Here’s a little story for the amusement of all ratepayers. The antics of all the major actors definitely resemble the stumbling, bumbling and ineffectuality of the Keystone Cops. But these events also offer a unique window into the culture of an organisation that is committed to thwarting change. We also glean an appreciation of the inability (unwillingness?) of certain councillors to assert their rightful authority and control. We are, of course, referring to the Consultation Advisory Committee consisting of Pilling, Hyams, and Esakoff and officers. Given the current ‘consultation’ on the Engagement Strategy we think this post is a timely reminder of what residents should look out for in this new installment of spin, waffle and dissembling.
Since the November 2008 elections, minutes of the Consultation Committee Meetings have been tabled at full council meetings only 6 times. We’ve traced the ‘progress’ of one issue – the erection of Notice Boards in 12 locations throughout the municipality. Readers should note that this issue has taken over two years to materialise – and all for the measly expenditure of $2,000+. When one considers that council has had notice boards in place at barbecues and rotundas for private bookings for years now (without being devastated by vandals) one can only marvel at the goings on at these committee meetings.
The following extracts are cited verbatim from relevant minutes. Nothing has been left out except the final list of recommended locations.
17th April 2009 – Community Notice boards – The issue of the value of Community Notice boards was raised. DCS (Peter Jones) advised that the issue had previously been examined and that the previous report would be provided to Councillors
Action: DCS to provide previous Community notice Board report to councillors.
24th June 2009: Peter Jones tabled a paper presented at a Council Briefing on 31 July 2006 concerning Community Notice Boards. The paper concluded that notice boards could be set up in libraries and supermarkets or other places which most residents visit, however these methods would still only reach a minority of the population. The paper recommended that council should use more direct methods of consultation such as direct mail, letter box drops, notices in the Leader Newspapers, Glen Eira News, Council website, surveys, focus groups and public meetings.
The committee discussed the use of community notice boards in shopping centres, at park entrances and council libraries. Cr Esakoff raised the use of stainless steel framed notice boards within the City of Boroondara.
ACTION: Officers to investigate notice boards used within the City of Boorondara and provide a report at the next Committee meeting.
26th August, 2009: Officers tabled a report of community notice boards located within the City of Boroondara. The Boroondara City council maintains two notice boards situated outside trains stations, one in Glenferrie Road and the other in Auburn road.
Officers inspected the notice boards and found that they contained information taken directly from the Council newsletter Boroondara Bulletin. Officers are of the opinion that these notice boards would attract little attention from pedestrians and only reach a small minority of the population.
A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Notice boards are often graffitied and the perspex is also scratched by vandals using coins. Notice boards installed in parks are also set alight. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.
Cr Esakoff discussed slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip. The Committee discussed notices boards with Adshel bus shelters in areas of high pedestrian usage.
ACTION: officers to provide a report on the slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip and supply name of manufacturer and costs
8th October 2009 : Stainless Steel Notice boards. Officers provided information about the stainless steel signs located in the Camberwell shopping strip. Stainless steel signs have been installed in the Camberwell Shopping Centre and are located on the footpath area of the shopping strip. The signs are fitted with a relatively small window of perspex glass on both sides of the sign and the sign contains a map of the shopping strip. The information contained in the window could not be easily seen from a distance and the sign had also attracted graffiti and stickers of unauthorised material.
The Committee discussed the possibility of using these signs to promote council community consultation.
Officers reported that the stainless steel signs are manufactured by Sign Insustriees located at 9 Lennox Street Moorabbin. Officers also reported that Sign Industries have advised that the costs for the manufacture and installation of three signs would be $16,335.00 including GST.
The Committee discussed different types of signage that could be used to promote community consultations including different construction materials and design. The committee requested a catalogue of the different signs produced by Sign Industries.
ACTION: Officers to investigate the costs of 6, 9 and 12 signs, additional costs of enlarging the perspect glass area and the provision of fittings so that information contained within the sign can be regularly changed. Officers to obtain a catalogue of the different types of signs produced by Sign Industries.
