. Tallaburn rang Aurora GM of operations John Campbell - to be told that he knew about the location of fault and the presence of an Aurora contractor - but hadn't passed that knowledge on to Talla Burn, THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE LINE AND HAD OPERATIONAL CONTROL!

Just to underscore how good the communication skills of this "open and honest" company really are, Aurora then gave another contractor ( sister company Delta) the task of downloading data about the fault from the Talla Burn relays. Delta approached the independent engineer who had set up the protection and asked him to supply the data - WITHOUT SEEKING THE PERMISSION OF THE ASSET OWNER.

The engineer, quite rightly, referred them to Talla Burn - who refused the request while they do their own investigation.

In a stunning effort to confirm that they share Aurora's communication skills, contractor Connetics DID NOT inform Talla Burn that they were working near their lines, DID NOT inform Talla Burn when they contacted their lines and caused the fault and HAVE NOT contacted Talla Burn to this day to explain what happened, ask what damage they caused and - most importantly of all - discuss how this could be avoided!

Some other important information has surfaced about the fault in the last day. Watch this space.

  • Brendan Woods Can we have some comment on this major incident from the boss of Dunedin City Holdings. I bet no comment is the response.

  •  

    Sunday, 9 August 2020

    Diane Yeldon displays her faith in DCC Local Governance Statement

     This is quite a faith deficit, wouldn't you say?
     

    Diane Yeldon:

    DCC Local Governance Statement

    What the Council says it’s going to do.

    And what COUNCIL WATCHDOGS KEEP REMINDING THEM TO DO. 
     
    And reminding them that this is what they said they were going to. 
     
    And that they have a local governance statement. 
     
    And reminding them to read it. 
     
    And reminding them that I reminded them last year. 
     
    And the year before. 
     
    And that they have had extremely dodgy working parties in the past, one of which signed a memorandum of understanding which sure is a decision. 
     
    And that having a local governance statement is a matter of law and so is upholding it.

    =================================================================

    Diane Yeldon : No bull - this is what "WORKSHOPS" are, defined in DCC Standing Orders

    Diane Yeldon

    From DCC Standing Orders

    APPENDIX 9: WORKSHOPS

    Definition of workshop

    Workshops, however described, provide opportunities for members to discuss particular matters, receive briefings and provide guidance for officials. Workshops are not meetings and cannot be used to either make decisions or come to agreements that are then confirmed without the opportunity for meaningful debate at a formal meeting.


    Application of Standing Orders to workshops

    Standing Orders do not apply to workshops and briefings. The Chairperson or workshop organisers will decide how the workshop, briefing or working party should be conducted.


    Calling a workshop

    Workshops, briefings and working parties may be called by:

    (a) a resolution of the local authority or its committees
    (b) the Mayor,
    (c) a committee Chairperson or
    (d) the chief executive.


    Process for calling workshops

    The chief executive will give at least 24 hours' notice of the time and place of the workshop and the matters to be discussed at it. Notice may be given by whatever means are reasonable in the circumstances. Any notice given must expressly: '

    (a) state that the meeting is a workshop
    (b) advise the date, time and place
    (c) confirm that the meeting is primarily for the provision of information and discussion, and will not make any decisions or pass any resolutions.

    Public notice of a workshop is not required and workshops can be either open to the public or public excluded.

    Saturday, 8 August 2020

    "Move to rethink George St group falls flat" ODT Friday, 26 June 2020



    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/move-rethink-george-st-group-falls-flat

    Move to rethink George St group falls flat

    Andrew Whiley
    Andrew Whiley

    After a three-week delay, following a 10-5 vote, nothing has changed in the Dunedin City Council’s proposal for a George St advisory group.

    Cr Andrew Whiley successfully convinced his colleagues at a June 8 council meeting that more time was needed to allow for councillors’ input into a proposal for an advisory group to offer feedback on the planned multi-million dollar George St upgrade slated for next year....

