Several years ago the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) produced a publication entitled ‘The Role of the Mayor: A VLGA Checklist.’ Listed below are some of the qualities considered vital in those individuals undertaking the role of Mayor.

 We ask any interested reader to assess Tang against these criteria – remembering of course that he is now in his SECOND term as Mayor, and has previously been Deputy Mayor. Please provide a grading of 0 to 5 against any (or all) of the following, or if preferred, an overall grade. 

Governance

• to provide a source of leadership for Council and Community
• to provide a symbol of democracy to the community
• to lead, inspire and support the team of elected Councillors
• to be a source of inspiration for Council staff and the community
• to ensure effective communication and respectful relationships among Councillors
• to ensure effective communication and respectful relationships between Councillors and Administration
• to ensure there is effective communication between Council and the CEO in pursuit of Council’s goals
• to promote the interests of the local government and the community
• to maintain political stability and community credibility of Council
• to generate community cohesion and inclusiveness
• to model high standards of behaviour and practice
• to project values and standards into the community
• to govern for all members of the community
• to articulate collective aspirations of the community and promote collective endeavour
• to defend the interests of the community and the local government of the community  

Chair of Council

• to preside efficiently, firmly and fairly over Council meetings
• to promote high standards of democratic governance and internal governance
• to guide meetings to ensure respectful conduct at all times
• to facilitate participation and inclusion of all Councillors
• to exercise the casting vote where a Council vote is tied  

Supporting the Community  

• to advocate on behalf of community programs, needs and wellbeing
• to attend community functions on a fair and equitable basis
• to be knowledgeable about community programs and activities
• to promote community development
• to strengthen community governance and enterprise
• to strengthen communities against external threats 

As of 1.40pm on Thursday afternoon, our post revealing the shenanigans over ‘(un)authorised sporting activities’ and council’s failure to act for years and years, has now received the most correspondence and views in our short history. So in response to this public outcry we again put up those questions which must be answered:

We ask, and demand answers to:

1. What role have both Lipshutz and Tang played in this whole affair?
2. What role has the administration played in not enforcing the law?
3. Who makes decisions on policy in this council?
4. Where is the ‘transparency’ that the Municipal Inspector demanded? Why are decisions continually made behind closed doors?
5. Why was Lobo’s ‘request for a report’ defeated 8 to 1? Who is hiding what?
6. Does this council believe that through its non-action that it is serving the principles of ‘equal justice’ to all?

PS: One tiny update: As of 1.58 pm our stats for September read: 7, 348 hits.

Below are two items from this week’s Caulfield and Moorabbin Leader newspapers. Readers are urged to compare and contrast the comments by the Bayside councillor versus the comments by Lipshutz. Draw your own conclusions.

 Church plan cut to size
Fears remain high for impact on area

SCALING back a ‘‘ monstrous’’ development in Elsternwick has done little to quell residents’ fears of traffic and congestion chaos.

Glen Eira councillors voted to allow Contour Consultants to develop t he site at 233-247 Glenhuntly Rd and the historic church at 12 Ripon Grove.

The original plan for a three-to 10-storey building with seven shops and 130 apartments was reduced to eight storeys and 95 apartments at last Tuesday’s council meeting.

Plans to convert the church into 21 apartments were reduced to 18.

Elsternwick resident Kirsten Wright said she was disappointed.

‘‘It’s still too high,’’ Ms Wright said. ‘‘It will still dominate the area and the impact on traffic and public transport will still be huge.’’ The plans have drawn 80 objections and 20 letters of support, while they have been dubbed a ‘‘planning fiasco’’ in an online community forum, Glen Eira Debates.

Many residents also fear overcrowding, loss of privacy, and the building blocking views and sunlight (‘‘Living in high anxiety,’’ Leader, September 6). Mayor Steven Tang and Cr Oscar Lobo voted against the amendment, both wanting to reduce the building’s height further.

