Diane Yeldon:
DCC Local Governance Statement
What the Council says it’s going to do.And what COUNCIL WATCHDOGS KEEP REMINDING THEM TO DO.
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.

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."
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 SupporterAnd
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]
Sue Bidrose reminds me of my favourite sister-in-law. I’ve got eight of them so it’s more than my life’s worth to let the other seven know who tops the list. Suffice it to say, Sue’s the one with the most intellectual, emotional and funny smarts. She’s got them all in bucket loads.
“I’ve been looking at your LinkedIn profile,” I start, innocuously, in a mild ice-breaking kind of way. “Oh, blimey!,” she says, as though I’d said something amazing and daringly dangerous. And off we go: her life a rollicking good tale of wanting to draw Antarctic plankton for a living, going walkabout in Africa and managing with old-fashioned honest gusto.
I’d already spotted Local Government Magazine placed conspicuously on top of a pile of other magazines on my way into her office. I’m still not sure if that was stage-managed for my benefit or − as editors like to imagine − the world is chock-full of organisations displaying their work. Still, it was a friendly precursor to the warm welcome I receive. For Sue fair bounces across the room to greet me and there’s no let-up in the conversation.
Maybe her knack of putting people at ease stems from her background as a psychologist, counsellor and mediator. In any case, she readily admits she tries to unlock issues by focusing on what makes individuals tick.
“You know the saying, ‘if you’ve only got a hammer then everything looks like a nail’? There’s some truth in that,” she says. “For me, everything is a people problem.”
Sue reckons some of the best advice for a local government CE is to keep a personal perspective in any dispute, problem or complaint. That holds equally true when working with councillors, community and fellow council officers, she says.
I’d hazard a guess that her positive focus on people has been a handy tool ever since she first sat down in the CE’s chair in November 2013. For within a few weeks of taking over from former CE Paul Orders she set in train a process that unearthed a historic fraud at the council that has dominated publicity about her tenure ever since.
“Paul had spent a lot of time focusing on the financial position of the council, the CCOs and the [Forsyth Barr] stadium,” she says. “As he left he said to me, ‘now your work begins on the council itself − there’s a lot of systems and process work here that’s needed’.”
SYSTEMS
Sue started to tackle legacy systems that had lumped responsibilities together. One person, for instance, had responsibility for purchasing, selling, insuring and keeping the asset register and there weren’t the appropriate checks and balances in place, she says.
“And we didn’t have a centralised contracts database, for example, which meant we had instances where members of staff were rolling over contracts outside of their delegated authority and nobody knew.”
She got the ball rolling and sat down with new chief financial officer Grant McKenzie to work through a list of the processes in most urgent need of attention.
“When he asked for an independent assessment in some of the areas of separation of duties,” she says, “that’s how we uncovered the fraud.”
In May last year vehicle fleet unit team leader Brent Bachop died suddenly, his death referred to the coroner. Three days later Dunedin City Council engaged Deloitte to investigate what appeared to be a discrepancy in the number of its Citifleet vehicles.
At its heart was an alleged fraud totalling more than $1.5 million and centering on the council receiving no proceeds from the sale of 152 of its fleet vehicles. The alleged fraud dated back more than a decade.
The matter escalated in August when, after Deloitte completed its review, a formal complaint was laid with the police who were asked to investigate any matters arising from the report.
And for many months, Sue was caught between public and media cries for more information and a request by police not to release the Deloitte report until they had completed their own investigations.
That’s since been resolved: a redacted version of the Deloitte Dunedin City Council Project Lewis – Investigation Report going public in the last few working days before Christmas.
In a press statement outlining the Deloitte report, Sue says it’s clear that a “single person committed the fraud in a number of different ways over an extended period of time”.
Dunedin Clutha Waitaki area commander inspector Jason Guthrie says the police investigation will be subject to a final review early this year.
Sue says she lost sleep on quite a number of occasions over the whole episode. A Southland Times “scoop” calling on her to resign was “pretty hard” to take.
“When you’ve got a new chief executive and they uncover a 10- or 20-year-old fraud within several weeks of taking on the job you generally pat them on the shoulder,” she says. “You don’t usually ask them to quit.
“That lost me some sleep in terms of my own personal reputation. But all you can do when you’re a CE is you know people are going to throw eggs and you’ve got to act with your own integrity. And that carries me through quite well. It’s about having a public service ethical compass and I’m comfortable with where mine points.”
ACTION
Practically, for much of last year she’s been facing down the issue on two fronts – first, by looking at both cultural and leadership initiatives designed to clarify what is and isn’t okay, and, second, enshrining a series of new checks and balances into council processes.
The cultural stuff includes everything from how officers should handle any gifts they may be offered and (former) perks such as cheap entry to council swimming pools or discounts at art gallery shops. And there are much clearer rules, for example, about when someone can or cannot take a council vehicle home.
She talked it all through with the Auditor-General and the new guidelines are based on the way they and central government departments deal with these issues.
“There are a lot of these changes underway. Some of this is around our attitude to perks and public service ethic and what it means when you’re spending someone else’s money.”
The checks and balances tighten up items such as council’s contracts and interests registers, declarations of interest, and the formal processes around separation of duties and cash handling.
“Look, the vast bulk of my staff are fantastic,” says Sue, “but it’s about all of us just being a little bit more aware.”
As far as possible, she’s also tried to front-foot and share her learnings on how to create a fraud-resistant council: among other activities speaking at SOLGM’s mid-year CEOs’ forum and at the group’s annual summit which was held on her home turf of Dunedin at the end of last year.
Most of the staff are now on board with the changes, she says, which is a useful measure of success.
Nevertheless, it’s been a hard year for Dunedin City Council. “The fraud, and the ripples from it, has made it so difficult for a lot of people,” she says.
