Last night’s Special Council meeting was historic in that Councillors actually amended the proposed draft budget. Instead of 6.95% rate increase it is now 6.5% and the number of sports grounds to be ‘redeveloped’ has been halved from 4 to 2. All this sounds terrific. Councillors actually taking charge and assessing what is in front of them. However, does this reading account for the whole story? In an extraordinary statement that fronts the budget papers we have this paragraph –
“Councillors have held a number of meetings on the 2011-12 Budget (including the Strategy Weekend on 26 February, 27 February), the 29 March and 12 April 2011.
The attached Budget has been prepared in accordance with s127 of the Act and the Regulations and represents the views of the Councillors or a majority of Councillors on every matter discussed.”
As far as we know, no such statement has ever appeared before. What is its purpose? To bluff councillors into acquiescence? To silence councillors? More importantly, if there has actually been this level of discussion and ‘consensus’ as claimed, then what happened last night? Is this a sign of ‘independence’ by councillors – a refusal to accept what is put before them? Or is it pure manoeuvring? For example: Tang has already spoken out against the 6.95% interest hike and others are undoubtedly uncomfortable with this apparent broken promise of keeping to 6.5%. Thus, is this merely politics and a means of ‘neutralising’ those who might entertain the impossible idea of actually voting against the budget when it comes to decision time? Readers should note that Pilling for one is quite happy with the 6.95% rate increase!
There are still many areas of this proposed budget which we believe should be unacceptable to residents and which remain untouched. It will be fascinating to now see what further charges are imposed on residents in order to cover the loss of this 0.45%. We will comment on these once the amended version of the budget proposals are published. Questions that remain are:
- Why was the draft published when we now find that not everyone, or even the majority were ‘happy’ with its recommendations? Surely the time to nut out problems, seek solutions, and devise workable options are in those ‘workshops’ and discussions that Swabey claims were fully endorsed by at least a majority of councillors?
- Does last night’s action give a lie to such claims of ‘consensus’?
- Was last night simply ‘opportunism’ since several councillors were absent?
- If some councillors simply changed their minds, then again this does not augur well for sound financial management and governance.
Whatever the reasons and the games being played it again shows a council that is divided – councillor against councillor, and between councillors and administrators. Not a good prospect at all! Just watch this space for more fun and games!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM
I’m really angry that there was no adequate advertising of this meeting. Nothing in the local papers and a ridiculous ad in the age where people, if they even looked, were unlikely to find it.
I’m also angry that when you actually try to read this budget it is incomprehensible and I can only wonder whether councillors even understand it. Language is gobbledyhook and nothing is really explained fully. Trying to track the expenditure on GESAC is an absolute nightmare. Makes me certain that this is deliberate and that the ultimate costs for this monstrosity will total over 60 million when you add in the interest and the outsourcing and all other incidentals. This noone has ever admitted to, but it sure looks like it’s heading that way.
May 11, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Colin, the Leader did feature notification of the meeting. They were small however and easily missed. Certainly a fraction of the size of this week’s advertisement notifying residents about the Naming of Nina Crt Reserve. Tells us a lot about priorities, don’t you think?
May 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM
This Budget is clever, very clever. It is full of cliche’s and short on real meat, otherwise known as SMART approach: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. It’s a moving feast that seems to be changing from meeting to meeting, from report to report. I just wonder, where are we coming from? And more importantly, where are we going?
It feels a bit as though we are at the edge of the proverbial ‘abyss’. I just looked at the staffing issue. In year 2000, Glen Eira had 450 staff. Now it is well over 1,000. That is a continuous increase of 35% per annum of bureaucracy. I have not seen any Government that does not trim their overheads. Neither the population growth, or the work load, or in particular productivity improvements due to technology justifies that increase. Interestingly, the rate charges increase, but staff numbers rockets. Something feels wrong here. Call in productivity experts to have a look at Glen Eira internal workings.
May 11, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Staff numbers have skyrocketed. What this budget doesn’t easily reveal though is how many extra staff are consultants and contractors? Where is their salary figures buried, and how many are there? How much are we paying out to these people and could it be done any cheaper?