    ...Cr Whiley said it was his intention to be able to workshop the proposal with councillors and council staff before a debate and decision at the June 30 meeting, but soon after the meeting the idea proved fruitless.

    "We were looking for a full-council workshop on it — and that was not going to happen," he said.

    "There was no desire from some councillors to attend a full workshop when it was raised.

    "If you have a workshop you want to have all 15 councillors there."

    In an opinion piece published in the Otago Daily Times this week, Cr Whiley wrote he did not believe the proposed membership of the group, "as it was detailed in the [June 8] council paper, truly reflects the appropriate mix of stakeholders".

    Notable exceptions included the Otago University Students’ Association, the council’s youth council and individual retailers.

    "None of the property owners in George St were included and the Automobile Association was there supposedly to represent all transport operators (including taxis, trucking and courier companies)."

    The proposal to be tabled at the June 30 meeting, published by the council yesterday, is identical.

    Mayor Aaron Hawkins said the council voted to defer the paper "which means the same paper comes to the next meeting unchanged".

    "During the meeting amendments can be made to it," he said.

    At the June 8 meeting, Cr Jules Radich said councillors’ input was "vitally important if our citizens are to see democracy in action".

    Yesterday, he said he was worried that without the workshop the discussion as to the appropriate membership would be reduced to a "brief few minutes".

    "What worries me is that many council meetings are not conducted in a spirit of discussion to achieve the best possible result, they’re conducted in a spirit of what we want, we control the agenda and this is how it will be."

    Cr Jim O’Malley, who as chairman of the infrastructure services and networks committee is slated to be part of the advisory group, said he understood the intent of the 10-5 vote was "there would be a workshop".

    "I think maybe it is an accurate interpretation of standing orders, but I don’t think it captured the intent of the reason it was moved to this meeting.

    "To just be laid on the table unchanged, I have a feeling that’s a very narrow interpretation of standing orders.

    "I felt there were groups missing and it would have been a more efficient way of communicating if we’d just talked at a workshop ... helped staff get a direction on what we were looking for in that group. We’ve done that before — to me, this is a narrow interpretation of standing orders, to the purpose of which, I’m not sure."

     

    Advertisement

    postanote_header_620_x_80.png

    postanote_620_x_25.jpg

    Add a comment

    Click here to view our guidelines on commenting.

    kathinka.dunediensis@gmail.com
    Content limited to 1200 characters, remaining: 1200

    Local journalism matters - now more than ever

    As the Covid-19 pandemic brings the world into uncharted waters, Otago Daily Times reporters and photographers continue to bring you the stories that matter. For more than 158 years our journalists have provided readers with local news you can trust. This is more important now than ever.

    As advertising drops off during the pandemic, support from our readers is crucial. You can help us continue to bring you news you can trust by becoming a supporter.

    Become a Supporter

    Diane Yeldon: "What if a majority of DCC Councillors get sick of NZ Green Party policy being promoted at city council level..."

    Diane was a frequent contributor to Elizabeth's "What If". Her reports of council meetings and her knowledge about procedures made for good reading. Here she makes some interesting observations about the behaviour of certain councillors and staff at meetings, along with concerns about distortions that have crept into local body governance.

    Diane Yeldon:

    And what if a majority of DCC Councillors get sick of NZ Green Party policy being promoted at city council level when they honestly believe it is not in the interests of the Dunedin residents and ratepayers towards whom they have a duty of care?
    Standing Orders provide a PARTIAL remedy. The Council cannot vote to remove the Mayor because the Mayor was elected in a separate election. 

    I think this electoral law should be changed and the Mayor should be elected by the Councillors.This is what happens on REGIONAL COUNCILS and it used to happen on County Councils too. It still happens with Community Boards. 

    This makes for much better representative democracy. At the moment in NZ, we have political parties picking off mayoralties because they are good cheap publicity for the party. This often results in war between the mayor and a number of the councillors, plus name-calling and accusations at council meetings. 

