Dear Dunedin City Council,

These requests arise from the parts of the agenda of the Customer and Regulatory meeting held 21 May 2024 about the review of the dog policy and bylaw intended to commence next month.
This information is required to consider the information in that agenda, allow informed discussions amongst interested parties, and provide informed submissions in the upcoming review. The absence of the information will prevent that occurring and negatively impact the merits of the consultation.
Please provide the information with urgency to prevent repeating the same disadvantage caused by failing to comply with the LGOIMA requirements in relation to requests for the Annual Plan consultation. Noting the LGOIMA allows information to be released in stages, and doing so will comply with the requirement to provide it with urgency, as soon as reasonably practicable.
Please provide the qualifications of those advising Councillors and authoring the documentation, including the qualifications of any consultants or external advisors.
Please provide all operating guidelines relating to dog control and management, whether called employee manuals, internal administration policies, guide-lines or any other name.
Paragraph 11 of the Report in meeting 21 May 2024 states the Policy and Bylaw were last reviewed in 2015/2016. This is a new claim that has not previously made by the DCC. Please provide copies of all materials relating to the review that occurred in 2015.
The proposed Bylaw defines control as “Means the owner or person in charge of a dog is aware of where the dog is and what it is doing, and that the dog is responsive to commands and is not creating a nuisance.” Please provide the legal authority for this definition.
In the meeting 21 May 2024 Cr Whiley referred to “points to consider” he had distributed. In meeting 30 May 2024 the Chair referred to fees and charges being discussed in workshops, and previously agreed. This is consistent with how Council has previously dealt with dog fees and charges.
Therefore please provide
a) the material Cr Whiley distributed
b) The authority for Cr Whiley to involve himself in governance matters concerning dogs despite being disqualified because he made a submission in his personal capacity during the review in 2016.
c) all other materials discussing both the old and proposed Policy/Bylaw in any medium (whether workshops, email exchanges or other mediums) that have not been disclosed in meeting agendas since the Ombudsman began his preliminary investigation in 2022.
d) All records of discussions (whether in workshops, emails or other mediums) about dog control related fees and charges that have not been disclosed in meeting agendas since the Ombudsman began his preliminary investigation in 2022.
Note this information is required to be publicly disclosed. That means it should not have to be requested, and having to do so cannot be used to disadvantage this request.
6. Please provide copies of the actual submissions made during the preliminary engagement in 2023, and the record of the general feedback referred to in the Proposal Statement.
Note this information is necessary because in 2016 undisclosed changes were stated to reflect early engagement and general feedback. When those documents were eventually provided they contained nothing that would prompt those changes and it was subsequently confirmed the justification was invented. Council is required to substantiate claims, so the information should not have to be requested. Having to correct that failure cannot be used to disadvantage this request.
My preference is to receive the information by fyi.org.nz.

Yours faithfully,

Rachael Nicoll