Glen Eira Debates

Moorabbin Leader, Nov.17^th 2010

Fury over attack in park

Residents say their concerns over Memorial Park safety after dark are ignored

 McKINNON residents are outraged a man was attacked and robbed in Memorial Park after their calls for lighting to be installed in the park were ignored. The 27-year-old Malaysian man was assaulted by a group of men while he was walking through the park, at the corner of Wattle Grove and McKinnon Rd, about 12.45am on Saturday, November 6. One man punched the victim in the face, and when he fell to the ground two other men began kicking and punching him before stealing his backpack. 

Embona Taskforce Sgt Andrew Collison said police did not believe the assault was racially motivated. But the incident has appalled residents, who say they have asked Glen Eira Council for years to put lights in the park to improve safety. The park’s complete darkness provided a ‘‘haven for scumbags’’ resident Annie Morrell said.

‘‘This attack could have been prevented,’’ Ms Morrell said. ‘‘I rang the council and asked them to do something about it and I was brushed off. It’s ludicrous. Someone will be attacked again.’’ Kate Deneiffe said she wrote to the council four years ago asking for lighting be installed at the park. But director of community relations Paul Burke said one reason the council did not install security lighting in parks was because it could ‘‘encourage the very antisocial behaviour we all try to discourage’’.

 GLEN Eira Council has taken the unusual step of laying hundreds of metres of artificial grass on an Ormond roadside median strip. The median strip, between Tucker and East Boundary roads, separates a service lane from busy North Rd. Similar strips on the west side of North Rd are filled with concrete.  

Director of community relations Paul Burke would not reveal the cost of installing the synthetic grass, but Mary McKay from Easy Turf Melbourne said most companies would charge $ 65-$ 80 a square metre. This meant the cost of the median strip turf could have run to tens of thousands of dollars. Mr Burke said the council installed the turf because the narrow strip posed a ‘‘significant safety risk’’ to workers mowing and maintaining real grass. ‘‘(This) meant traffic management controls had to be put in place each time the strip was maintained. ‘‘While these controls protect the safety of the men and women in the work area, they can be a cause of frustration to busy motorists.’’ Mr Burke said the synthetic grass would be cheaper to maintain than real grass and ‘‘a further positive outcome was grass clippings that used to end up in the stormwater network no longer do so’’. 

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

With this logic, we can assume:

• Safety of staff is valued more highly than safety of residents
• Spending millions on sports lighting is more important that lighting for safety

Below is a chronological account of the Planning Meeting for the centre of the Caulfield Racetrack.

• No signage at town hall alerting residents where to go. Doors were locked. Eventually informed by Crs. Forge and Penhalluriack (once they themselves found out) that the meeting was to occur upstairs in one of the rooms
• Present 11 residents; Crs. Penhalluriack and Forge (as observers); Magee chaired the meeting and Town Planner was to take notes and ‘explain’ the application. An projector displayed the plans on a wall.
• Not everyone received a copy of the plans since not enough were made available
• NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MRC WAS PRESENT
• Magee’s role as chair was questioned since he is a member of the MRC trustees and therefore whether this constituted a ‘conflict of interest’. Magee claimed it didn’t since this meeting was not a ‘decision making’ meeting.
• Several residents began by criticising council and its failure to adequately inform the community of this meeting, as well as failing to provide sufficient copies of plans. Town Planner responded that 432 letters had been sent out; notices placed around the racecourse and advertising in Local Papers. She emphasised that council was adhering to the law since their obligation was only to notify ‘abutting’ residents. Several present complained that they ‘abutted’ the racecourse and had not received notification via council. The point was made that council always acted upon the LETTER of the law rather than the SPIRIT of the law and that this was not good enough. Town Planner retorted that she had received only one objection earlier and one handed in today. A resident present stated that he had submitted an objection and asked Magee whether he had read it. The response was ‘no’.
• Complaints were also made about the indecipherability of the plans; that the meeting should have tabled the application in its entirety. Several residents claimed to have inspected the file, but that in each instance the documents differed.
• Magee explained that the purpose was to act upon the application – not its purpose and use. Town planner affirmed that even though a car park was drawn in the plans, council’s role was only to grant permission for the ‘shovel’ to go into the ground – not how this land was to be used. Argument degenerated into confusion, and semantics.
• One resident walked out half way through meeting
• Major criticisms of the plan included: building a car park on open space and the community’s land; the fact that council officers had ‘negotiated’ with the MRC and hence ‘conflict of interest’ questions arose again
• Magee insisted that the land belonged to the Commonwealth when numerous residents informed him that it belonged to the State as per Queen Victoria’s caveat.
• Magee also informed the meeting that the Town Planning officers would go away and write up their report and it would be available in the agenda items and council would then consider the recommendations. When asked if the public could address council, Magee’s response was ‘No’. One resident pointed out that residents do have the right to address councillors at council meetings upon the discretion of the Mayor! Cr. Forge said that she would be bringing this up with her fellow councillors.
• Other concerns were the ‘legality’ of the application – Magee and Town Planner did not know. Safety issues – ie the pedestrian tunnel to access the centre where people had to walk through dust and dung, as well as car traffic. 

The predominant mood of the meeting was anger, and dismay at the failure of council to be proactive in its advocacy for residents. Most present felt that the entire meeting was farcical and a fait accompli!!!!

If you were present and would like to add your comments on anything left out in the above, please do so.

My fellow concerned citizens, 

As requested, please find attached the text of my letter of resignation from the Council of the City of Glen Eira, dated 30 July 2010 

I’m sorry I cannot reply to you individually due to the large number of responses I received, but I would like to express my thanks to you all for your interest in the good governance of the City. I also thank you for your sentiments of support. Many of you reminded me of the issues we dealt with together over the last 5 years. Some of you asked why I did not raise some of these issues more publicly whilst a Councillor. I understand this point but the Local Government Act allows certain matters to be treated In Confidence, and I have to abide by the law in this situation. However I can assure you I raised many concerns both with individual Councillors and with the Council as a group. 

I would like to encourage all of you to involve yourselves in Council matters and to demand transparency and accountability. For example:

• Attend Council meetings every 3^rd Tuesday at 7.30pm at the Council Chambers and submit questions in writing before 12noon on the day of the meeting Questions can be about any relevant matter, but  questions should be specific, constructive  and short, to elicit the best possible response..
• Become informed about issues, individual Councillors attitudes and behaviours which may affect their decision making on particular issues.
• Appreciate the quality and hard work of the Council Officers and Staff who have been recognized by State and Federal Government for their high achievements in many fields
• Communicate your opinions to your Councillors and be aware of the importance of the position of Mayor who must lead the Council and be unbiased and sensitive to the interests of the whole community.
• Read the most recent Report by the Local Government Inspector and his criticisms of some Councillor behaviours.  

I continue to live in Caulfield North and remain interested and concerned for the long term future of the Municipality.   

Sincerely 

Helen Whiteside

14 November 2010

 WE’VE UPLOADED THE LETTER HERE and also under ‘Why We’re Here’.

A quietly arranged Notice by Glen Eira Council and MRC circulated only to adjacent properties of the Racecourse, invites people to a Planning Conference to discuss the plan to open up the middle of the Racecourse to the public.

When: Monday 15 November

Where:  Glen Eira Town Hall cnr Glen Eira & Hawthorn Roads

Time: 6.30 pm

Questions to ask are:

• How big is the proposed Public Access area in comparison to the Racecourse grounds?
• What facilities are being proposed for this area?
• What access facilities are being proposed?
• What access facilities are arranged for the disabled?
• What times the Public Access area will be available for public access?
• What does the MRC propose to do about horse training facilities at the Racecourse?
• How does horse training affect public access to the Public Area?
• How does horse stables and its environmental problems affect contact with general public as proposed?
• What precautions have been made in regards to health and safety issues if training is to be retained?
• How long is the training of horses to be retained at the Caulfield Racecourse?
• Are there plans to increase the Public Access area on the Crown Land after horse training is removed?

Readers, these questions are also relevant to be asked of ALL candidates at the current State election.

The Caulfield Racecourse is a asset worth over $2 billion dollars  that is of State wide and National significance, and of international fame. It was earmarked by the Crown Grant of 1858 by Queen Victoria, and confirmed by King George VI in 1949.  The Grant is very specific as to its three uses “for a Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park at Caulfield in the Parish of Prahran”.

We’re conducting some online research and need your help. We specifically want to know the following:

•How do you rate the outcomes of your formal interactions (ie. submissions, public questions) with council?
•Were your questions/submissions adequately responded to? Were they acted upon?
•Were the responses relevant, accurate, and enlightening?
Below are a list of names. These are people who have had direct interaction with council via public questions and submissions. If you know anyone on the list please alert them to this research. Yours and their feedback is important. We can be contacted via gedebates@gmail.com

A previous post reported that in the space of 4 years, Glen Eira Council had spent AT LEAST $16,781,000 on sporting grounds, and facilities. Over the top, we asked? Especially when other services appear not to be getting their slice of the pie!

Just to confirm our suspicions that such a high level of spending for one (minority) sector of the population is not all that common, we cite what the Kingston Council has put out as a media release. The release was in response to criticism made by cricket clubs as to the poor upkeep of grounds and poor planning. In addressing these allegation, Kingston CEO Nevins wrote:

“…Council spends in excess of $1 million a year on sportsground maintenance which includes ground renovations and upkeep; mowing; irrigation system maintenance; water for irrigating sporting fields; cricket wicket renewals; and oval top dressing.

