Glen Eira Debates

We ask the question ‘what is the role of a newspaper’, especially a local newspaper? Is it to inform; to engender interest in local issues; to publicise events, or is its role to pander to those interests that may be high on the list of chief advertisers? A simple headline is capable of altering perspective, shifting the emphases, turning neglect into a virtue, making black appear white, and hopeful aspiration the  equivalent of planned and consistent action.

We ask these questions as a result of today’s article in the Caulfield Leader concerning the Elsternwick Childcare saga. Emblazoned across the page there is the headline: “Childcare Reprieve’”. Then we have ‘Council does U-Turn on policy and calls on government help to keep centre open’. Most people would probably see the words ‘reprieve’, U-turn’ and think problem solved! Childcare will go on. Council has caved in to pressure! Nothing could be further from the truth. With possibly unconscious irony, we report that the definition of ‘reprieve’ is:  “a formal temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence esp. of death as an act of clemency”!!  The use of the term ‘u-turn’ is also highly suspect. Let’s face it – council budgetry policy has  never changed. Finance to buy, find alternate accommodation, renovate other buildings has never been an option. The rhetoric has always been ‘it’s not our responsibility – it’s up to State and federal governments”. In an earlier post we used the headline – Councillors perfect the art of doing nothing’. We still stand by this viewpoint. It’s just a pity that the Leader failed to also highlight these facts.

The full Leader article reads:

PARENTS lobbying to stop the closure of Elsternwick Children’s Centre are hopeful State Government intervention will save it. After six months of maintaining that another childcare centre was unnecessary, Glen Eira Council is reconsidering allowing the door to close on the Kooyong Rd building, owned by Alfred Health.

At last Tuesday’s council meeting, the councillors voted to seek help from the government to ‘‘use all means available’’ to ensure the land continues to be used for child care. Alfred Health has not ruled out selling the site or extending the lease, but it seems unlikely.

Nursing and site co-ordination director Janet Weir-Phyland said Caulfield Hospital was working with the health department on ‘‘service planning requirements’’. ‘‘Our planning now also needs to accommodate a new ward f or acquired brain injury patients,’’ Ms Weir-Phyland said.

Alfred Health has let the building to the council for 21 years, with the lease expiring in December 2011. Sixty-four families use the centre. Save Local Childcare Coalition spokeswoman Nicole Owen said the parents’ group wanted the council to buy the building. ‘‘We’re still hopeful . . . we can secure the site,’’ she said.

Mayor Steven Tang said the council would meet again with Alfred Health. ‘‘Issues of time and cost involved in building a new children’s centre would most likely prevent any alternative being ready in time for the end of the current lease,’’ he said.

This post is entirely speculative. Given the information that we have, we are simply exploring a couple of possible scenarios and wishing to alert the public to what may be a most unfortunate outcome in regard to the C60 Panel Report.

The report was handed down in July 2010. Thus far nothing has been forthcoming from officers or council. The next council meeting is set for November 3^rd. That is OVER 60 days that council has had to deliberate and present their recommendations. The law requires a response in 60 days. It therefore seems that Council may not have met its legal obligations thus allowing the developer to go straight to VCAT. This has already happened with the Bay Rd development in Bayside.

So the questions come thick and fast:

1. Will the developer stand on his rights even if the C60 report is on the next council agenda?
2. Is this a deliberate ploy by council to wipe its hands of any decision making and again say it’s all VCAT’s fault?
3. Are councillors fully aware of these time limits? If so, what have they done about it?

Our suspicions are further raised when we read the following paragraph that is on the MRC Caulfield Village website:

“Overall the submissions made to the Panel recommended Caulfield Village as a positive response to Melbourne’s expanding population and demand for services close to public transport.

Council’s closing statement described Caulfield Village as “a reasonable response to the opportunities and constraints afforded by the land and the area” and that “a development of the magnitude proposed has the capacity to bring about significant public realm benefits and contribute significantly to the achievement of community ‘betterment’ leading to a clear net community benefit”.

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Magee, with righteous indignation, declared  in relation to the application at 848 Centre Road – ‘a terrible decision, so VCAT shame on you’!! (Council’s version of events is printed in the minutes). So once again, VCAT becomes the culprit bringing down decisions that councillors bemoan and residents suffer from. 

Let us state quite clearly that we do not endorse, condone, or in anyway support VCAT’s decisions. Nor do we blithely accept council’s version of events! It is exceedingly easy, and politically savvy, to throw up one’s hands and to lay ALL the blame at the feet of VCAT and the State government as this council has repeatedly done. Yet, when one looks closely at the various judgements a different picture emerges. Listed below are extracts from the Centre Rd judgement. We especially wish to highlight: 

1. The member’s repeated remarks about council’s failure to provide ‘evidence’ and,
2. The ‘failure’ of council to get its act together
3. Questions as to the ‘preparedness’ of council in presenting cases 

We cite directly from the judgement: 

“Neither the Council’s Traffic Engineers or VicRoads raised any concerns regarding the likely traffic generation or any potential safety issues at the intersection. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that removal of the four dwellings is justified on traffic safety grounds.  

