The latest Ombudsman’s report into the Windsor Hotel scandal raises, in our opinion, some remarkable parallels with the goings on in Glen Eira under the reign of Andrew Newton. The Ombudsman has revealed how ‘public consultation’ on the Windsor development was nothing but a sham in order to provide the ‘evidence’ required for an already pre-determined decision. This echoes numerous public consultation issues in Glen Eira over the past decade where, we believe, decisions had already been determined prior to the obligatory ‘consultation’ . In short, ‘consultation’ shams. The examples are numerous – Caulfield Park Pavilion; Council Plan; Planning Scheme Review; DAMP plan; Councillor Code of Conduct and the 2009 Local Law ‘consultations’ . In each case, community views were largely ignored and certainly not incorporated in any significant way into the final policy/strategy. We are not alleging anything illegal here. Council only has to ‘consider’ public opinion. What we do believe is that ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira fails to implement the spirit of the law – council adheres only to the letter of the law. Hence, we feel that the ombudsman’s comments have real relevance for Glen Eira and its residents.
Some further evidence to support this view. The ombudsman found major faults with the record keeping processes and hence accountability of several key players. He concluded that: “I was also disappointed with the standard of record-keeping, especially that of the Department, Heritage Victoria, and the City of Melbourne. This included the failure of agencies to make and keep accurate records of key meetings and events relating to The Hotel Windsor planning and heritage applications. Poor file management practices were also evident.
In the absence of basic records detailing key meetings and discussions with agencies and individuals regarding the proposed redevelopment, it is difficult to have a complete appreciation of the processes followed.”
On November 3rd the administration’s response to a ‘Request for a Report’ was tabled at Council Meeting. The request was for ‘a report on each meeting during the past twelve months between Council’s officers acting in their official capacities and representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club and or of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees (those who are not also Glen Eira Councillors) including the normal details explaining the subjects discussed and any decisions reached.”
The report was tabled without names as to author – the first black mark against all notions of accountability and transparency! Secondly, we find this extract in the report:
“Throughout this process, there have been numerous meetings to give effect to the Council’s decisions and to prepare material for future Council decision-making. Officers do not hold delegated power to decide on planning scheme amendments and accordingly none of the meetings made Council decisions – nor was there any possibility of them doing so.
If Council wants staff of the Planning Office to attempt to identify the dates of meetings, that would involve time which would otherwise be spent addressing planning applications, amendments or appeals and it would be appreciated if Council would specifically direct that activity if it wishes.” (So much for at least file management practices!)
Then there is also the following: “The MRC CEO and manager dropped in on the Council’s CEO at the end of one day in September (date unrecorded) to “clarify” MRC criticism of comments by Council’s Director of Community Relations about C60 in the Leader Newspaper (approx 5 minutes).”
We find it incredible that dates are left ‘unrecorded’ especially since this is mandatory practice for all recordkeeping regimes. Yet, the time was noted!”
Given the information at hand, we can only conclude one of two things:
- The report to council is inadequate and doesn’t fulfil the requirements of good recordkeeping
- The report to council is deliberately obtuse and again doesn’t fulfil the directives of council decisions.
Perhaps the ombudsman should also be carefully investigating the planning processes that have occurred between Glen Eira and the MRC and the recordkeeping policies of this council and how well they are adhered to?
Glen Eira Debates 
February 11, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Rotten practices stick out like sore thumbs here. If councillors really knew what the hell was going on between Newton and the MRC there wouldn’t have been the request for a report. This means that they’re (or some of them) have been kept in the dark. Yet they’re supposed to vote on the c60. This ain’t decision making on the bases of full knowledge! Then there’s also the fact that the request for a report was supposed to give details on every single meeting. this hasn’t been done. Now I see this as a blatant disregard of a council resolution. It’s newton saying stuff you councillors and go to hell – I’m running the show and I’ll let you know only what I think you should know! How’s that for democratic rule. Thirdly, the fact that they haven’t got dates, and they won’t or can’t find records says heaps about the accountability of this council – or maybe simply the old story of don’t put stuff down on papper which will incriminate you later!! The other possibility is that this is simply more of the same – keeping councillors in the dark – or only those councillors who Newton doesn’t want involved in anything. This whole business stinks to high heaven. Yes, get the ombudsman in. Madden will look like an angel compared to Newton
February 11, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Don’t forget the municipal inspector’s findings of poor record keeping.
February 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM
We’ve gone through the Ombudsman’s Report and in the public interest we highlight the following extracts. They are taken verbatim from the report and focus specifically on record keeping practices by agencies and their obligations under the Public Records Act. (apologies for the length!)
it is important that there be a planning framework in place for Victoria which provides for accountable and transparent decision-making by government administration. It must also ensure that the effect on the environment, individuals and social and economic factors are considered when decisions are made about use and development of land.
In this context, accountability and transparency are essential to ensuring community confidence in government decision-making. Accountability requires that government is able to demonstrate and justify its decision-making. While inter-related, transparency involves the preparedness of government to open a project and its processes to scrutiny and possible criticism.
The failure of agencies to maintain adequate records compromises an agency’s functions, undermines its credibility and impacts negatively on the public’s perception.