“The parking wardens get a hard time from members of the public saying, ‘ah, I bet you nicked a car’ or the building consent people get teased about it. We’re all over it. I’m over it. We’re all over being teased about whether we stole a car. It’s bloody awful.”
FINANCES
I can’t help wondering how different our conversation would have been if there hadn’t been any fraud allegations for her to unearth and how she might have been better remembered for her other work last year.
She’s proud that, for the first time in more than a dozen years, last financial year council paid off more debt than it took on. And that’s right across the entire council family, including all CCOs as a whole, the much-debated Forsyth Barr Stadium and council itself.
The driving force behind that, she says, was a lot of “bloody hard work” that started at the time she first got there.
“The first thing I did was go through [the finances] and say ‘we’re gonna run into trouble, we can’t keep having the rates rises, we need to take out all the discretionary capex and we need to have a conversation with our community to say ‘okay we’ve done some fabulous things, done a wonderful redesign of the town hall, we’ve built Toitu- Otago Settlers Museum, we’ve got a fantastic $100 million wastewater treatment, we’ve got the stadium… actually, now is the time to pay the bill.’
“We need to get ourselves in hand, stop having eight/nine/10 percent rates rising because the community is at the end of its limit and we need to live within our means. But at the same time we’ve got to create a city that’s vibrant and that people want to live in.”
She says she’s neither particularly egocentric nor especially ambitious. Other people have described her as “fair but no-nonsense” and say she’s well-regarded in local government circles. Sue says she’d be proud to have been called either of those things.
“Wally, who was my head of marketing in my last council used to call me an iron fist in a velvet glove. I’m quite comfortable with that because I’m really clear on issues like public service ethic – there’s no grey line for me. Undermining a councillor, or a council wish, is always a no-no for me. Always.”
And the velvet glove, bit? “That’s always about the people. We’re all flawed individuals doing our best and people make mistakes.”
And that, she says, is understandable as long as you’re then prepared to look at what you’ve done wrong, work out how not to do it again and put it right.
She says she’s “no kind of oracle” with a particular message to impart to the wider world of local government. Then she encourages others to revel in the “joy and privilege” of working with a great group of elected people.
“You might not always agree with them but they’re the ones who’ve been picked to represent that community by that community and – whether you individually like them or not − you owe them your respect and allegiance. That’s the lovely part of the job. That’s the exciting part for me.”
Find out more
To read a redacted copy of Deloitte’s Dunedin City Council Project Lewis – Investigation Report go to www.dunedin.govt.nz/deloittereport. Some parts of this report have been changed for privacy reasons.
"Dr Bidrose made headlines last year when it emerged she had tried to turn down a $57,000 pay rise, designed to bring her in line with her male counterparts across the country.
She also agreed to a hefty pay cut for six months this year as
councils nationwide grappled with the economic fallout of Covid-19." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/419225/dunedin-city-council-chief-executive-sue-bidrose-resigns-to-lead-agresearch
and I'm whisked back in time, remembering various scary drivers back in my hitch-hiking days.
...
Dunedin Mayor Aaron Hawkins said the cost of the programme — subsidised by the NZ Transport Agency to a tune of 90% — had been ‘‘a small price to pay’’ for the precautionary measures.
‘‘It hasn’t been a huge commitment that we made that proved to be unnecessary,’’ he said.
The ‘‘visceral’’ response the council’s measures had evoked among city residents though had been ‘‘disappointing and a little embarrassing at times’’.
[Embarrasssing?

Cr Carmen Houlahan — the lone dissenting vote today — said she was voting against the proposal not because she was opposed to moving the speed limit in George St from 10kmh back up to 30kmh — but because she had ‘‘serious, serious concerns about leaving the dots in the road’’.
‘‘Are you mad?’’ she said.
‘‘People will think if the dots are there that it will be safe to walk out there.
‘‘People will still walk out on that street.
‘‘It still looks like it was a safe street.’’
The tactics at the May council meeting when colleagues approved the measures amounted to ‘‘emotional blackmail’’ as councillors were told lives could be put at risk if they did not vote for the ‘‘Safer CBD’’ measures.
However, council chief executive Sue Bidrose said it took council staff about a week to 10 days after the measures were implemented to determine there was ‘‘no desire’’ for footpath users to adhere to social distancing recommendations while shopping downtown.
Council infrastructure services general manager Simon Drew said the council had not received confirmation in writing yet, but he understood the 90% funding for the programme from the NZ Transport Agency extended to the calming measures’ removal as well.
To date, $25,000 of the approved $40,000 budget had been spent.
He said in the past, under a 30kmh limit, the average speed in the road had been 28kmh and with the 10kmh limit and the coloured dots, that average had dropped to 22kmh.
I hate to burst Houlahan's bubble (no pun intended), the only confusion is on the part of the DCC that they are a legitimate body representing the people of Dunedin! People aren't going to walk into the street to take refugee in one of these idiotic dots. They didn't do when we were supposed to be social distancing and they arent going to do it now that we are in level 1. There isn't a single person in Dunedin who looks to you, the mayor or the council for a lick of common sense. Leave the dots there until the next election so the voters are reminded to vote all of you out of office!
‘‘Are you mad?’’
Yes, they are !!!
Arrogant, elitist, holier than tho, virtue signalling, manipulating.... mad.
***Sigh***
Nothing this council does any more, surprises me! They seem determined
to leap from one fiasco to another without any shame or guilt.
I wouldn't bat an eyelid to wake up one morning and note the council had
planted grass seeds on our main street, and boarded up every shop!
The dots are a distraction when driving. I find I'm more focused on the dots, thinking a pedestrians walking out on the street.
Totally agree with Carmen.