Daniel, I agree entirely with you. Government agencies and private businesses all over the world are cutting costs and staff. Here we have another 5 million added on to staff expenses – but we’re not told how many.
It’s also outrageous that bin collection for the 240litre size is again hit for another $50 increase. That’s on top of what was loaded on last year. Thus in 12 months there has been close to $140 increase for the exact, same service! This isn’t maintaining services – it’s simply paying more for what you’ve already got! I want to know why. What is the justification for this? Real figures, not the simplistic or incomprehensible utterances that the budget contains.
I also think that parents of 3 year olds should be jumping up and down. According to this budget, from January 1st, they will be facing a hefty increast of $31 per day. That means that parents will be up for another $155 per week if their child attends all week.
There’s much more that needs to be howled down, but it’s difficult to follow all the figures. This is not accounting where people should be able to understand the bottom line pure and simple. It’s designed to hide the truth and to simply rip off residents. If councillors can’t see this, then they shouldn’t be there.
May 11, 2011 at 5:02 PM
From the minutes –
Crs Hyams/Pilling
That the recommendation in the report be adopted.
AMENDMENT
Crs Tang/Magee
The recommendation remains as printed with the following changes. The
words subject to the following changes be added after the end of Part B and
after the word changes read;
1. The overall rates and charges increase set at 6.5 percent.
2. The budget only provide for the resurfacing of two sporting grounds
rather than four with ovals 3 and 4 at Caulfield Park not being funded in
the 2011 – 2012 financial year.
3. The allocation to Community Grants be increased by $50,000, and
all necessary and consequent adjustments be made to the budget as
printed.
Waste charges set as printed.
DIVISION
Cr Hyams called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR AGAINST
Cr Tang Cr Hyams
Cr Magee Cr Esakoff
Cr Forge Cr Pilling
Cr Lobo
On the basis of the DIVISION the Chairperson declared the AMENDMENT
CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED.
May 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling! An unholy alliance made in heaven with the Archangel Michael sitting on their shoulders and Gabriel (Newton) blowing his horn (own trumpet) in the background. This is the real stuff of theatre and melodrama. Act 1 over, now for Act 2. Would suggest though that Pilling does away with his method acting classes – not a good look at all!
May 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM
The Glen Eira rate rise is double the inflation rate, additional service charges are rising astronomically (with no improvement in service) and, without any justification, management’s numbers are soaring faster than Glen Eira’s population. Yet we are constantly reminded of Council’s cost effective is Newton and Swabey’s management. Yeah, right.
As for the budget itself it – on the upside paper volume has increased by some 20% while on the down side it continues to be full of motherhood statements (carried over from previous years) or incomprehensible figures (add a column).
One area of major concern is Road Management. 2010-11 budget = $4.2m, 2011-12 budget = $4.95 of which $0.55 is solely related to switching road surfacing techniques.
Quote: “Traffic congestion is a major irritant in people’s lifestyles. … The number of cars being driven is increasing while the roadway to accommodate them is not”. No argument with that. However, look at
• Council’s focus on high density development (particularly the infamous C60),
• Glen Eira’s through traffic congestion and
• clogged commuter parking in residential streets.
And ask yourself is the budget sufficient and when will Council address, rather than just comment on, these real issues.
A friend is dealing with Council re Eskdale Road, North Caulfield. Council’s own traffic survey showed this street experiences an average daily speeding traffic volume of 236 vehicles (despite speed humps). Yet Council has advised, that because of budget constraints, only 7-8 traffic treatments per year are undertaken. Based on this and their “risk strategy” (whatever that is) this road has been given a ranking of no. 454. I ask myself, what must the higher ranked 453 be experiencing.
May 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Now we just have to wait and see what tinkering Newton will employ and whether the proposed changes will be clearly identified and argued for. My bet is that you’re going to need a microscope, the sleuthing of a bloodhound to find anything that says this is a revised version. Christ, we can’t have the admin admitting that they got stuffed – or at least half a stuffing.