They Want You…

17 Apr

For those who don’t follow the Rugby Park ‘thing’ and don’t know who is responsible for the operation of the park (these are the ones that want you, the ratepayers, to fund it )

The Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust owns Rugby Park

sostThis lot are not big on compliance

lateCharities Commission only require Trustees for charitable trusts are listed on the website

hopThey mustn’t read instructions properly.  It just looks like he is a Trustee that holds the administrative role.  Many trustees may be secretary or treasurer.  If he is not a trustee like he claims then his name should not be on the register.

I was going to show where all the trustees are appointed from but the Charity Rules are not accessible on Charities.   UPDATE:  It would not download yesterday for me but is now working for me.  Here are the rules.

Some of those names may be familiar though.

Rugby Southland life member Ray Harper.  A great man I’m told but I do wonder if any other group would ever be considered as a tenant with his rugby connections.  Wouldn’t he be conflicted between his Rugby Southland loyalties and SOST responsibilities?

Anthony Laker…from the 2013 Annual Report of Rugby Southland (with no financial information for some reason – whereas the 2012 Annual Report did)

lakerLaker House of Travel…?  I wonder how much of the $1.9 million in Senior Squad costs is spent on travel?

Penelope Simmonds of SIT

shirtYip!   The same Zero Fees SIT that are on Rugby Southland’s Stags shirt.

Robert Shaw?, shouldn’t even be listed on there.  Peter Jackson and Des Minehan replaced him seemingly.  Peter Jackson is there but Des Minehan got lost somewhere along the way.  It must be too difficult for them to handle.  I’m happy to help guys, send me the finances and trustee names and I’ll fill in the forms for you (I’ll even upload them to Charities if you want).  It must be in the too hard basket for them.

 

 

 

 

A Step In The Right Direction

16 Apr

The community trust are definitely the most honourable of organisations we have in Invers.  To offer up another option at a council meeting rather than with a phone call to King or maybe a quiet chit chat with an elected member or two.  It is good to see that the offer is putting the debt squarely on the shoulders of Rugby Southland.  I am still unsure of why the stadium trust needs to go.  It’s hard to work out the real issues with the stadium trust and Rugby Southland’s financial information not readily available.  I think it is high time that Rugby Southland were treated solely as a user of the facility – pay a fee when they want to use it, a lease on office space and no special arrangements (no caveats on other people’s property, no admin arrangements).  Why can’t the stadium trust run the facility?   It is time to sink or swim, for both parties.

Most people I have spoken to regarding my letter understood that the ‘deadbeat friends’ are Rugby Southland.  I have to be honest though, Community Trust of Southland let me down on this hence my comment, ‘with the support of CToS’.  As I have said before, I was ignorant at the time about the loan going from CToS to Rugby Southland through the stadium trust.  It shouldn’t matter who set up the trust or who the tenant is.  The stadium trust and its property should be deemed independent of the management group/tenant.  CToS knowingly allowed the stadium trust trustees to go against their statutory responsibilities to consider the best interests of the trust.

King’s comment is funny (to me)

Invercargill City Council chief executive Richard King told the meeting that the plan would not make any recommendations to council and was for background information.

“The report will be informative only.”

Given no recommendations were on the agenda, ‘the meeting’ should know that nothing was to come of it.  I am still waiting for Rugby Park to be on the agenda with a recommendation of any sort.  Here is a reminder of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requirements – informative only (of course)

(7)An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at the meeting if—

  • (a)the local authority by resolution so decides; and

  • (b)the presiding member explains at the meeting at a time when it is open to the public,—

    • (i)the reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

    • (ii)the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

(7A)Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,—

  • (a)that item may be discussed at that meeting if—

    • (i)that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

    • (ii)the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

  • (b)no resolution, decision, or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.