14th October, 2010: Brochure Holders
Mark Saunders advised that quotes had been obtained for Info-Central Brochure Holders. The purpose of the holders is to promote council community consultations and events. The quotes for the brochure holders range in cost from $180 (plus GST) for a standard holder up to $220.00 (plus GST) for a heavy duty holder. The cost for 12 standard holders is $2,040 (plus GST) and $2,520.00(plus GST) for 12 heavy duty holders.
A brochure holder set consists of two holders and brackets. The brochure holders are available in a standard version constructed of clear 3mm acrylic material or a heavy duty version that is manufactured from more robust high impact acrylic. A picture of the brochure holders is provided below.
A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Brochure holders and notice boards are often sprayed with graffiti, scratched by vandals using sharp objects. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.
Additional costs for the project include preparing, printing and regularly changing over information. These additional costs will be met through existing budgets.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the purchase of 12 heavy duty brochure holder sets at a cost of $2,520.00 plus GST.
Moved Cr. Hyams and Seconded Cr. Esakoff. Motion carried.
21st February 2011: Notice Boards
Officers presented a report of proposed locations of notice boards to be installed across the municipality to promote council community engagement activities and services
12 community signs shall be installed in the municipality. The signs shall be located in areas that experience high levels of pedestrian traffic in major activity centres.
The committee agreed that signage should be installed in the following locations: (a list follows)
ACTION: Officers to investigate the possibility of locating signage on the north side of Centre Road, East Bentleigh, in the Glenhuntly road Elsternwick within the close proximity of Staniland Grove, within close proximity to Patterson Train Station, and at the entrance to Caulfield Park on the corner of Hawthorn and Balaclava roads, Caulfield.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 6, 2011 at 12:04 AM
GlenEira, thanks for this post. I haven’t had such a good laugh for years and years. This is just unbelievable stuff that it takes over 2 years and countless hours and hours to get something as simple as a bloody board erected somewhere. I also notice the subtle change of wording from “‘Community Notice Boards” to “Brochure Holders”. To my way of thinking Community Notice Boards means that community organisations have an equal share in putting up THEIR NOTICES AND INFORMING THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT IS GOING ON. But oh no, not in Glen Eira. Here we can’t have “unauthorised” access to such facilities!
This post just confirms for me that officers are present in advisory committee meetings not to INFORM, but rather to stop anything that they don’t want to go ahead. The challenge is therefore up to councillors to put an end to this kind of behaviour. Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams are definitely not the right people to be sitting on consultation committees. They don’t even know what the word means.
May 6, 2011 at 9:04 AM
Yes Glen Eira it has taken awhile and i agree that it would have been desirable for the notice boards/holders to have gone up sooner-
However to then make the huge leap in your article that the timeframe on this relatively minor decision is proof of the incompentance and insincerity of the crs concerned and indeed the whole culture of the organisation is plain wrong.
There seems to be an increasingly incapabilty in your postings to provide fair and balanced judgement. Conspiricy thoeries and personal degeneration might invite plenty of comment – but doesn’t resolves issues only cements further
divisivness.
May 6, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Your said it Cr. “Minor Decision” – yet it gets more time and effort than C60 did.
May 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Cr Pilling, I’m not sure that Glen Eira is off the mark in the post. I would have assumed that it is your responsibility to insist on reasonable timeframes. The how is up to officers. Couldn’t you simply have passed a motion which basically said go find the cheapest and the best and then put these things up? Nothing should take two years. In this council however, everything has to go through official reports and so on. That’s where the delay is.
Anyone I dare say who reads these minutes can see that the whole rigamarole is unsatisfactory. It’s also laughable that a report from 2006 is considered relevant three years later.
I’d also like to comment on the passage relating to officers’ recommendations that letter drops, Glen Eira News and Leader advertisements are a better way of reaching residents. Recent events have demonstrated that the manner in which this type of publicity is generated is woeful. For applications only a handful of people are notified, advertisements don’t make it into the Leader until several days before, if at all, and they are usually buried in the back pages, or are tiny. Could you also please explain the contradiction in the following sentence – “The paper concluded that notice boards could be set up in libraries and supermarkets or other places which most residents visit, however these methods would still only reach a minority of the population”. If MOST residents visit these places, then the conclusion that a “minority” of the population would be informed simply doesn’t make sense.
