We received the following comment from someone calling themselves ‘Steven’. We presume it comes from Steven Tang and hence are reproducing it as a full post.
I do not usually worry about the comments of a blogsite, which is prone to making wild accusations, prone to fundamental errors of fact* and prone to putting a negative slant on any Council decision**.
However, I write in response to what I view as character assassination of the worst kind.
Despite having an allegation of conflict of interest fully investigated and determined by the Municipal Inspector some posters to this blogsite have felt that it is ok to make wild accusations against my character.
In response to these spurious allegations:
1. I have a general belief that the parks of Glen Eira are there for people to use and Council should do its best to ensure they are suitable to support a diversity of recreational interests.
2. I have been found by an independent umpire to have no relevant connection to a “frisbee group”.
3. The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.
4. I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status.
5. I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.
6. If I wasn’t the subject of such a vitriolic campaign against my character I would not have to give intimate details of how well I do or do not know individuals in the Glen Eira community. The fact is, however, that I have spoken to a handful of people who have identified themselves on this blogsite more than I have spoken to people who have been said to me to be part of this “frisbee group”.
7. A poster to this blogsite is being less than forthright in his campaign against my character. The poster has previously made complaints to me and to the Council about “Indians” playing cricket, Russians playing soccer and other groups of soccer players. These groups appear to be in the same position as the “frisbee group”, but you do not hear about them because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
8. Whilst I accept that the Caulfield Park Social Soccer group has had issues with the law, I do not believe there is widespread concern that people are using the parks. The permit and allocation system provides the security of exclusive use for any group that has an allocation at that time. I strongly encourage any group that wants to compete in a regular organised game to enter the permit and allocation system. It works for the thousands of residents and ratepayers that play and train for the hundreds of active Glen Eira-based teams each and every week.
9. Again it does not fit the Caulfield Park Social Soccer Club narrative of persecution to acknowledge that the local law has been used to respond to a complaint that one of the above-mentioned groups have been interfering with the allocation of a local junior sporting club.
10. The local law is no different to these comparison clauses,
Stonnington:
Use of Council Reserves
517 A person must not, without a Permit, in or on any Council Reserve:
(a) pitch, erect or occupy any tent, marquee or temporary shelter;
(b) light any Fire or allow any Fire to remain alight unless in a fireplace
provided by Council;
(c) hold any circus, carnival, fair, event, commercial or promotional
activity;
(d) conduct or celebrate any wedding;
(e) erect, fix or place any advertisement;
(f) conduct or attend any rally, procession, demonstration or other
public gathering;
(g) conduct, participate or prepare for any competitive game or sport;
Monash
Activities Prohibited in Reserves
18. In a reserve, a person must not:
18.1 unless that person is a player, official or competitor in or at a sporting
match or gathering, enter upon or remain on an area set aside as a playing
ground during the course of a sporting match or gathering;
18.8 play, engage in or practise any game or sport, whether or not in
accordance with a permit issued under this Local Law, in a manner that is:
18.8.1 dangerous to any other person in the reserve; or
18.8.2 likely to interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the
reserve by any other person; or
5 penalty units
Activities which may be permitted in Reserves
19. In a reserve, a person must not, without a permit,
19.4 play, organise, practise or engage in any organised competitive sport or
game;
3 penalty units
11. There is no exact science in applying these laws, but Council needs to be mindful of the conditions of the ground and the risk that the ground will not be suitable for ongoing use if its surfaces are not protected to some extent.
12. The local law has been particularly useful when AFL football clubs run drills, including the dragging of weights, in Glen Eira parks.
13. The permit and allocation system and the rotation of the use of grounds allowed Council to provide the maximum use of sporting grounds in recent years, whilst other grounds elsewhere had been cited as either closed or not suitable for some sporting associations to allow match play.
14. People have a right to question and debate Council policy, but on this occasion the ongoing character assassination goes beyond the pale. I had thought that the finding of the independent umpire would be enough to put this issue to bed, however, I was mistaken. Some posters to this blogsite will clearly create a narrative to suit their purposes without regard for findings such as these. If you wish mere friendship to be the test of Councillor conflicts, elect Councillors with no connection the Glen Eira community.