Cr Michael Lipshutz said the State Government had indicated Elsternwick was a high diversity housing area, with its proximity to public transport.

‘‘ Having council reject it or knock it back will no doubt create clapping in the public gallery,’’ he said.

‘‘But they’ll not be happy when VCAT comes along and says take it as it was.’’

Contour Consultants did not respond to our calls before deadline.

********************************************************************************************

‘Biggest ever’ battle hots up

BAYSIDE Council will spend up to $100,000 fighting a proposal for a massive development on Cheltenham’s border at the state planning tribunal. Around 120 residents packed the council chambers last Tuesday to oppose the area’s biggest-ever proposed development. The plan to build nearly 500 dwellings, with 900 car spaces, a medical centre, and serviced hotel on a five-block Bay Rd site attracted 1103 objections and one letter of support.

Developer Magnus Floden took the application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal after the council did not make a decision within the prescribed time.

Councillor Alex del Porto said the application’s huge size, complexity and number of objections made it virtually impossible to process within the allocated 60 days. Councillor James Long said the council needed to fight the $200 million-plus plan with all its might. ‘‘(The developers’) legal counsel will fight this as if it was a war because profit is the motive,’’ he said.

Developer Mr Floden did not return the Leader’s phone calls.

Today is a kind of little anniversary – we have been live, online for exactly three months. So once again we would like to thank all our readers for their support and the countless emails of encouragement and endorsement for what we are trying to achieve – a genuine forum for discussion and debate. No spin, no dodging uncomfortable issues, no grandstanding. We’ll let the facts speak for themselves.

Reviewing our blog stats we see that our ‘popularity’ has gone through the roof – even garnering a mention in today’s Glen Eira Leader! These are the stats for the past 3 months:

July – 1,225 hits

August – 3,943 hits

September – 6,617 (and the month still has a couple of days to go!)

We are thrilled with these results because they show that residents do care about their community and do want an avenue which affords them expression. Spread the word folks – let’s together make this the people’s voice of Glen Eira.

The minutes of the last Council meeting (21^st September) record the following ‘Request for Report’ – 

Crs Lobo/Magee: That a report be prepared on how Infringement Notices are issued to unauthorised sporting groups. The MOTION was put and LOST (8 to 1) 

Thus the sole voice (Lobo) advocating some semblance of common sense in the ongoing saga of ‘unauthorised sporting activities’ was effectively muzzled. We highlight this issue because at its heart lie fundamental questions of: 

• Due process and transparency
• Governance, and
• Propriety

 Over the past few months we’ve become increasingly intrigued by the barrage of public questions emanating from one particular group and the failure of Council to provide reasonable and adequate responses. We’ve therefore embarked on a little research. According to both the Local Law of 2000 and the current 2009 version, it is an offence if a sporting ‘activity’ continues without a council permit. This was spelt out under clause 326 entitled ‘Organised Sporting Activities’ in the 2000 version: 

“ Participating in, or allowing, a formal, structured or organised sporting activity, including practice, within a public reserve or on Council land other than in designated locations.Direction: An authorised officer of the Council may require a person participating in or allowing a formal, structured or organised sporting activity within a public reserve or on Council land without a permit to immediately cease the activity and leave the reserve or Council land.”

 The 2009 version is basically the same, except for the addition of the one liner – “This clause should not unreasonably capture smaller informal groups.” Of course, ‘smaller informal groups’ (ie: 4 people, 6, 8, 15?) is never defined and that is the crux of the problem which has a long history. 

BACKGROUND HISTORY 

Some of you may remember the public humiliation that Council experienced following the ‘kids in the park’ and the football ‘shleppers’ incidents of 2007. To refresh people’s memory we offer the following YouTube highlights: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itNQ_Z1nbm8 

http://www.youtube.com/user/shleppers#p/a/u/1/PyvhEs-K0QQ 

Close on the heels of this shleppers debacle, we then had the ‘kids in the park’ fiasco. All the major broadsheets and TV channels had a field day. These are some of the headlines:  

“Watch out for the fun police Council threat to fine kids for playing in a park”

“Premier, stars slam fun police”

 “Two’s company, fees for crowds”

 “Council backs down on threat to fine park users Kids beat fun police”

“No play; festival OK”

“Premier plays bal”

“$5000 fine just for playing football” 

The real significance however lies in the comments made by council representatives, such as Paul Burke. We quote:

“… if there’s a group of people turning up regularly to use the facility, any reasonable person would believe it’s an organised group,” he (Burke) said. (Herald Sun, 27^th Nov., 2007)

““Well, if you run in ones and twos, I don’t think there’d be a problem,” he (‘affable official) replied. But what if we wanted to dash about as a pack and support each other’s efforts? “Then you’d need a permit.”  (Herald Sun, 28^th Nov., 2007)

“”Every other club, every other group, is abiding by the rules and regulations. This is a group of guys who are saying `We don’t think the regulations apply to us. Up yours’.” (Burke: Herald Sun, 25^th May, 2007)

In the end of course, with pressure from Brumby, Ian Thorpe and other Olympians, Council back peddled at supersonic speed.  The ‘kids in the park’ had not only won, but council was ridiculed in taking such a sledge hammer approach to a bunch of cute little kiddies running around an oval. The about face is evidenced by this email from then Mayor, David Feldman – “all enforcement by council officers to be immediately suspended in relation to rules regarding organised sporting groups or any other parks-related policies that require judgements to be made by officers”. (Herald Sun, 30th Nov., 2007) In other words, what was  perfectly ‘clear’ to any ‘reasonable’ person two days earlier, was now vetoed. But by whom? Councillors or the administration? Who has the power to change so called ‘policy’? Besides, the Local Government Act specifically states (Section 76E (2): “A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff- 

   (a)  in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or 

   (b)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act”

So who made the decision? If councillors, then was this legal, since this email from Feldman went out a month before anything even resembling the issue was brought up before a full council meeting (December 18^th, 2007)!! Who was pulling the strings here?

THE PRESENT

Having emasculated their own law to a large extent, Council now faces the absurd situation of groups who have paid for permits seeing OTHER GROUPS WHO HAVE NOT PAID FOR PERMITS GETTING OFF SCOT FREE – time after time, after time, after time. This is the cause of the current onslaught of public questions to council. The questions are important: is there one rule for one group and another rule for others? Are some, more ‘equal’ than others? Why pay $1600 when others get the same for nothing? Are some in fact, beyond the reach of the law, which has not been rescinded, and which was endorsed in the updated 2009 Local Law? Why are Council allowing this to continue?  The past is obviously an important factor – but we believe there are other, even more important influences at work here.

Several of the public questions allege that certain councillors may have a decided ‘conflict of interest’ in this issue since they are ‘relatives’ and ‘mates’ of the specific group in question. At this last council meeting the minutes reveal that in response to a direct public question on this point, both Tang and Lipshutz did not answer the question. Instead, they cited the legalese whitewash of the Municipal Inspector’s report. Why did they not simply deny the allegation? Nothing could have been easier than to say ‘no’ – I’m not in any way associated with this group’. Lipshutz unbelievably claimed that the question was ‘vague’!!!!

We copy below a discussion taken directly from Facebook which is irrevocable proof that:

• This group does not have a permit
• This group is ‘organised’
• This group intends to infringe the current and past law by subterfuge and
• This group includes Josh Lipshutz – the son of Michael Lipshutz. (Readers should note that once the public questions started flowing, the photo of Josh disappeared from the website)

The discussion (minus the names of individuals and editing for the sake of brevity) goes:

Person ‘A’ – The title says it all. Ladies and Gents we have a problem and I want to open it up to discussion. Here is the problem.
As of yesterday Monday 23rd Feb 09 we were warned that we must speak to the Glen Eira City Council for allocation of sporting grounds to continue playing Ultimate Frisbee in and around the local parks, and until then play must be discontinued. This message was delivered by a park ranger and I followed up by speaking to a Ms Belinda Smith (co-ordinator in this area) and was told that many clubs have already be(en) turned away and that they are not taking further applications for permits to play at local sporting grounds. This is due to the destruction on the sporting ovals and that with the drought in full force, the clubs who already have arranged to play, may have to forfeit their games due to destroyed ovals.

OK, where to from here? We have been given some options.
– Local school sports grounds. (Belinda Smith advised this)
– Princes Park non sporting oval areas such as the grass outside Caulfield Recreation Centre. (Belinda said this was ok, BUT that we may get fined none the less for playing there as it is a non-ball-game area, and we are an ‘uncontrolled sport’.
– We could shift the matches to a) Point Ormond (the end of Glen Eira Rd) b) the field down the road from the Malvern Town Hall (that being in another council district and therefore buying us more time) c) can shift to play in St Kilda, the grass just outside Soul Mama

Please voice your opinion here I for one would love to hear it, and feel our whole group needs to decide what to do. I will also try arrange a meeting so we can sit down and discuss this.

Thank you for your support so far, we look forward to rebuilding as soon as possible. Please notify all those who played but are not a part of this group that they must join us as soon as possible to keep in the loop.

Person ‘B’ –  Well, well, well.. it seems to be ‘1984’ here in Caulfield.

I too have rang our friend Linda, and she told me that, we CANNOT use the fields.. I reminded her (of) an email, that floated around Late November, regarding the banning of children using Princes Park, and the Deputy Mayor claiming that the law is to be suspended. The article is below 🙂

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22845193-2862,00.html

I wil be contacting our friends Mary Bolling & Ian Royal.. i also mentioned this to Linda, and she said, OK, as she choked on her words.. I guess the embarrassment of this last time hasnt left her office, as she was quite surprised i knew about it.. The conversation quickly ended, as she tried to back-pedal.. quite funny..

Anyway.. not really in the state to be fighting City Councils, but someone may as well take my rage, and it looks like Linda has a nice, pretty target on her..

I’ll keep you informed 🙂 All hail Winston Smith…

Person ‘C’ –  …..The other option,

Person ‘D’ –   i wholeheartedly support this fight against the council, not to mention any other establishment. curse my unexplainable resentment of authority…we could use a rotation system, swapping from park to park while the council chases us. it would essentially be a sort of cat and mouse game, running from the firm hand of the law.

Person ‘E’ – As much as I would rather be throwing a frisbee around than wasting energy fighting council, attention here is our key leverage point. The more attention we can bring to this cause, the better, as this seems to be a cycle the council will act upon.

Person ‘F’ – This has been an issue for some time, surely you all remember the fight between Schleppers’ football and the council some years ago. it was only a matter of time before the council got to us as well.

Person ‘A’ –  Thanks to all those who attended the meeting, your input was fantastic. Please everyone notice that there is a frisbee match this sunday. Please tell me if you didnt get the invite.

Ok the lowdown. …I will be hosting one game a week. I will attempt to keep it localised to one day and not keep shifting too much in the week. Monday or Sunday are my preferred days. Note that this week is a Sunday match and is posted at 3PM and not at the usual time of 6PM. Monday matches will be at 6PM. (i just cant play this monday). Further Sunday matches will take place in winter when the sun goes down too early for people to make it from work.

The matches will be played in various locations. I will be posting the location order on the group page. We will be playing at the Elwood fields (next to StKilda Marina), Elsternwick Park, Orrong Park. These fields will be rotated one per week to avoid the attention of any one council. Yes it is out of Caulfield, but seriously people deal with it.

Where to from here? We will continue the rotational method for now and hopefully, we can arrange some matches in Caulfield Park which will be a Picnic Match that involves the use of picnic equipment as legitimate excuses to play on their fields and therefore circumvent crap from the council. (will post more details some time soon about this).Ok ladies and gents,

Thanks for the input, it was appreciated. I look forward to seeing you all back at the fields. Please bring some friends to play!!!! (End of Discussion)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CONCLUSIONS

This entire mess is of council’s own doing. The shleppers footy debacle goes back as far as 2003! What we have here is a reactive and intractable bureaucracy that likes to wield its power like a sledge hammer. Reasonable laws they could be (with some tinkering), but they have never been ‘reasonably’ enforced! The examples are numerous – threatening to fine a bunch of residents in Bentleigh who for 25 years have lovingly tended their agapanthus plants on their nature strips and thus beautifying their street; last year’s ‘decision’ not to fine dog owners who fail to pick up their dog’s faeces the first time, when clubs at Princes Park were yelling blue murder. So the end result is that up to this ‘decision’ – not one dog owner had received a penalty! The list goes on and on. So now, when the heat comes on, or when council is humiliated, we witness a 180 degree swing to the opposite direction – no fines, no noise, no publicity, please!!!!! A great way to run a council isn’t it?

 PLEASE NOTE: we are certainly not advocating that groups who are ratepayers should be denied access to local parks, nor should they be hounded and threatened with fines as the above groups were. What these examples illustrate above all is that when Council introduces a law that is unenforceable, draconian, or makes no sense to the local community, it is a recipe for disaster.

More importantly however, these events touch on crucial governance and transparency issues. We ask, and demand answers to:

1. What role have both Lipshutz and Tang played in this whole affair?
2. What role has the administration played in not enforcing the law?
3. Who makes decisions on policy in this council?
4. Where is the ‘transparency’ that the Municipal Inspector demanded? Why are decisions continually made behind closed doors?
5. Why was Lobo’s ‘request for a report’ defeated 8 to 1? Who is hiding what?
6. Does this council believe that through its non-action that it is serving the principles of ‘equal justice’ to all?

We eagerly await the next episode of ‘Right to Reply’ at next council meeting!!!!

We’ve decided to embark on an occasional series – a performance appraisal of each councillor. We believe that the community deserves some feedback as to how each individual is doing and whether those we voted for are in actual fact fulfilling their obligations to the community. As always we invite comments as to the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of our evaluation. First cab off the rank is Lipshutz.

Hubris: Lipshutz takes the honours of being the only councillor who is prepared to publically insult, demean, and attack other councillors and/or members of the public. There are numerous instances, including we’re informed, Tuesday night’s meeting where he described a comment by Cr. Lobo as ‘nonsense’ followed by another more vitriolic serve later on in the night. Then there’s also some bitter, past attacks on Whiteside, Mary Walsh, and who knows how many others. Perhaps we should remind readers that in Greek tragedy the meaning of hubris is: “an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor’s ruin.”

Community representation: over the years on planning issues, Lipshutz has been a staunch supporter of the mantra ‘it could have been a lot worse’. That is: we’re screwed by VCAT, the State government, so only we know best how to protect you people. We’ll allow 8 storeys instead of 10!!! More alarming however, has been the repeated stabs at members of the community who have had the persistence, courage, and passion to object to inappropriate developments at VCAT.  Instead of supporting such endeavours, Lipshutz has instead castigated objectors, claiming that their intervention has only made matters worse. As a lawyer, this stance is highly suspect. We would like to point out to readers, the following statement by Alan Goldberg, QC: “it is a fundamental principle of a democratic society that citizen with complaints, particularly against government, should have the right and opportunity of recourse to the courts and tribunals established to resolve their disputes without pressure being brought upon them to refrain from having recourse to the judicial process”.  From past comments it would appear that Lipshutz has forgotten this fundamental tenet of our system.

At council meetings, Lipshutz (and other councillors) readily avail themselves of their supposed ‘right’ under Councillors ‘Right of Reply’. Some councillors use this agenda item to attack members of the public, without giving those members of the public their own right of reply. Lipshutz, who is a lawyer, would know that this could never happen in a real court of law, where both parties have equal rights, and where unbiased Judges enforce those rights.  At present it appears that Glen Eira has one law for councillors, and another (inferior) law for the public.  Perhaps  the lawyers on council should take a refresher course on jurisprudence and the law of torts?