Over the last four years Council has also undertaken capital works on pavilions, cricket nets and wickets totalling $2.56 million as well as spent $120,000 on warm season grass conversions. Over the last three years we have invested more than $170,000 in pavilion maintenance, $120,000 on water management at Doug Denyer Reserve and provided more than $30,000 in community grants to cricket clubs.”

Such figures pall into insignificance when compared with Glen Eira. Yet, Kingston has a greater population, greater ‘open space’, more teams, and more sports grounds. Are they that negligent, indifferent, poor managers, or is it simply that they have decided that budgets need to be equally shared between all sectors of their community?

Glen Eira Council has published a new Media Release entitled “Issues for the City and the State Election”. Highlighted are such issues as: level crossings, inadequate State funding for childcare/kindergartens and proposed pruning of street trees near power lines. Significantly, the word PLANNING, appears only once – almost as a throwaway in the penultimate paragraph. The Caufield Racecourse also only garners a mention here.

We highlight this to readers since this ‘call to arms’ stands in stark contrast to the VLGA vision of the significant issues facing the electorate. Their emphases is almost exclusively on planning and the need to recognise the role of the community in determining planning outcomes. Why are the respective ‘visions’ so vastly different? What does this say about Glen Eira’s approach to planning and community consultation? But of course, Glen Eira has now removed itself from the VLGA after only one short year! We’ve uploaded the VLGA document here

Today’s Caulfield Leader – Page 7

OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF GLEN EIRA

RESIGNATION FROM COUNCIL: FORMER MAYOR HELEN WHITESIDE EXPLAINS

Dear fellow citizens and ratepayers of Glen Eira,

Helen Whiteside resigned as councillor of Camden Ward and Deputy Mayor in July 2010. Council decided not to make public my resignation letter. Many people have contacted me with questions and support seeking more details, so I feel the need to explain.

After 5 years on council, elected twice, it was with sincere regret that I felt I had to resign.  The reasons were an accumulation of council decisions which in my opinion were not in the long term best interests of the City of Glen Eira, including, among others:

CEO reappointment: poor governance, excessive legal costs, and biased decisions during an extended process to reappoint our high performing CEO

Open Space: the decision to rescind a S173 agreement exchanging public open space land, now resulting in open space being removed from public use;

Conflicts of Interest: In my view some councillors did not make decisions based on merit and objectivity in the interests of all

Subsequent  to my resignation some councillors with whom I worked closely for 5 years took objection to my questioning of these matters of principle and their standards of ethical behaviour. In the interests of transparency I am willing to send the text of my resignation letter to anyone who contacts me by email hmwhiteside@bigpond.com

Yours sincerely

Helen Whiteside

31 October 2010

Geelong Advertiser – November 3^rd, 2010 

“FUNNY how some city councillors simply don’t get it. Their closed-door briefings should be open to the public and they could do themselves a great service in the process.

New rules means they have to publish an agenda but the public gets to know nothing else. And as this newspaper has revealed, the briefings have been used for straw polls, to change officer recommendations and to make decisions later rubber-stamped in open council.

The agenda rule was enacted after State Ombudsman George Brouwer warned of the patent scope for corruption. But the new agenda rule don’t go far enough.

Cr Bruce Harwood, a former mayor, insists there’s nothing untoward in the briefings. He claims that in his eight years as a councillor he’s not seen nor had any knowledge or even any suggestion of illegal or improper behaviour, secret deals done or changing of recommendations from officers.

Three years ago, ratepayers will remember, Cr Harwood, then a police detective, was investigated but cleared by the Office of Police Integrity over his role chairing a meeting that approved a nightclub extension for Home House owner Darryn Lyons; this, after holidaying on his yacht on the French Riviera.

He acknowledged in this paper yesterday that the council had abided with the Ombudsman, VCAT and other like government statutory body decisions.

What we don’t understand is why he or the council aren’t interested in sharing what they know with the ratepayers who voted them to office – and who may be affected by the decisions made from information and recommendations offered, garnered or changed at these briefings.

The State Government has offered lip service only with the new agenda rule and the council is similarly reluctant to engage the public. Again, we have ask, what is there to hide?”

We at glen Eira would take this even further and suggest that on the evidence of the records of ‘assembly of councillors’, the public is kept totally in the dark. For example: the minutes of last meeting record an item from the assembly of councillors as ‘exchange of emails’. Yet Lobo felt it necessary to oppose the acceptance of minutes (he got confused over council/special committee minutes and assembly reports) and asserted that this phrase should be retitled ‘racism’. So, we the poor suffering public only get a glimpse of what is really going on. But it’s even worse when one considers the fact that not only are such meetings closed to the public, but even advisory committee meetings are also conducted in secret. Only the environment advisory committee has external community members – all the rest are a closed shop. All of this is unfortunately ‘legal’ – it depends on the ethos, culture, and mentality of each individual council as to how they will interpret and implement the legislation. This is where our councillors have been a total failure in allowing the continual erosion of democracy in this council.