Good record-keeping is a necessary element of good governance. Good record-keeping supports efficiency and accountability through the creation, management and retention of meaningful, accurate, reliable, accessible and durable records of important government activities and decisions. Good records are necessary for government to keep track of what it has done, so that future activities can be examined on the basis of a comprehensive and accurate knowledge of what has occurred and what has been decided in the past.
My concerns with the Department and Heritage Victoria relate to their failure to make and keep adequate records regarding The Hotel Windsor planning and heritage permit applications. Poor file management practices, including the failure of officers to file documents accurately and folio files, were also evident. (inclusive page 39)
Despite the obligation under section 13(a) Public Records Act to ‘make and keep full and accurate records’, I was unable to locate records of the various meetings attended by Departmental and Heritage Victoria officers. The Public Record Office Standard (PROS) 97/002 requires public officers to ‘make adequate records of their administration for the purposes of government accountability and the purposes of future government’. Given the importance of these meetings to the progress and development of The Hotel Windsor project I consider that these meetings should have been recorded and the failure to take this step indicates failure to comply with statutory obligations and the Public Record Office standard. (page 41)
While some notes were made of the discussions by an officer who attended, an official record was not made of this meeting or its outcomes by the Department or Heritage Victoria. The meeting with Mr Madden on 17 June 2009 later became the subject of media attention in July 2010, when the Department in response to a freedom of information request from a journalist, stated that ‘no notes were made of this meeting’.
The Department maintained that personal notes made by the officer who attended the meeting with Mr Madden on 17 June 2009 did not meet the definition of a document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. As a result, the Department refused to release the notes under freedom of information legislation.
In August 2010 I received a complaint about the Department’s decision to refuse the release of the officer’s notes under the Freedom of Information Act. I was concerned with the Department’s interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act. In my view, the notes form part of the public record and should be attached to the Department’s Freedom of Information file and assessed for their release. Following my intervention in this matter, the Department agreed to the release of the notes of the meeting in 17 June 2009 under the Freedom of Information Act. (page 41)
The Department and Heritage Victoria officers generally did not make a record of telephone conversations with applicants, consultants, agencies or objectors to a proposed redevelopment.
The poor record-keeping practices of the Department and Heritage Victoria hindered my investigation. There is little doubt that the Department and Heritage Victoria failed to comply with its statutory record-keeping obligations under the Public Records Act and the Public Records Office standard. The Department also failed to comply with Mr Madden’s expectations regarding record-keeping standards.
My investigation identified a lack of understanding amongst Department and Heritage Victoria staff regarding expected record-keeping standards. I also identified poor file management practices in that documents were filed in a haphazard manner, files were not folioed and file covers did not record movement of files between officers.
203. In the absence of basic records detailing key meetings and discussions with agencies and individuals regarding the proposed redevelopment, it is difficult to have a complete appreciation of the processes followed.
I requested a copy of the minutes of the Senior Officers Discussion Meeting held on 29 October 2009, where The Hotel Windsor planning permit application was discussed. I established that that were no separate minutes kept of this meeting. I was advised by the City of Melbourne that the minutes of the meeting are in fact Ms Hall’s report dated 29 October 2009.
214. Following the Senior Officers Discussion Meeting on 29 October 2009, Ms Hall’s planning report dated 29 October 2009, objecting to the planning application, was circulated to the elected councillors of the City of Melbourne for discussion at a ‘Councillor Only Meeting’ on 10 November 2009.
My investigation identified poor record-keeping in the City of Melbourne files examined. Files were generally in an inadequate condition, with documentation not kept in chronological order and several documents filed loosely. Documents were not folioed and file covers failed to record the historical movement of files between officers. As such, the City of Melbourne has failed to comply with its statutory record-keeping obligations under the Public Records Act and the Public Records Office standard.
February 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM
These quotes clearly reveal what’s wrong with the way that governments including councils go about their planning. I attended the centre of the racecourse planning conference and was dismayed to learn that not all the documents were kept together in the file. some present stated that they only saw document x, others that there were supposed to be more. The planning officer, effie tangalakis, seemed to accept this as par for the course. If this is the attitude when documents go missing or are mislaid, then god knows what else goes on in this council.
February 11, 2011 at 11:29 PM
I’m incredulous that 9 supposedly intelligent individuals can repeatedly forget that their primary obligation is to the Glen Eira community and not anyone else. The report tabled in response to the request for a report was accepted unanimously. Most reports are accepted unanimously. Yet comments throughout these posts tell us that often there are misleading figures and misrepresentations of the facts. Why on earth is this substandard work accepted? Regardless of the administration’s motives, they are duty bound to only provide advice, not to doctor documents. If such reports are continually below par then they must be sent back for redoing. If people are embarrassed then so be it. Maybe if councillors started demanding excellence in the 1000 odd staff that work for this council, then the quality of the work would improve. This would never be tolerated in private industry. As employers, since it is mine and your money that is being spent, I expect a lot more from both councillors and administrators. The unanimous passing of shoddy and misleading policy documents is not face saving; it amounts to negligence.