    Last triennium, I saw Cr Benson-Pope accuse Cr Mike Lord of voting a certain way ‘because he wanted his photo taken with the Prime Minister’. (John Key, at the time.) Such a remark is contrary to the Code of Conduct but under Mayor Cull’s mayoralty I don’t recall a Point of Order or Code of Conduct breach ever being upheld against Cr Benson-Pope who always seemed to me to vote the same way as Mayor Cull.( I guess they were political allies. )

    This was despite Cr Benson-Pope very often making extremely disparaging remarks of anyone who had a different view to him on any topic, including Treasury officials who BP said ‘made idiot decisions’. 

    So much for Council staff being protected against even the faintest criticism because of the supposed power imbalance and because they can’t answer back. (Some do, actually. At meetings, in response to councillors’ questions, some of them are unhelpful, disrespectful, uppity and sometimes downright rude. More often women for some reason. Especially to Cr Lee Vandervis

    You would almost think they had been briefed....but I digress.)

    No, council staff are protected from the slightest criticism of even reports they have written when local knowledge presented at public forum is likely to result in better decision making. I think this interpretation of ‘courtesy’ and ‘respect’ amounts to censorship but other public servants ( like Treasury officials) are apparently fair game. But for Cr Benson-Pope no doubt only when National is in Government. 

    You would think there was enough of this bickering in Parliament without dragging it into local government. I used to cringe with embarrassment for Dunedin when the former Councillor Hawkins interrogated staff giving reports at meetings with aggressive questions which ended with AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? just like Question Time at Parliament.

    Keep party politics out of local government!

    There needs to be an Amendment to the Local Electoral Act BANNING PARTY TICKETS. In fact, banning ALL TICKETS because once elected the law clearly requires councillors to act and decide independently, like jurors. 

    To caucus and plan voting cliques provides for back scratching and vote trading and is fundamentally dishonest, amounting to collusion.

    And the PURPOSE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED AGAIN as National did when they were Government. Hawkins and Laufiso ( both having stood as Green Party) havé publicly said at meetings that they are on council to put the world right BIG TIME - like fix climate change and sort out the historical grievances of colonialism. That is not what LOCAL government is for.

    Standing Orders make it possible for a Council to rid itself of a Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs appointed by a Mayor. 

    At least that’s a step in a democratic direction.

     

    APPENDIX 8: PROCESS FOR REMOVING A CHAIRPERSON AND DEPUTY MAYOR FROM OFFICE


    1 At a meeting that is in accordance with this clause, a territorial authority or regional council may remove its Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy Mayor from office.


    2 If a Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy mayor is removed from office at that meeting, the territorial authority or regional council may elect a new Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy mayor at that meeting.


    3 A meeting to remove a Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy Mayor may be called by:

    (a) a resolution of the territorial authority or regional council; or
    (b) a requisition in writing signed by the majority of the total membership of the territorial authority or regional council (excluding vacancies).

    4 A resolution or requisition must:

    (a) specify the day, time, and place at which the meeting is to be held and the business to be considered at the meeting; and
    (b) indicate whether or not, if the Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy Mayor is removed from office, a new Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy Mayor is to be elected at the meeting if a majority of the total membership of the territorial authority or regional council (excluding vacancies) so resolves.

    5 A resolution may not be made and a requisition may not be delivered less than 21 days before the day specified in the resolution or requisition for the meeting.


    6 The chief executive must give each member notice in writing of the day, time, place, and business of any meeting called under this clause not less than 14 days before the day specified in the resolution or requisition for the meeting.


    7 A resolution removing a Chairperson, deputy Chairperson, or deputy Mayor carries if a majority of the total membership of the territorial authority or regional council (excluding vacancies) votes in favour of the resolution.
    [cl. 18 Schedule 7, LGA 2002]

    dunedin.govt.nz

    First published on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/diane.yeldon.52/posts/320493725809527