A few thoughts about this blog-site, the content and some of the comments.
Some of the postings are informative and offer insights to what is happening particularly at Council meetings and that is to be applauded.
Increasingly though it seems a case of councillor/council bashing no matter what the merit of decisions made, myself being the latest recipient.
I appreciate constructive critisism but many of the postings/comments seem otherwise.
I have found all the councillors to be decent, conciencious and hard working – in short it is a good team to work amongst.
I stand by both my recent decisions on the racecourse centre and C60 and challenge the moderator and readers in the real world (not cyber) of how they would have delivered better outcomes given the circumstances.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 1, 2011 at 9:05 PM
Good to see a councillor reading gleneira debates and responding. This forum is being heard. Well done. Cr.Pilling please inform all councillors and GE senior staff of this Forum’s existence. Thank u
May 1, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Dear Cr. Pilling,
With all due respect we would suggest that your post reveals exactly why there is criticism of yourself, the administration and finally many of your fellow councillors. Your comment simply tells us that you are incapable of grasping some basic fundamentals of the way a council should work if it is to meet its obligations to ratepayers.
In the first place you applaud this blogsite’s coverage of council meetings. Since our biggest hits are when we report on such council meetings, surely this should tell you that people are thirsty for knowledge of what goes on in council chambers. It should also tell you that the current methods of informing people are totally inadequate – such as minutes which basically say nothing, don’t reveal the arguments, and certainly don’t provide any insight into the bases of the decision making. This is not transparency – it amounts to nothing more than fulfilling the legal requirements, not informing the community. Secondly, public questions over the years have repeatedly commented on the brevity of council minutes and advisory committee minutes. The answer has always been that ‘we’re not Hansard’. If you are so concerned about ensuring that the public really knows what’s going on, then table a motion that calls for making council proceedings available online via audio links as numerous other councils have done, or at least insist that minutes contain far more detail than they currently do. Even better, why not insist on publicising the agendas and dates of advisory committee meetings and ensuring that they are open to the public. Even more radical, suggest that all advisory committees contain community representatives! Now that’s what a really good councillor concerned about openness and transparency would do!
Then there is your plea about the racecourse and the C60 and you have the temerity to ask what the ratepayers and the moderators of this site would have done. Too, too late councillor. This question should have been asked right at the start – in fact years ago. Have you ever heard of Steering Committees, expert opinion, community representation? That’s what should have happened. And even at the panel hearings, where were the ‘experts’ that council called in to ‘assist’ with the application and the amendment. Whilst the MRC availed itself of consultants, QC’s, traffic engineers and so forth, what did council provide except for a solitary solicitor? We are convinced that had the intention been to engage ratepayers, you would have gained plenty of volunteers with expertise to assist and present a balanced view. But it is obvious that this was never the intention. Even after the April 4th meeting, how well did you really listen to the concerns of residents? What measures did you take to ameliorate these concerns in your final version of the C60? We’d argue that reducing the height of towers from 23 to 20 storeys does not fall into the category of listening to residents. It merely creates a precedent for further high rise in every major activity centre – in exactly the same fashion as the 10 storey in Elsternwick has now been supplanted with the prospect of 14 storeys. Yes, Cr. Pilling you’ve opened up a real Pandora’s box!
As far as overall planning goes, this blogsite has repeatedly commented on the inadequacies of this council’s planning scheme. We do not recoil from this statement. Again, we ask you, why when every other council can have structure plans, interim and permanent height controls, parking precinct schemes, and much more, this council ignores such measures. The reason has never been explained to residents, and certainly not adequately explained in the recent sham review. Again, this is where you come in Cr. Pilling. Did you ask any of these questions? Did you get any answers? On what basis did you vote to support the recommendations of the review? What was the logic behind your view? Did you seek expert advice? Did you compare what other councils were doing? Or did you simply take at face value the officers’ recommendations and the opinions of your new found friends? Did you even contemplate the reasons behind these recommendations? Did you think what their import would mean to residents? Or couldn’t you see that far? We would dearly like to know your answers to these questions because they go to the heart of what it means to be a good councillor concerned about the future of his municipality and the well being of his constituents.
Finally, it is the easiest thing in the world to claim ‘councillor bashing’ as a means of deflecting criticism. It means that you simply do not understand why people might be upset and the fact that they may have legitimate reasons for this reaction. If our readers are critical of you and others in council, it is because they feel that your actions have totally disregarded community views and therefore not fulfilled your primary obligation as a councillor – that is, to represent the people who elected you in an open, transparent and democratic manner.
May 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM
The comments regarding the lack of feedback to residents and providing full information about council matters is in my view spot on. Cr Pilling you were elected on the promise of having more community consultation. Well, there’s been heaps of mock consultations. Your blog councillor even mentioned the street stall where you and others were willing to listen to residents. But I haven’t heard a word more about this from anyone. Why haven’t you reported back to the wider community and why have all the forums ended in silence? There’s no feedback and no action as a result of what people ask for and tell you. Great, you hold some meetings and pretend to listen to community views. That’s where it ends.
On another issue that’s close to my heart is the flooding that occured. It’s now months since the February floods and a couple of months since you were supposed to investigate the issues and report back. It shouldn’t take this long if council was really doing its job to get back to people about the state of drainage in this council. Please remember that winter is now coming and with it the rains. All I’m expecting is more passing of the blame to melbourne Water rather than a full account of what went wrong and why. That’s where your responsibility lies Mr Pilling. To guarantee residents that you will do your job and demand that all reports by officers are accurate and tell the true story.
May 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Neil,
Firstly I’ll applaud you for at least getting on and having a say, what you say is mostly drivel in my opinion but at least you say something. Why don’t you pass on to your fellow gang members who troll the site but are too weak and insipid to also get on one day and have a say themselves. God forbid if you ever had an avenue for councillor/community robust debate, that would be illegal wouldn’t it.
Secondly, you are such a hypocrite. You have a good whinge at “councillor bashing” but you sit there dumb and happy when it comes to “resident bashing”, yeah that seems fair and equal to me.
You quote,
“Some of the postings are informative and offer insights to what is happening particularly at Council meetings and that is to be applauded”
Well if it’s to be applauded then do something about it. Why do I have to go via Freedom of Information all the time to get the truth about a meeting? Why isn’t the real information always forthcoming? Why is all the “juicy stuff” from the meetings left out in the minutes?
How many times have I asked a public question about a meeting, whilst you know the real answer, but you choose to sit there and say nothing. Why? Might upset a fellow gang member?
Give me a break you applaud it, that’s rubbish and you know it, do something about it and then we might believe you. This Council is run on secret deals, hiding the truth and not doing what the Inspector recommended which is “open and transparent” governance.
WHY?
May 1, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Remember this on CEO’s? – “I believe that this position should always be advertised at the end of each contracted term. This should help to deliver to the residents of Glen Eira the best possible CEO through an open and transparent process.This is what our community deserve.
Renewal and change are an important part of any organisation and The City of Glen Eira should be no exception”.
Another backflip on this position as well, or will you stick to your words? I’m waiting with bated breath, but wouldn’t bet on your consistency for anything!
May 2, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Here are some more of your promises Pilling. Not one has been fulfilled, or even brought out into the open. You have basically failed as a councillor not only because non of these things have been achieved – I do realise that you need five votes – but because you’ve kept your mouth shut and never spoken up about them at council meetings. You voted for the local law and every other policy that was tabled. Then was your chance to really put up or shut up. You chose the latter!
The expertise, opinions and experiences of the community in GE are not fully valued and appreciated.
There is a culture in the Council/Admin that says ‘we know best’ and those whose views differ are too easily dismisssed as a ‘noisy minority’ and are unworthy of consideration.
The Council seems to be run more like a company than a local governing body and that widespread cultural change will probably only happen with personal changes.
However there is some scope for positive progress in this term as I feel that the current council is more progressive than previously.
Community representatives on advisory committees should be the norm not the exception.
The council meeting processes should be changed-
to allow the gallery to address the council
councillors to have greater input into public questions
The local law draft needs to be closely looked at especially where it could constrict public engagement in the meeting process.
I also mentioned the chamber should be relocated to a far more modern room that is more condusive to community interaction!
The council website can be further improved and enhanced .
I feel these forums will become increasingly important in helping to improve and reform our council and have been heartened by the feedback so far, only 14 to go!