I’m afraid that if this is typical of the way decisions are made, then Glen Eira’s criticisms are 100% accurate in my view. I’m also alarmed that your eventual motion was only CARRIED, implying that someone voted against this. It would be good to know in the interests of openness whether this someone was a councillor?
May 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Two years down the track there are still people who are against public notice boards. Hyams and Esakoff are mentioned. That leaves Pilling and the question of whether he voted for or against. Even worse, this suggests to me that officers might get a vote in advisory committee meetings. If this happens then it’s game and show over. Officers who aren’t elected should not be allowed any vote. Their job is to simply offer advice and nothing more. Councillors are the ones who make decisions and not these overpaid pen pushers. How about telling us the truth Cr Pilling – did you vote against the motion, or did officers vote against it?
May 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Cr Pilling, when comparing your comments to the actual minutes there is a huge credibility gap. Every single comment and recommendation attributed to officers is obstructionist. There is the reference to graffiti, to vandalism, to unauthorised use, and to not reaching the majority of residents, as excuses for why the notice boards won’t work. Even the comparisons with other councils focus on trivia and anything that will help support the already assumed position of officers. There is a real lack of constructive advice and a real lack of willingness to support councillor questions. I don’t understand why Mr Jones couldn’t have simply got up from his desk and shown you the 2006 report there and then, rather than waste another three months until the next meeting. This begs the question though of why old papers are being used to prop up current issues.
These minutes also tell us how ineffectual you have been in accepting these stalling tactics. All it takes is the tabling of a motion and a vote. Two years of officers and councillors time has been taken up with this nonsense. How much has this cost ratepayers when officers should have been doing other things that are far more important. I can just see the poor sods who travelled to Camberwell and elsewhere, standing there, taking photos, and then coming back and writing up this guff – only after its been carefully edited by senior officers. This isn’t efficiency. No company or business should operate in such a haphazard fashion. But since it’s not your money, or officers money, but ours, I suspect that this doesn’t matter then.
May 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Cr, given that you were part of the misinformation given to residents on C60 and were an active participant in excluding “some” Councillors from C60 updates, I think your attempt to take the moral high ground is displaced.
May 6, 2011 at 9:27 AM
I’m sick and tired of blame being apportioned to Officers when the Officers are not responsible . This Committee was established by the Council and the Council has full ownership of it .By the way up to 5 years ago there were several Notice Boards in the main centres which were never utilised.
May 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Utilised by whom and for what? If you put nonsense into these things, then that’s all you’ll get. That’s not telling people what the issues are. Anyway, how was this evaluated and again by whom?
It’s typical that the ad in the leader this week didn’t tell people that they could email their thoughts on these consultations. Misinformation big time. There’s also the joke about Have Your Say, but then they don’t utilise the new Have Your Say online forum.
The bottom line is that this council has never been interested in hearing what people have got to say. They only go through the motions and have a big pretend about consultation. No wonder people don’t bother when they already know that councillors will only say yes to whatever is placed before them.
It’s not rocket science. If councillors are fair dinkum then it is damn simple. You Pilling and the others decide when, how and where. No buts or arguments. You set the scene and set the tone and set the proper evaluation techniques. That’s why you’ve been elected – to uphold the promises you made. Not to cave in time and time again, or sit there like a stone dummy saying nothing. If you can’t convince the others then open your mouth publically and say what you really think. That’s the simplest and quickest way of getting things changed and done.
May 6, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Now we have the noticeboards will there be big photographs of all the big four decision makers who with only a few hours of listening and study from residents made a decision for the C60 worth almost $200 million each, but even more surprising the executive who supplied the reporter with the information really played down the figure by dividing it by a thousand. What a joke now the decision has been made council is still trying to keep it a secret and portrayed the approval as costing not more than the cost of a very special domestic application. I know there will be a small hidden correction notice on
about page 6 next week,just further proof of who is controlling the press!
May 6, 2011 at 6:58 PM
Penhalluriack got it right. 5 years for the MRC to knock down a fence. He could do it in 5 minutes. Same goes for this council. Takes years to get anything done and then they botch it anyway. Notice boards are a bloody waste of time if all they’re going to do is contain the council bullshit in them. That’s not consultation, it’s not even informing people. Just 2000 bucks down the drain. You’re a hopeless, hopeless bunch.