15. I err on the side of maximising the use of our parks. This requires a balance between encouraging general use of the sporting grounds and protecting the grounds for those clubs who provide an outlet for so many in the community to engage in competitive sport. My gut feeling is that the current balance is appropriate.
*see for example – Glen Eira and Planning: Always the Odd Man Out – so called development levy compares a Developer Contributions Plan Overlay at Glen Eira with other Councils’ Public Open Space Contribution. NB: Glen Eira’s Public Open Space Contribution Schedule is contained in the same location as the comparison Councils, Schedule to Clause 52.01.
**There has been a highly selective comparison of planning outcomes outside of Glen Eira. There is a suggestion that part of the reason Glen Eira is developing the way it is is due to a lack of fight at VCAT. I do not believe any metropolitan Council is immune to losing arguments at VCAT about appropriate built form. Glen Eira sends representatives it believes can best represent the Council’s position, there are no guaranteed results. Similar scale developments have recently been heard in http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1454.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1526.html.
October 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Thank you for your comments Mayor Tang. We feel obligated to respond however. At best it would seem that there is a complete failure to comprehend what the Frisbee issue is about – or, at worst, an attempt to simply fudge the argument. The issue has never been about the public’s right to use our parks, or the need to protect surfaces during drought. The central bone of contention is, and has always been, that when council has a specific law in place why it is not enforced? Why, when council has known for years and years that certain groups are breaching these rules have they not been fined? Why does it appear that there is one rule for some groups and another rule for different groups? These are the central questions, not red herrings about drought, other council’s ‘penalty points’, etc. Every council has its rules – but we presume that they enforce them equally!
We’d also like to remind councillors that their duty according to the Local Government Act is to:
(a) act with integrity; and
(b) impartially exercise his or her responsibilities in the interests of the local community; and
(c) not improperly seek to confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
The Municipal Inspector also notes that his recommendations are intended to ‘improve business practice and the community perception of council.” In other words, perceptions are vitally important in order to engender trust and confidence. This confidence is on pretty wobbly grounds given three inspections in 12 years and that:
• Several responses to public questions on this issue have noted that councillors wish to be ‘consulted’ before infringement notices are handed out. One can therefore reasonably assume that at the very least discussions and perhaps informal ‘voting’ has taken place in councillor briefings, or councillor assemblies. In the past, you have abstained from decisions because you happened to be a student at Monash university – that is, one student out of 30,000 or 40,000! Did you therefore declare to the councillor briefing sessions at least an ‘indirect interest’ because as you admit, you know members of this sporting group? Did you partake in these discussions? Did you express any opinions as to whether the group should or should not be fined? Do you agree that being one out of thousands is a much lesser perceived conflict of interest, that being an acquaintance/friend of a small group?
Your citing of the VCAT decisions are also disingenuous. The first decision involved the application for a 4 storey building in a Business 1 Zone, not a residential zone. Boorondara council was severely criticised for having an outdated policy, no overlays for this area and in conclusion the member stated: “I note that the application of Council’s character policy (at Clause 22.07) to this commercial site is technically questionable anyway as this policy only applies to applications in the Residential 1 or Residential 2 zones.” In other words it was bound to lose!
• Further: “Regrettably, Boroondara’s MSS does not provide me with much direction in terms of its housing obligations; where these will be met; and how these will be distributed. While the MSS expresses admirable ambitions around issues like housing diversity; a mix and range of housing types; facilitating appropriate development; and increasing residential opportunities in and around activity centres, it provides no practical guidance on how or where these ambitions will be met”.
• Glen Eira is admittedly praised for its ‘5 tiered approach’ but only as a contrast to the Booroondara MSS in this particular instance. This does not mean that there is enough ‘fight’ by council, that residents should be dissuaded from appealing, and nor does it mean that the current Planning Scheme contains ENOUGH controls, or more importantly, has thoroughly consulted with the community in its recent planning scheme review. And very much like Boorondara, residents need to know that this ‘5 tiered approach’ is also ancient and needs an open, comprehensive, and objective review by those individuals it impacts upon – us, the residents. This you, as Mayor, have failed to insist upon.