 

Eeeeeewwwwwww……

15 Apr

I officially despise ‘urban rejuvenation’.  Council has told everyone to clean up empty sections or they will, at the owners expense.  They should include free poison for neighbouring properties.  An empty section behind my next neighbour has had a digger at work.  What instruction the digger driver was given I don’t know.  The first thing that was removed was a row of flaxes that divided the steep empty section and the lower, occupied property (my neighbour).  I’ve been here for over 15 years and water run off had been a problem.  My section is higher at the back and won’t be affected but I dread to think of the effect of removing all those flaxes.  I don’t like flax but they served a purpose.  As I said, that will not affect me but the collection of empty sections had obviously become the home for rats…they are now homeless….eeeewwww.   I have only seen ones caught by the semi wild cat but the thought that these things are looking for a new abode is vile.  And I will now have to buy poison to ensure they do not settle in around my place.   I do not need another problem!

Meeting Tomorrow, Don’t Bother Coming

14 Apr

That’s the impression the agenda gives.

Public excluded for the last agenda was marked a) through to h) but tomorrows tops it with a) through to m).

There will be lots of rubber stamping of minutes including a meeting that had a Mayor, a Deputy Mayor, and twelve councillors present.  The joint submission on the Building Amendment Act will probably get a rubber stamp or Mayor Mayor Tim waxing lyrically about the unknown future of earthquake strengthening and who will pay.

The Maritime Museum Statement Of Intent is full of lies and bullshit so isn’t worth the paper it is written on and every trustee that are appointed from elected positions and Council Controlled Organisations are all  failing in their responsibilities.

 

DCHL

14 Apr

Dunedin City Council’s holding company makes money.  Our holding company borrows money for everyone.

DCHL’s report had shown an after-tax profit of $8.667 million across the group, up 10.1% on the previous year, while its own profit was $1.4 million, down from $2.3 million in 2012.

I’m Published

14 Apr

My letter is in today’s paper.   I hope it doesn’t suggest I support the takeover of Rugby Park.  You can only fit so much in one letter.  Rather than arguing my views, I wanted to say that if ICC take it over that it should have ratepayer money going to those who caused this.

I was not paying attention in 2007 to Rugby Park so didn’t know until more recently that the debt was Rugby Southland’s alone.  Why would any of the parties involved permit a loan to a tenant be secured against a landlords property?  Bad decisions by all.

Grab Your Pitchforks And Torches

13 Apr

They are rallying around and gathering up a lynch mob again over the Bluff Yacht Club ramp.  South Port and Environment Southland are again to be targeted along with ICC.

The Bluff Community Board’s chairman’s report in the minutes has this

The Chairperson had met earlier with the Maritime Museum and discussions
were held around the Yacht Club ramp that the recreational fishermen used.
Both sides of the ramp had become very dangerous and it would be closed off
to the public even though it was the most convenient piece of ramp in Bluff
because the other one was a bit shallower. He said Mr King was at the meeting
and he would be looking at including it in the Council Draft Annual Plan and
Neville Cook on behalf of Environment Southland would also be looking into it.
It was all about funding to repair it and both parties would be looking into it and
come back to the Board with a resolution. He said as a Board it would be
beneficial to send a letter to say that it was well used ramp and generated a lot
of public using it as well as attracting people to Bluff. The letter would be sent
to Environment Southland and the Invercargill City Council outlining the Board’s
concerns on this matter.

A few comments regarding this.  The chairperson appointed himself to the Maritime Museum Trust in November last year so meeting with them is a bizarre comment.  WTF has the ramp got to do with the Maritime Museum?  Is is theirs?  The same sentence claims it is the Yacht Club’s.  Mr King is also a Trustee of the museum (appointed by council).  Neville Cook is appointed by Environment Southland to the Museum.  I do reiterate though, WTF has the ramp got to do with the Maritime Museum?  Are they going to contribute the $10,000 they take every year from the Bluff ratepayers to this case?  If not, shut up and stay out of it.

If I allow the public to ride motocross in my yard, is it any councils responsibility to fund maintenance of my yard?  No.  Charge a toll, stand there in the weekend a do some fundraising from the users.  At a minimum, offer up the cost, how much the Yacht Club will be funding, what you’ve done to make users pay and then come knocking on the door of ratepayers.  Hasn’t this already been discussed and declined in the past?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers