It is with utter disbelief that we read the following Officers’ Recommendation for the 10 storey proposed development in Ripon Grove, Elsternwick located in today’s agenda items –

Never has there been anything so vague, so ambiguous, and so pro-development as this report. How can any planner worth his salt recommend 3 to 10 stories – either it is 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. or 10!  Instead we have:

“It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 10 storeys in height represents a signifcant change. In considering the merits of the proposed 10 storey height, a number of contextual factors must be considered: The subject site contains several allotments adding up to an area of 3,450sqm. This represents a unique and major opportunity for significant redevelopment in this centre.”

A little further on, there is this gem: “Having regard to the site’s context and policy considerations, the 10 storey scale of the proposal is considered acceptable. It is a significant but policy-appropriate change of character that ought to be expected in this location and can be absorbed in this location given the contextual factors. A building of high architectural quality will be achieved. However, it is considered that some aspects of the proposal are inconsistent with the urban context of the site and will need refinement.”

As far as parking goes, we then have: “The Planning Scheme requires 358 car spaces for the combined shop and residential uses. The Planning Scheme acknowledges that the parking rates for each use can be waived or reduced. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department considers that a more realistic figure of 178 spaces for the proposal reflects anticipated car parking demand”.

We urge all residents to carefully read this report. It will soon be coming to your neighbourhood! If councillors do not reject this report, ask numerous questions about its findings and recommendations, then as Whitlam once said, ‘nothing will save them’!!!

There’s a delicious irony in the fact that Glen Eira Council is no longer a member of the Victorian Local Governance Association – especially in light of the Municipal Inspector’s findings of ‘problems’ with governance!!!!

This must be the shortest membership record of any Council in the state – just on one year! Again, we have to ask some hard questions:

• When was it decided to quit?
• Who decided – since there’s been no discussion tabled at Council Meetings?
• Why has there never been any report on councillor’s attendance(s), meetings with VLGA?
• Don’t councillors believe that an organisation devoted to ‘good governance’ practices has anything to offer a council that has been investigated three times in just over a decade?
• It is most comforting to know that Glen Eira once again remains the ‘odd man out’!!!

One of the allegations dismissed by the Municipal Inspector concerned the alteration of minutes. This allegedly arose from a ‘special meeting’ on October 14^th, 2009, where councillors voted whether or not to reappoint or advertise the CEO position. By calling this meeting a ‘special meeting’ the public is conveniently kept in the dark. It wasn’t an incamera session of a normal council meeting – that took place on October 13^th. Was it an ‘assembly of councillors’? If an assembly of councillors, then someone from the administration would have been present as note-taker? Was it a councillor only meeting? If so, then a councillor took the minutes and hence this meeting doesn’t fall within the strictures of the Local Government Act. But then we’re told that the allegation of no councillor officer present took place at the October 20^th meeting. Hence it is safe to assume: 

1. A council officer was present and took comprehensive minutes/notes
2. The next issue thus becomes – who stood to gain by complaining?
3.  And in the end what’s all the fuss about? 

If a council officer took the minutes which included ‘opinions’ and ‘names’, then THIS IS CONTRARY TO COUNCIL’S OWN ‘POLICY’ or practice!!!! For example: Council Minutes of 1^st September, 2009 include the following paragraph in the Officer’s Report on an Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting: 

“Liz Morgan asked if future Minutes could include more detail. Officers advised the primary purpose of the Minutes was to record outcomes rather than a detailed summary of discussions.” 

In the same Council Meeting, the minutes record this response to a public question: 

The Deputy Mayor asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “Council keeps Minutes of Meetings and does not make and retain Hansard records of Meetings. Section 93 of the Local Government Act requires that Minutes contain details of the “proceedings and resolutions made”. Any matter that required a resolution would be the subject of a separate written item.” 

So, we have the clear understanding that minutes are NOT HANSARD. Yet this complaint stated that councillors objected to having their names and opinions recorded in this manner and wanted this altered. It was altered by majority decision. But why were minutes done in this fashion? Who had to gain? Who complained? 

If the notetaker was an Officer, then such information as to who said what, and what their opinion of the CEO might have been, would undoubtedly constitute ‘invaluable information’. If a councillor, then someone who was probably aggrieved by the decision to reappoint for only 2 years rather than 5. Whiteside has admitted ‘disappointment’ with the decision, and Magee announced publically that he was in favour of a 5 year contract! 

Conclusions: 

1. The taking of such ‘detailed’ minutes should never have happened according to Council’s stated position. The fact that this was done suggests an ulterior and possibly devious motive.
2. Councillors refusal to have their names attached to opinions reveals either (a) fear of ‘retribution’, or (b) lack of trust in each other and administration
3. The complainant was an officer, or a councillor – again proving the existence of major rifts within the organisation
4. Finally, the Municipal Inspector’s rejection of this allegation is not exoneration!! It only highlights again the divisions, the mistrust, and the spectre of the CEO overshadowing all in this ongoing saga. Nothing has thus changed, except perhaps, that councillors will now not meet ‘secretly’ and notetakers will be even more circumspect in their notetaking. The losers remain US!!!

Fess up, councillors

MP slams Glen Eira spin on report

A LOCAL politician has lashed Glen Eira Council following the release of a damning report. Bentleigh Labor MP Rob Hudson said he was ‘‘very concerned’’ at the revelations in the report by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.

The council had already breached chief municipal inspector David Wolf’s main recommendation to be more open and transparent by refusing to publish the report on its website, he said. Residents have to phone the council’s service centre to obtain a copy.

Mr Hudson said the media release about the report was ‘‘a complete obfuscation’’ of what the inspector found. ‘‘That’s unprecedented,’’ he said. ‘‘Every other report goes up on the council website. To put out a media release that doesn’t properly convey what the inspector found . . . puts a spin on what the inspector said.’’

The inspectorate completed a nine-month investigation into 27 complaints of alleged conflicts of interest and misuse of position.

‘‘If you read between the lines, this report is a substantial rap over the knuckles for the councillors and the way the council operates,’’ Mr Hudson said. ‘‘Given the council has already been dismissed once I would have hoped the councillors would have learned the lessons from that.’’

Inspectorate spokeswoman Samantha Murray said the organisation could provide advice but the report’s details were ‘‘a matter for council to discuss’’. Mayor Steven Tang said the document had been made available. ‘‘While it was . . . private and confidential, council is determined it’s not kept confidential.’’

TANG’S LETTER

With reference to the article Get back to basics, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader, September 7, 2010, the inspectorate found in relation to the majority of complaints that there was no breach of the Act or no evidence to support a breach of the Act.

In fact, four of the five examples cited by the Leader were found to be in one of these two categories.

This is clearly different to a finding of insufficient evidence to prosecute. Council welcomes the recommendations.

It must also be noted, however, that the inspectorate has chosen to make recommendations as a result of this investigation rather than taking the many more punitive actions available to it.

Cr Steven Tang, Mayor, Glen Eira City Council.

The following article appeared in today’s Melbourne Weekly Bayside

Council called to account

For the third time, a municipal investigation into Glen Eira Council has basically revealed itself to be a total whitewash. Over the coming weeks we will dissect each finding made in the report and point out its fallacies, and its loopholes.

We’ll begin with the finding that councillor Requests for Reports are delivered in a ‘timely’ manner and that officers have fulfilled their duty by carrying out council resolutions.

On the 16^th October, 2007 the following request for a report was made by Lipshutz and Whiteside –

“That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City”.

The motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

No such report has ever been tabled at Council Meetings! Timely? – only 3 years late and still counting!

Even more damning is the fact that on April 7^th, 2010 a public question by Mr. Campbell asked:

“Could you please report the result of the investigation requested by Cr. Lipshutz into an alternative site for the ‘Works Depot’ currently located in the Crown Land of Caulfield Park and what action is planned to re-locate this Depot and when is it planned that this will occur.”

 The response was:

“The outcome of the investigation was reported on page 52 of Council’s 2008/09 Annual Report. A suitable alternative site that meets Council’s requirements has not been found. Councillors remain committed to continuing the search for an appropriate site.”

When we go to page 52 of the 2008/9 Annual Report, this is what is there –

Conclusions: 

• No report has ever been tabled at Council
• Three years later NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE
• Public question remains unanswered as to what and when
• Lipshutz, since you moved the motion for a report, what have you done about this?
• The comment seems to indicate that the depot will NOT BE MOVED, only reduced in size! This is not what the request for a report stated, nor what the answer to the public question inferred.
• If this is correct, then when was the decision to ‘downsize’ made, and by whom?
• Doesn’t the Annual Report contradict the answer to the public question?

 Like everything else, this council seems to be of the belief ‘out of sight, out of mind’. We’ll bury the detail, keep the residents ignorant, and go on in our merry way! That all this is acceptable to councillors, inspectors, and Ministers is damning in the extreme. It certainly is not acceptable to ratepayers!

Posts and comments are becoming frenetic on our site, so we’ve decided to do a little housekeeping.