October 9, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Well Steven, you are getting very desperate and you just proved it.
I am curious, are other Councillors allowed to use this website with “free speech” or just you, can you confirm this please?
Firstly claiming “character assassination”, well stating the facts is NOT character assassination, we have not made anything up to rubbish you, you seem to be doing a fine job of that yourself going on what the rest of your residents are saying.
WILD ACCUSATIONS HEY?
We require a permit to use Caulfield Park.
The Frisbee group DOES NOT require a permit..
You are mates with them and a Councillors son plays with them.
(I challenge you now to deny this above line and say it is NOT true)
These are FACTS, not wild accusations!
You claim all this other crap like protect the grounds, etc etc, how about you answer the real issue. Why are we required to get a permit and your Frisbee mates are NOT required, is it because they have a Councillors son playing for them, they are your mates?
Why are they above the law, while us riff raff have to abide by the Local law 2009?
I will now respond to some of your points but as I am on holidays I will try to be as concise as possible.
1. General belief – To vague and open to interpretation. How about you just follow the rules and Local Laws that are in place, you know the ones everyone else has to follow, you either require a permit or you don’t, its not that hard?
Recreational Interests – Define what makes a group recreational – is it picnic gear, what is it, who you are mates/related too, how many times you play a week?
2. I have been found by an independent umpire to have no relevant connection to a “frisbee group”.
Just because you get off something doesn’t mean you are not guilty, there has been many cases where everyone knows someone is guilty but they still get away with it, I certainly wouldn’t be gloating about this like you are. I have told the independent umpire they got this horribly wrong, this is because at a meeting with you on the 14th April I asked you this question and your response was and I quote word for word from the official Council meeting notes taken by an independent Council officer “ST – knows members of this group” need I say more? So you still think you have “no relevant” connection to this group? The notes don’t lie do they? Another Councillor has a son that plays with them yet you two gloat you have “No Connection”, who are you trying to fool?
Can you please confirm or deny if another Councillor has a son that plays with the Frisbee group?
5. We have no issue at all with you or any Councillor having friends that use the parks of Glen Eira, but we expect that they follow the same rules as everyone else, and that is NOT HAPPENNING. How do you explain two groups using the same park at the same time, one with a permit and one without? We know why!
6. That is a ridiculous comment, whether you speak to people or not is a minor issue, its whether you know them or not that is the MAJOR issue, and then you make decisions that directly effect that particular group, that is the issue. Who cares if you have spoken to us more than them, what type of silly analogy is that?
7. I get the feeling you are trying to use the old “get out of jail” racist card on me? The mentioning of races are purely an identifier and nothing more than that, we have all races and religions playing with as but our identifier is “The Wogs or the Greeks”, that is just a fact when someone tries to point out our group. We are not offended by it and don’t care what race a group is, it is a pure identifier and that is all.
These other groups are of importance but not near the case of the Frisbee group, the reason being is we want to play at Caulfield Park where the Frisbee groups are doing so without a permit whilst we are required to get one. The other groups are not playing at Caulfield Park so it doesn’t bother us to the same extent. Pretty simple isn’t it, how do you not understand this common sense issue? Our group has been playing at Caulfield Park since the 70’s, and the last few years we have had to pack up and drive to another oval which is not even a sports oval, yet the Frisbee guys can just give us the royal wave as we trundle off, and just play as they like because they have your protection. We are not going to cop that anymore, how about equal rules for all!
Can you confirm we are now the same as the Frisbee group and no longer require a permit, are we the same as them and going to be treated equally to them?
8. Caulfield Park Social Soccer have not had issues with the law, CPSS (Nick’s group) have and they were sorted on the proviso we obtained a Permit and Insurance, this was many years ago now, we have done that but still see other groups using the parks every week without a permit, why should we not feel aggrieved?
