Epitome of Coolness

Following the Receipts and the Rules That Were Supposed to Catch Them.

Previously, on Epitome of Coolness…

A few weeks ago, I published a piece titled:
Cafes, Taxis and a 400 Dollar Aussie Dinner: Is This Really Council Business?

It broke down more than a year’s worth of Taupō District Council credit card statements for Mayor David Trewavas. The transactions included:

208 dollars charged at Mr Brightside Rooftop Bar in Christchurch

Over 400 dollars spent on a dinner at La Calabrese in Australia

A steady trail of taxi fares, Uber charges, café visits and hotel bills

All tagged as legitimate council business


Since then, the questions have been rolling in from all directions. Quiet ones. Some of them from people with Audit and Risk Committee connections. They all boil down to this:

Was any of this approved?

Who is responsible for checking these expenses?

Does the Audit and Risk Committee even know this happened?

This post is the follow-up. Because as it turns out, they did not.


What the Policy Actually Says

Taupō District Council has a document called the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy 2024 to 2027. It is supposed to govern how elected officials and staff use public money when spending on things like travel, meals, and hospitality.

And on paper, it looks watertight.


Core Principles

All sensitive expenditure must be:

Justifiable and for a legitimate business purpose

Moderate and conservative in cost

Approved in advance wherever possible

Signed off by someone senior to the person who benefits

Within the budget and delegated authority

Transparent and able to withstand public scrutiny


Now pause and ask: does a 208 dollar rooftop bar tab meet all six of those standards? Do multiple taxis and Ubers on the same day? Does an expensive dinner on the Gold Coast?


What David’s Card Actually Shows

Let us look at one example: the Christchurch trip in July 2023.

The Mayor’s credit card for that period includes:

208 dollars at Mr Brightside Rooftop Bar

Multiple taxi fares from Christchurch providers

A stay at the Mayfair Hotel

Rotorua Airport parking

Follow-up meals back in Taupō


The total for that single statement period was over 650 dollars.

However, council flight records confirm that the Mayor left early and did not stay for the full conference. He departed before the final dinner event, which raises another question.

Were meals or accommodation charged that were not actually used?

And if so, who caught that? Who reviewed it? Who signed it off?


What the Policy Requires

Here is what the Sensitive Expenditure Policy demands, and how the actual statements compare.


Meals and Alcohol

“Council will pay for only one beverage with an evening meal. Casual drinks before or after are to be paid for personally.”
(Section 9.3)



There is no itemised receipt for the 208 dollar charge at Mr Brightside. There is no record of who was present or what was consumed. There is no business justification. Just a number.


Taxis and Transport

“Use of taxis should be moderate, conservative and cost-effective. Wherever practicable, use shuttle services, buses or Uber instead.”
(Section 8.14)



During that Christchurch trip alone, there were taxi fares from Blue Star, King Cabs, Uber and multiple independent providers. Several were on the same day, without any explanation for overlap or duplication.


Accommodation

“Use of luxury or five-star accommodation requires prior approval from the Chief Executive.”
(Section 8.6)

The Mayfair Hotel appears in the transaction history. There is no visible record of any pre-approval or justification, at least not one provided to the public.


Documentation and Business Reason

“All credit card transactions must be supported by original documentation. The business reason and all attendees must be recorded.”
(Section 7.8)


No credit card statement I received includes names of attendees, purpose of meetings or events, or receipts that explain the purpose of the purchase. They show dates, merchant names, and dollar amounts. Nothing else.


Oversight Is Supposed to Catch This

This is not just about what the Mayor charged. It is about who was supposed to catch it.

Section 6.5 of the Sensitive Expenditure Policy is unambiguous:

“Expenditure incurred by the Mayor or other elected officials that is not explicitly approved by Council must be reviewed by the independent Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee.”


That is the rule. And it was not followed.

According to conversations I have had and confirmed by people close to the process  these transactions were not shown to the Audit and Risk Committee. There was no post-trip review. No inquiry. No line-by-line approval.

In other words, the system worked in theory but not in practice.


When Process Breaks Down

It is tempting to brush this off. A coffee here. A taxi there. A dinner with no receipt. Maybe they were justified. Maybe they were not.

But that is not the point.

When public money is being spent, there has to be oversight. That is not optional. It is not political. It is not personal. It is the basic obligation of every elected official, senior staff member and oversight body connected to this council.

When even the Audit and Risk Committee is unaware of what is being charged, that is not just an oversight. It is a failure of process.


Final Thought

This is not really about whether the Mayor should have paid for his own second glass of wine. It is about whether anyone was paying attention.

Oversight is not paperwork. It is trust, accountability and a functioning chain of responsibility.

If the Audit and Risk Committee did not see this, then who exactly is auditing anything?

Until the processes change and until the culture of silence changes with it, we are just rearranging receipts on a bar tab no one signed off.

Bones Appétit.