1. We’ve set up an email address so you can contact us directly rather than through comments. It will be housed on the left hand side of the page. Our email address is: gedebates@gmail.com

2. We need to reiterate once again our rules: All comments are moderated, and we ask that people please not comment in a defamatory and/or abusive manner. We moderate everything that comes in, and in future, if certain comments are determined to be offensive we will simply edit out those few sentences (or more, if need be).

3. We’ve also set up a Recent Comment list, so that you may locate people’s thoughts directly from the home page.

Again, we invite all readers to offer any suggestions they like in order to improve this site.

Finally, a big thank you to all our readers. Our stats have gone through the roof, which means that people are interested in what we’ve got to say. Please continue to publicise our existence.

The minutes of June 29, 2010 record the following as part of an answer to a public question:

“The nine Councillors meeting as the Council set policy and the Council Officers implement policy. The policy as set by Council is one of reasonable laws reasonably enforced.”

It’s amazing that if this is in fact a ‘policy’, it is not to be found in ANY MINUTES of ANY COUNCIL MEETING!

What’s even more revealing is that Council itself refers to this phrase, not as a ‘policy’, but as a ‘motto’. We direct readers’ attention to the Quarterly Reports  Sections 13.9 and 13.10 – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Sevices_Report_June_2009.pdf

We highlight this issue as it again goes to the heart of good governance. Policies are meant to be tabled, endorsed, and ratified at full council meetings. ‘Reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ thus remains a figment of the imagination, a convenient slogan that is capable of camouflaging abuse, discrimination, and lack of accountability. There are no guidelines, no criteria, no public dissemination, of how, when, and why such a MOTTO will be interpreted and implemented. Nor is it clear whether this ‘motto’ applies to all laws, or just certain ones. If someone is two minutes late back to their car only to find a parking fine, will ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ also apply?

The past few months have seen repeated public questions from a social soccer group. They seek answers to why, when they have a permit costing $1600, council does not fine other groups who do not have a permit, and who repeatedly use sporting grounds that are not allocated to them. These questions have invariably focused on the meaning of council’s oft used phrase ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. In this instance, we surmise the following:

1. It would be too embarrassing to go through another ‘kids in the park’ fiasco where John Brumby, Ian Thorpe and other luminaries castigated Council severely for their actions in threatening to fine a bunch of school kids for running around Princes Park.
2. $1600 is chicken feed compared to the permit fees paid by other clubs – so this group of social soccer players is ‘expendable’!

But, all this begs the question of good governance and councillors’ failure to question and act. Their simple ‘request’ to be ‘consulted’ before fines are enacted is laughable. What does this mean in reality and will it apply to all infringement notices, or just to the social soccer people? Why aren’t the public privy to all so-called ‘policies’? When will councillors actually do their jobs and SET POLICY, that is open, transparent, and in the best interests of all community members. To hide behind slogans that are trotted out whenever convenient is not good government!

It’s only taken a week, but seems that there is some movement at the station. In an absolutely dramatic move, the media release of the Inspector’s findings has finally made it onto the Glen Eira homepage!! No more hunting about on an impossible website, no more attempts to sidestep what the Leader and Glen Eira Debates has publicised. There it is, in full public view! Mind you, this is only the MEDIA RELEASE! The actual report is still off limits so it seems. Such courage from councillors is to be commended. Yes, we are moving at a snail’s pace towards transparency and accountability as recommended by the report! Well done councillors!

In the 1998 Walsh report there is this comment:

“In total there are 11 positions at ‘Senior Officer’ level (defined in the Act as packages of more than $70,000 p.a.). Glen Eira’s five neighbouring councils have an average 20 ‘Senior Officer’ positions, one of them as high as 28.”

That was 12 years ago and the population of Glen Eira stood at roughly 118,000. Andrew Newton was Director of Corporate Management then and Jeff Akehurst was Director of City Development. Both have moved up! With Margaret Douglas’ sudden resignation, Newton became CEO. What impact has this had on Glen Eira?

We’ve done some research and discovered some fascinating facts and figures. Our sources are the 2006 census figures, and the 2008/9 Annual Reports from neighbouring, benchmarking Councils. The only variation is that the figure for senior staff for Port Phillip is even more current – ie. 30^th June, 2010 – since they’ve already released their draft Annual Report.

The table we’ve subsequently drawn up reveals several major findings:

• Glen Eira has the highest number of ‘fat cats’ sitting on over $200,000 p.a. compared to the figures released by the other councils. It also has 30 individuals sitting on over $100,00 p.a.

In a time of economic downturn, where most organisations have ‘rationalised’ their staff and wages, Glen Eira appears to have bucked this trend.

So, do we have too many ‘fat cats’? Are residents getting ‘value for money’? More on this in the coming days!