So what you are saying is you DO NOT require a permit, however if you want exclusive use of an oval you need a permit, YES or NO?
Well this is in contradiction to Councils Local Law 2009 policy which clearly states permits are required regardless of all your “get out of jail” excuses you use for your mates, maybe you should refresh yourself with this document.
9. You have bamboozled yourself here, we are not privy to all of Councils doings whether they be in our favour or against us, all we can go on are the facts that we see and that is who uses the park, an currently the law is not being applied equally to all.
I don’t see the relevance of posting up what other Councils policies are, apart from the fact they incriminate your decisions even more. This is a Glen Eira issue, you have a policy in place which is not being upheld because of a “Conflict if Interest” situation. How about you deal with your own Local law and apply it “equally to all” as it clearly is not. How can you say everything is OK when we require a permit, yet 20m away on another oval a Frisbee group DOES NOT require a permit, are you serious?
11. There is no exact science alright, but we have a fair idea of the formula you are using
12. What are you waffling on about now, do we drag weights? Neither us nor the Frisbee group ruin the ground, that has nothing to do with it, it’s about why we require a permit and they don’t?
(But it is interesting why I have personally been fined twice for “Damage, Destruction and Interference with Council land”)
13. So what are you doing about illegal groups that play every week without a permit?
14. Don’t try to play the “feel sorry for me card”, you got yourself in this mess; I made you a fair and reasonable offer which you refused. I asked you can we use the oval in front of us (Oval 2) just like the Frisbee group and be treated like them come summer time, you said NO. (There were 2 other people with us that day)
By saying elect Councillors that have nothing to do with Glen Eira is a kin to taking your ball and running off with it like a spoilt brat. How about you just apply the Law equally to all and then it does not matter if that group involves your Husband, Wife, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter or mates!
If the Law is applied equally to all nobody can make any claim.
15. The current balance is appropriate? For who? Not us we require a permit!
ILL END ALL THIS RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT, YOU CLARIFY WITH ME THAT WE DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT, AND WE CAN PLAY WHENEVER WE LIKE AT CAULFIELD PARK JUST LIKE THE FRISBEE GROUP, AND WE WILL NOT RECEIVE A FINE, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING SPECIAL, JUST THE SAME EQUAL OPPORTUNIY AS THE FRISBEE GROUP.
How can you defend this blatant nepotism?
Did you think of this yourself or did the “gang” help?
Were all fellow Councillors consulted prior to trying to defend your actions?
I look forward to your response (in writing) …
.
October 15, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Hey Tang, cant wait to hear your reply to this one, or has the Boss reeled in the leash?
Speaking of leash, how is that dog going, still off-leash in an on-leash area?
Ahhh Councillors, the rules only apply when they suit!
October 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM
I am heartened by the Mayor using references to policies of other councils to support his arguments. Glen Eira could do very well by taking the same approach on planning policy and look at the policies of other councils to see how they respond to and reflect community interests. The current GE council approach sees policies that do not and have not reflected community views on the sort of neighbourhoods they want to live in. The GE Planning Scheme Review which has not been widely circulated will continue in-house, behind closed doors with no input from residents – I don’t think other councils approach policy development in this way!!!!
October 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Tang’s right of reply does nothing to convince me that things are 100% kosher. He still has to explain why Lobo’s attempt to get this whole issue looked at was voted down 8 to 1. If this is the new regime of ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ as the inspector recommended, then god help us all.
October 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM
You are a fool Tang, posting copies of other Councils policies which say you got it wrong – This is Glen Eira mate, I pay my rates to you, not the other Councils.
Good question why was Lobo’s request voted down 8-1, what are you hiding and who are you trying to protect Tang?
October 7, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Look in the mirror tang. there’s noone else to blame except yourself. had you properly answered all questions then there would have been satisfaction. but its too late now. and as for character assassination, well what the hell are you implying with narratives. what games are you playing here?