May 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM
Niel, while I applaud you for at least putting your name to a post (something few of your fellow “decent, concientious and hard working” councillors ever do), I have to disagree with you. Over the past few years, I have been observing both Council and the Administration actions and decisions and reluctantly have formed a negative opinion of both Councillors and the Administration. The constant barrage of secrecy, scant regard for residents, done deals and political game playing is hard to ignore. Look at the number of hits on this website – I am not alone.
You ask what I would have done re C60 – the list is endless therefore I will limit myself the latest and greatest. I formally ask – how could you sit at the C60 public meeting on April 4th and allow the misinformation re parking provisions to go uncommented on?
In my opinion, if by not speaking you have clearly indicated where residents concerns and rights sit on your scale of priorities. Quite frankly, as a resident I find this abhorrent.
May 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Fess up Neil, who’s been pushing all your buttons?
May 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Also with respect, Councillor Pilling, you must realise that when a website such as this is close to 100,000 hits there is a more than average interest in the workings of this Council.
I applaud the site as my only means of information otherwise denied to us. To complain about ‘Council bashing’ of a very personal nature is legitimate, however, again you fail to gauge the sense of community frustration and anger. If you want the site to censor such content then the same should apply to some of the more verbose and vitriolic Councillors who engage is ‘dissenter bashing’ at Council meetings – ratepayers who actively engage and take an interest in important local issues and have no public right of reply.
I believe, Council should reintroduce a controlled exchange with the public at every Council meeting with specific conduct restraints and time frames. This could be easily achieved.
Many former Councillors have voiced their concern about governance at Glen Eira, as did three inquiries of recent years, so we have good reason to question. You have just voted for probably the biggest issue ever to come before this Council (the MRC debacle) – and hardly anyone in Glen Eira knows about it.
Councillor, you put yourself out there by taking on a public role knowing there are some unpleasant aspects. I have no doubt our Councillors are “decent, conscientious and hard working” – as are the so called “dissenters’. It should not be up to those dissenters to give of their time, energy and finances to try and get important issues into the public arena – that is the job of Local Government. I long for the day when this fundamental aspect of democracy will be the culture of this Council, making it unnecessary for this website to exist.
Thank you Councillor. And thank you to this website for letting me have my say.
May 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM
My sister has just told me that she’s spent all day with estate agents – she’s decided to sell after much agonising and disappointment. I hope you can sleep well at night Pilling because you are to blame for this trauma you’ve caused to countless families.
May 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM
Tomorrow’s Leader article and the three comments thus far from online:
Nod for Caulfield Village high-rise
Council2 May 11 @ 06:00am by Jenny Ling
TWO major Caulfield racecourse planning applications have been approved by Glen Eira Council, giving the green light to the much maligned $750,000 Caulfield Village development.
The “package deal” was struck between the Melbourne Racing Club and the council, allowing the controversial Caulfield Village and a revamp of the racecourse reserve, in the centre of the course, to go ahead.
Racecourse committee chairman, Cr Michael Lipshutz, said negotiations had not been rushed.
“It was a compromise … this is the longest planning application that we’ve ever had,” he said.
“It’s a package deal, in that the MRC wanted to have C60 go through and we wanted the centre of the racecourse to go through.”
At Thursday’s meeting, the council’s special committee approved C60, which paves the way for the MRC’s high-rise development, including 1200 units housing 2000 people and 35,000sq m of commercial, office and retail space between Station St and Kambrook and Normanby roads.
There will be height restrictions, with buildings in the Smith St precinct capped at 20 storeys.
Despite vocal residents fighting the plans since 2006, the Thursday meeting went ahead with little fanfare.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy will now decide the C60 plans.
The night before, councillors voted 6-3 in favour of the MRC creating five activity precincts in the racecourse’s centre, which include a picnic and barbecue area, a jogging path, a junior-sized sports oval, and an off-leash dog and agility area at a cost of $1.8m.
It will be open every day from 9.30am until sunset, except scheduled race days and on 10 pre-determined event days.
The work must be completed by the MRC within 12 months.
MRC chief executive Alasdair Robertson said “the club and council had worked closely together to deliver an outstanding result for the community”.
Simon
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 12:27pm
Nice artist’s impression, they just forgot to draw in the 20 storey buildings behind the grandstands!