The Council submitted that the areas should be increased in size to 60m² in order to accommodate sufficient landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. This view, however, is not supported by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who, in their referral comments, raised no concerns regarding the opportunities for landscaping throughout the site. 

I also note that the Standard relates to the following Objective: To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.

1. 20.           Further, the associated decision guidelines refer to the useability of the open space area, its orientation to the street and the sun, and the availability or access to public/communal open space. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, there is no mention of landscaping in either the Objective or decision guidelines.
2. The Council quite fairly conceded that the proposed courtyard areas are adequate for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, and I agree. I can find no support in Clause 55.05-4 for an increase in the courtyard sizes. In my opinion, the proposed open space areas are of dimension and area that are appropriate to this development. I agree with the comments of the earlier Tribunal that some flexibility can be exercised in assessing the open space provision against the Standard, given the apartment style of the development.
3. The courtyard spaces are able to accommodate landscaping, including appropriately sized canopy trees. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that areas of at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of approximately 5.0 metres are unable to support adequate planting to enhance the amenity of the development and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.
4. 30.           From my reading of the documents provided by the Council, notably the referral comments of the Traffic Engineer, it is evident that the 6 metre width reflects a desired outcome – rather than one which is necessary to ensure that the driveway can function in an acceptable manner. I note the Council’s submission that the increased width is required to comply with an Objective of Clause 55.03-9. I was not provided with any evidence to the effect that compliance with Standard B14, and with the requirements of VicRoads, would not allow this Objective to be met.
5. 31.           I consider that a fair and objective assessment of this issue, based on the information before me, must lead to the conclusion that the proposed 5 metre width is acceptable. Had I been presented with evidence which demonstrated the width to be inadequate to allow for the passing of vehicles, then I may have formed a different view.

 Conclusion:

1. What do such decisions reveal about the current planning scheme and its inadequacies?
2. What do such decisions reveal about the adequacy of council’s presentations at VCAT?
3. What does all this say about adequately protecting residents?
4. What does all this say about the recent planning scheme review?

The minutes for council meeting of October 12th are now available. Item 9.7 concerned the Elsternwick childcare. The actual motion read:

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

In order to ensure the continuity of childcare in Elsternwick and align Elsternwick Children’s Centre with Council’s other long day care centres, Council seek the assistance of State Government to use all means available to enable the land at 269 Kooyong Road, Elsternwick (Lots 3 & 4) to continue to be used as a child care centre as it has for the past 21 years.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

We also request readers to make note of these sentences from the financial report also considered at this council meeting- “The forecast result expected for the financial year is an operating surplus of $8.95M as compared to the original adopted 2010-11 annual budget of $6.97M.

Please note that any surplus from day-to-day operations is used to accelerate capital works projects.”

Capital works obviously does not include childcare centres!

A report on last night’s council meeting is below. The minutes of course are not up as yet, so this is a ‘preliminary’ summary of the main events.

• Elsternwick Childcare: Placards were apparently displayed by members of the Local Childcare Coalition opposing the imminent closure of the Elsternwick facility. Councillors (apart from Lobo) all trotted out the party line that childcare is not the responsibility of local government but rather the state (and federal) government! All of course were 100% committed to maintaining the centre – they just didn’t want to spend any money to ensure its continuation. That must be done by the State government. Chief proponents of this view were Lipshutz and co.
• Hyams moved an amendment to the Local Law Review committee’s recommendations that Centre Rd be considered for potential naming as an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’. This was opposed by Lipshutz with the argument that we don’t need it; that the police don’t want more work, they will do nothing to enforce it and hence the job will fall on the already overworked council officers. The amendment was eventually passed with the acknowledgement that council isn’t committing itself to anything but that by putting it on the agenda for future discussions all options are left open.
• Murrumbeena planning application. Placards were again held up with the signage ‘save our suburbs’. Instead of 3 to 4 storeys and 80 odd apartments, this development was ‘reduced’ to two storeys and (only 50) apartments. Traffic congestion was acknowledged as a potential problem!
• Lobo attempted to raise the issue of ‘unauthorised sporting activities’ again, with his ‘request for a report’. There was no seconder, so the motion lapsed.
• Penhalluriack requested a report on the discussions and decisions made between council and the MRC over the Caulfield Racetrack. Lipshutz queried whether this was necessary since it might create the impression that councillors did not have full faith in the officers. This was also commented on by Hyams. Forge then stated that perhaps any report need not be made public, but just kept to councillors. Penhalluriack agreed with this and assured everyone that he was not implying anything about officers.
• Public questions again featured many from the Social Soccer Club. Responses were per ‘normal’.

The record of assembly of councillors printed in the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a fascinating document. We are left to wonder whether councillors have incredibly weak bladders since this specific meeting was nothing short of a swinging door of councillors leaving the meeting and returning a minute later. Please note the procession taken directly from the record –

7.17pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room

7.18pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room

7.45pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room. Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.02pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Magee left the Briefing Room.

8.04pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

8.04pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.05pm Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.08pm Cr Magee returned to the Briefing Room.

8.44pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.45pm Cr Lipshutz left the Briefing Room.

8.46pm Cr Lipshutz returned to the Briefing Room.

8.47pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room and Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.48pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.54pm Cr Esakoff left the Briefing Room.

8.55pm Cr Esakoff returned to the Briefing Room.

Such comings and goings are unbelievable. Yet the only declared ‘conflict of interest’ comes twice from Tang – one notable instance is when the Municipal Inspector’s Recommendations are discussed!

The Local Government Act requires councillors to declare any conflict of interest even in an assembly of councillors. Why isn’t this noted in the record? Why isn’t the nature of the conflict of interest included? Why are all directors present so that in effect this becomes a defacto council meeting behind closed doors? Is this an example of ‘winky pop’ in action? Or are we, the poor public, simply left to speculate on the state of each councillors’ bladder?

Tomorrow night’s council meeting has a recommendation from its Local Laws review committee regarding the Councillor Code of Conduct. The recommendation reads – “No changes suggested’. Hence, it seems that Lipshutz, Tang and Pilling are satisfied with the current document!

Most of the current crop of Councillor Code of Conduct documents closely follow the stipulations set out in the Local Government Act. The act covers things like conflict of interest, integrity, honesty, community participation, etc. etc. It is relatively straight forward and most councils have policies which refer to, or cite the act –  and that’s it! Straight forward, no semantics, no ambiguity, no ‘directives’. Not Glen Eira however! Glen Eira has produced a weighty tome of 22 pages. In contrast, Port Phillip’s policy is 3 pages; Kingston’s policy is 2 pages and Bayside’s policy is 10 pages.  What on earth can these councils say in a fraction of the space that it takes Glen Eira to articulate?

Why is Glen Eira’s Councillor Code of Conduct so ‘fulsome’? What does it contain that no other council bothers to include? What is the reasoning behind such a detailed document? Below is a selection from this Code of Conduct. We’ve highlighted what we believe to be important sections. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions as to the intended impact of such clauses, the reasons for their existence, and the ramifications for the community. Finally, the central question is: do the following clauses improve governance, or are they intended to gag ‘dissidents’ within the councillor ranks, and to create further divides between council and the community? 

 “Demonstrating commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises;” 

There may be times when a Councillor as an individual disagrees with a majority decision of the Council and wants the community to know that. Although Councillors are entitled to present their own views, in doing so, each Councillor should nevertheless acknowledge that:…an overriding concern ought to be to achieve a balance in the matters that are communicated and to strive to achieve an outcome that presents the Council as effective and cohesive. 

Councillors have a duty to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions, giving reasons for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. 

Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings. In discussions leading up to such decisions, in Assembly of Councillor Meetings not open to the public, Councillors may explore a range of positions and express a range of views. Those views must not be reported outside those meetings. To do so would discourage full discussion of developing issues and the ability for Councillors to firm up their views as questions are answered and information provided.

Printed below are extracts from the Municipal Association of Victoria’s (MAV) publication “Citizen to Councillor: A Guide for Prospective Councillors.” As previously requested, please feel free to assess each councillor against the following job specifications and give them a ranking out of 5  – either as an overall mark, or for each criterion. 

• Councillors guide the development of local policies, set service standards and priorities and monitor the performance of the organisation. Other responsibilities of councillors include determining the financial strategy and budget, allocating resources, and liaising with other levels of government, the private sector and non-government community groups. 
• A major task for councillors is to represent their constituents and advocate on their behalf on a wide range of issues.  
• Councillors, both individually and collectively, are accountable to their community. They have a responsibility to respond to requests for information, be prepared to explain the reasons for their own or the council’s actions, and defend council proposals.  
• The process of drawing up the Council Plan generally includes consultation with the community and enables councillors to influence the direction of the council.  
• Councillors contribute to the review of the council’s planning scheme including the Municipal Strategic Statement, and actively participate in the development of local planning policies to form a sound strategic basis for decision making.
• Councillors provide an invaluable link between the community and council. A council should consult and engage its community and, in so doing, reflect the aspirations of that community. 

We’ve received this comment from Streuth and decided to put it up as a full post.

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.

The agenda for the upcoming council meeting contains several important items.

The local law review committee proposes under the heading ‘Vexatious Questions”:  

“Issue of the same question being asked repeatedly was discussed. Two alternatives were suggested:

1. answering the question at the relevant meeting but not reading it; or

2. disallowing the question and not reading it.

Suggested amendments to be drafted reflecting the alternatives.” 

In the ‘Assembly of councillors’ item there is this statement/question: “Can Councillors be reimbursed for legal costs incurred as a result of the Municipal Inspection?”

Item 9.7, entitled ‘Childcare in Elsternwick’ tables a ‘report’ on the imminent closure of the current facility. The result? No new facility, no new budget allocation, etc. etc.  

Once again the ball is in the councillors’ court. The community will be very, very interested to see how this meeting turns out and whether this signals the start of the further erosion of democratic principles.