October 9, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Streuth Steven, Gee you do get yourself into a bother don’t you? You do want the truth but can you handle it? Here it is the way I see it. You don’t bother to communicate with people when they want you to communicate with them; you don’t respond to emails; you don’t respond to voice mail. You only pontificate on those things that you think people need to hear without listening to what they’ve got to say first of all.
And what do people complain about? That the council including administration and including each councillor do not listen to residents views. We wanted change, change in the culture of the council that has been around now for ten years. The opportunity was there at the time of the CEO appointment because the CEO creates, controls, and spreads the culture. At the reappointment time there was a choice. A clear choice between advertising for a change, or continuing along the same course for another 5 years. Instead we got a total compromise of extension for two years. A disaster for all involved. As a result we got a third municipal investigation. What a catastrophe!
Tell me how does a young whippersnapper like you become so arrogant? How can you even mutter the following words that the Herald Sun (Jan, 11th) picked up: “Glen Eira Council needed a new start, and what says new start better than a young face?” Hells bells Stevey boy, to be Mayor takes a lot more than a ‘young’ pimply face! Besides, you’re so sure of yourself aren’t you? So disdaining of others’ points of view? So who is the guilty party? Who is the culprit? You are Steven. You proposed the compromise! Everything then was stuffed up. Newton went to lawyers, and the bill to residents reached over $40,000 – at least!! Tell me Stevey, what would have been so wrong with advertising the position? Don’t tell me that there’s anything wrong with testing the waters out there? Perhaps Glen Eira might have got an absolute champion. But your decision to compromise was the start of everything. Newton fought like hell, and lawyers licked their chops. What a stuff up of gigantic proportions!
Now let’s get to real business. You complain about character assassination. I’m not talking about Mr. Steven Tang. He is an undoubtedly a nice guy, clever, articulate (if a little verbose). I’m talking about Cr. Tang – the Mayor, our leader, our saviour, our representative!! The checklist that was put up a few weeks back on this site is what I’m talking about. How do you reckon you go on that checklist Stevie? Do you really believe that as Mayor you have done justice to the majority of those criteria? Well, I had a really close look at this checklist and awarded you, as Mayor, the following scores –
Governance: 15/75 which equals 40%. A fail Steven. Why you ask? What have you done about leading and supporting councillors? And I love the bit about ‘inspiring’ others. You’ve inspired them all the way to the Municipal Inspector. Instead of ensuring ‘effective communication’ we’ve had one councillor resign under your watch and conflict between administration and councillors. Great stuff, great governance!
Next is chair of council. This is your only pass mark Stevie – 13/25 equalling a bare pass mark of 50%. Have you really promoted high standards of democracy and ‘internal governance’? Sorry mate, no way!
Then there’s ‘supporting the community’. Oh woe is us on this criteria – a dismal 12/30 which equals another fail at 40%. How can you advocate on behalf of the community’s needs, when you don’t even know what these needs are cos there’s never been any attempt on your part to really find out! As to community governance and enterprise, of course not. That would go against the grain of autonomous organisations beyond the ken of council.
In the end Stevie boy, you might be a bright spark at Uni, but as a Mayor there’s a lot left to be desired. Let’s call a spade a shovel shall we and state that in your reign things have only gone from bad to worse. Oh by the way if you doubt any of my marks then just ask – I’ve got plenty of arguments to put forward that will conclusively prove my judgements.
Of course your failure is in actual fact not just your failure but the team’s failure – that is, the nine councillors and the CEO. I do not believe that it was you that lead to this behaviour, although I said it was your fault, I do not believe it was only you. A mentor, much more experienced than you, much more politically minded and getting much more out of being a Councillor than you. And that person is of course the powerbroker and ‘kingmaker’ – Cr Lipshutz. As the saying goes, with a ‘mentor’ like this, who needs enemies.
October 12, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Nick V, why don’t you table this information, proof and overwhelming evidence about the council and the treat of your group to higher grounds.
Television would love a story like this – today tonight, a current affair.
Radio
3AW, SEN, etc
Newspapers
Herald Sun , The Age, i have seen article in the local leader etc.
Like i have said before are you willing to take this matter to court, i am happy to contact you and fund any legal action.