What is your mark out of ten for Lipshutz?

Front Page – Bayside Leader.

Plan up in the air

A year later we have the ‘results’ of a report into the former bowling green at Packer Park and its possible future uses. The final proposal it seems is to ignore the vast majority of people’s views and to create ANOTHER BOWLING, BOCCE, AND PETANQUE set of ‘greens’.

Several facts should be noted here:

• No real ‘consultation’ as to the bowling green’s future use has ever been undertaken. The submissions referred to in the report were in response to ‘the proposal…. to sell the former bowling green to pay for the two houses.’ (“Improving Packer Park”). At no time have residents been asked the simple question ‘what would you like to see happen to the former bowling green?”. Whatever comments were contained in the submissions were thus almost asides, or incidentals – ie. People took it upon themselves to either proffer suggestions or to largely decry the 3 ‘alternatives’ put up by council. 
• Incredibly, we now learn that “As part of the initial site feasibility soil sampling did not identify gross contamination, however fill material at one sample location reported concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in excess of the level for residential use”. So, all of a sudden the site is no longer suitable for ‘residential use’ without huge investments. When was this actually known?
• The vast majority of suggestions (ie 46%) simply wanted the park extended – ie open, green space!
• No ‘demonstrated need’ (using council’s phrase) has been proven here. Where is the user needs analysis that residents will flock to play petanque – that is, if 5% even know what this is!! 
• The argument about fearing anti-social behaviour because of lack of ‘observational’ sightlines will undoubtedly be improved by the planting of numerous trees enclosing the greens! 

 There are plenty of other spurious ‘arguments’ opposing the creation of open park land, dog parks, kindergartens, etc. Readers should carefully go through the document, keeping in mind that once again the community is the victim of a ‘clayton’s consultation’. We have a top down approach that regularly sees fit to impose an agenda on its residents, rather than a genuine consultative process that begins (and ends) with residents.

The recommendation for the bowling greens is presented below –

We’ve received this email from a reader requesting it be put up as a post.

Item 11.2 of the agenda items for next Tuesday night’s council meeting contains several statements from councillors and the CEO. All vigorously protest their innocence, emphasising that the Municipal Investigator found ‘no breach of the Act’. There is also a response ‘signed’ by 6 of the nine councillors, alleging the ‘selective, misleading or distorted reporting’ by the Caulfield Leader, and in particular Jenny Ling, the journalist. Of note, and make of this what you will, this final ‘letter’ fails to include the names of Oscar Lobo, and Jim Magee (Cheryl Forge is understandably absent since the incidents did not include her).

Readers would have far more confidence in these protestations of innocence if:

Councillors Hyams, Esakoff, and Penhalluriack, had seen fit to pen clearly INDIVIDUAL ‘rights of reply’ rather than each adopting the pro forma response of: “There was no suggestion from the Municipal Inspector in his letter to me or in his report to all councillors that there was any reason that I should not have been involved in the CEO appointment process.” Come on councillors – a little bit of independent creativity wouldn’t have gone astray!!

As to the epistle signed by 6 councillors we note the following: The constant refrain of ‘no breach of the Act’ is not an exoneration. It simply means that there are numerous ‘loopholes’ and gaping holes in the legislation. We remind readers that the Municipal Inspector did find repeated instances of lack of ‘transparency and accountability’. There was ‘no breach of the Act’, because these incidents fall outside the current wording of the Local Government Act. To claim in the end that the entire matter is really one of not keeping records properly, and that the public is not affected, is disingenuous in the extreme. We repeat what we have said time and time again – distrust between councillors, between councillors and the CEO, and between councillors and officers does affect the community. No orchestrated ‘united’ front can whitewash this irrevocable fact.