Mark
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 11:51am
I went to the meeting and they didn’t go out of there way to advertise it. That’s why the crowd was so small. When the locals residents letter box dropped the area about the meeting three weeks ago, almost 150 people attended. They don’t want residents views on this. Something is quite wrong. As for 20 stories, this is Caulfield, not the CBD!
Elsa
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 11:15am
How absolutely terrible this well be for all of us in Caulfield.
And to be approved without any changes, you have to wonder what has gone on behind the scenes. Councillors are elected to represent community views last time I checked. And that hasn’t happened here.
A commission of enquiry is long overdue here.
May 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Niel, ask yourself one simple question – how or why this website has gained over 80,000 hits in less that 6 months.
Respectfully, I suggest that something is obviously wrong. Might I also suggest that the wrong is the very thing your electoral promises proposed to fix.
May 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Neil Pilling has plenty of knockers that do not live in the real world. What he and his fellow councillors acheived was spectacular. For people to think that you can wipe out over 100 years of careful work by the racing industry in one go then they have to be dreaming. There is no winner takes all in the real world. Like Neil says he lives in the real world not cyber.
May 3, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Sure, there’s no winner – but they didn’t even try. All caved in to the threat of the C60 being called up by the Minister. So what if it was called up and council rejected it. Then at least the gang would have been off the hook, but more importantly, the ball game would have switched to the state level and the entire issue of racing – which is where it belongs. By accepting the C60 Lipshutz and the gang have basically kept it ‘local’ and therefore done the MRC a favour.
July 28, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Cr Pilling you and the other Glen Eira councillors would do well to read “EnsuringUnbiasedDemocraticCouncilDecisionMakingSept08.pdf” which can be found on the Department of Planning & Community Development website.
It makes good reading.
Especially:
F What is required of councillors?
The common law rules of natural justice or procedural fairness
require councillors to approach their administrative decision
making with an open mind to ensure that they act fairly and
impartially, in good faith, listening to both sides of any argument
that is put to them for consideration.
Do you think you have done this with the GEASAC basketball fiasco? I’ll answer the question for you – NO. Even your Your blog is propogating mis-information. How is this fair and open minded?
I quote – “However myself and other crs are certainly very concerned that the usage of a new rate-payer funded facility has been awarded to an out of municipality association – the Oakleigh Warriors”
Firstly – have you listened, spoken or discussed the GESAC offer with anyone from the successful group about the their submission and plans for GESAc? Again, I’ll answer for you – NO. Does this mean you are acting “fairly and impartially, in good faith, listening to both sides of any argument
that is put to them for consideration” NO, you and the other councillors are not and have not.
Their plans are quite extensive for the residents of Glen Eira. NO players/teams will be stopped from entering their competitions at GESAC, including teams from the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA). If you are sceptical, then pick up the phone and speak to them. Call them in for a meeting if you have to.
Secondly – the submission was from Garden State Warriors, a basketball club with its origins and base in Glen Eira. A club that was removed against its wishes from the McKinnon Basketball Association nearly two years ago.
Further your blog “I would certainly prefer to see our local families and kids benefit from this excellent new facilty- at last Tues weeks council meeting the following motion was passed- I will certainly be working hard in the coming weeks for a better outcome for local families” is patently unfair and biased considering you haven’t even listened or spoken to the other group.
Point O of the above referenced document:
O Conclusion
The democratic processes involved necessarily mean that
people with a wide range of views and from different sections of
the community, will be elected as councillors. However, once
elected, councillors have an overriding duty to act in the
interests of the community as a whole. One of these duties is
to act fairly and with a genuinely open mind when making
administrative decisions.
Good democratic administrative decision making involves
weighing and balancing all relevant factors and taking into
account a range of views. The common law rules about open
minded decision making have been developed by the courts
over many years to uphold high standards of justice and
fairness in official decision making in Australia.
Before becoming involved in a council’s administrative decision
making process in relation to a particular matter, a councillor
should ask his or herself if they are genuinely prepared to listen
to all the arguments and to take all relevant matters into
account. If they cannot answer YES to that question then they
must refrain from taking part in the decision making process
concerning that particular matter.
While taking part in each and every council administrative
decision making process each councillor should be able to
genuinely answer YES to this question:
Have I treated those affected by the outcome of the
council’s administrative decision making process with the
care and respect I would want shown to me if my own
rights and interests were affected?
I’d like to see your and the other councillors reply?