Parks and Recreation brochures
The request was partially successful.
Dear Dunedin City Council
My preference is to receive the requested information through fyi.co.nz.
Appendix 2 of the report by the Chairperson of the Dog Control Working Party provided by email 4 December 2018 states:
"The Parks & Recreation team have included information in their pamphlets about accessibility to dogs. Examples provided below: ..."
One example deals with Bethunes Gully and shows a symbol representing a dog on leash. The on leash requirement is reinforced by the additional words “on leash in the picnic area”. Bethunes Gully is an area for which dog access was changed on 27 June 2016 without compliance with the required consultation procedure. However, even those unlawful changes permitted dogs off-leash on the track, including off-leash on a track that runs through the area that was referred to as the “picnic area”.
Amending the pamphlets to state that dogs must be on leash means the pamphlets have been amended so they do not provide the correct information. Could you please advise:
(a) Why the pamphlets have been amended to provide incorrect information.
(b) How many amended pamphlets have been produced, and how many distributed to date.
(c) The costs of producing the amended pamphlets.
(d) Whether the associated costs have been funded from money received under the Dog Control Act 1996, and if so, what proportion of the costs were funded from that revenue.
From: Lauren McDonald
Dunedin City Council
Please find attached our response to your Local Government Official
Information request of 6 June 2019 about pamphlets produced for on/off
leash access for dogs by Parks and Recreation.
Governance Support Officer
CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP
P 03 477 4000 | DD 03 474 3428 | E [email address]
Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
DCC Main Page
If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Sharon Bodeker and Lauren McDonald,
I refer to your email sent direct to me as a consequence of the Ombudsman requiring you to provide the information requested. My request stated my preference was to receive information through fyi.org.nz. Please use this platform rather than emailing me direct.
I acknowledge you are requesting I identify the brochures.
My original request identifies the brochures were referred to in the report of the Chairperson of the Dog Control Working Party. That report does not identify which brochures were amended, and only provides partial screen-shots as examples. The examples were illustrative, not exhaustive which was intended to indicate any or all of the Dunedin City Council brochures could have been amended.
The failure to identify the brochures in the report predictably prevents me identifying which brochures were amended. That appears easily and most appropriately resolved by asking the Chairperson to identify the brochures he was referring to.
It appears irregular to make complying with the Ombudsman's requirements conditional on me providing information the Chair chose to withhold so I would be predictably unable to do so. That is particularly the case given the initial refusal to provide the requested information did confirm the costs of amending the brochures had been funded from the Parks and Recreation budget. Clearly the ability to identify which budget funded the amendments depends on knowing which brochures had been amended so it appears you already have the information you are now requesting me to provide.
I note your statement you searched your records and could not find the brochures. To assist, a list of relevant pamphlets can be found in the “Walking Tracks” section of the Dunedin City Council website https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/community-fa....
A quick inspection produces a brochure with formatting and layout that corresponds with the layout and formatting of the screenshots in the Chair’s report. That brochure is named “Walking with Wheels” and is specifically written for those using wheeled mobility devices. It is not obvious why that brochure would be selected for amendment given the improbability of walkers with paws seeking information about dog access in a brochure targeted at another very specific user-group. That barrier to finding the necessary information appears reinforced by your stated inability to locate the brochure at all.
However, that brochure has not been amended as the Chairs' report states had already occurred in 2017. That is easily confirmed by comparing the current brochure at https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/asset... the 2016 version saved by the web archive spider at http://web.archive.org/web/2016012705563....
My request for information and the requirement to subsequently involve the Ombudsman arose as a consequence of a report co-authored by a Councilor and the Chief Legal Officer after more than 12 months of preparation. The report explicitly states brochures were amended. Your initial response to this request confirmed brochures were amended at rate-payers cost.
In the circumstances, it seems responsibility falls on the Dunedin City Council to identify which brochures were amended at rate-payer expense as the report states occurred.
Note my complaint to the Ombudsman also identified the response was “late” and had failed to provide the information requested at (a). I trust you will provide the information requested without requiring further Ombudsman involvement.