After 3 years, there is now supposedly a ‘new version’ of the Engagement/Consultation strategy out for public comment. We’ve stated previously that we believe this ‘new’ document is simply a padding out of the existing ‘6 Steps of Consultation’ – with the addition of some motherhood statements, and the attempt to beguile residents with that warm and fluffy feeling that their views actually matter and that things might just have changed a tiny little bit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In this post we concentrate on PLAGIARISM and the fact that we have senior executives earning mega bucks and all they can come up with is pinching the work of Bayside (uploaded) and other councils. Whilst this may be the highest form of flattery, we suggest that in Glen Eira the intent is far more devious. This selective plagiarism reveals much about the projected outcomes, mentality and corporate ethos at work in Glen Eira. Below is a table comparing the Bayside version (circa 2009) and the current Glen Eira version. We’ve only bothered to explore the first few pages thus far. However, we ask that readers look carefully at what Glen Eira has decided to omit from its pilfering of Bayside’s work and ask themselves, WHY? What has Bayside included in its policy, that might just strike at the heart of the Glen Eira culture and hence has been deliberately left out?
Finally, one can only wonder about the professionalism of the authors. Admittedly, Bayside is acknowledged in the references. But, there is no indication whatsoever throughout the document that passages are being cited verbatim. Instead, most people would assume that this is all the work of council officers. ‘Intellectual dishonesty’ we ask? We welcome all comments.
|
BAYSIDE |
GLEN |
| Council is committed to improving quality of life in Bayside through the involvement of the Bayside community in development of its policies, programs and services.Council is also committed to ensuring that all views are considered through inclusive deliberation and active involvement of the community.This helps Council to fulfil its mandated roles of providing governance and leadership for the local community through advocacy, decision making and action, and fostering community cohesion and encouraging active participation in civic life. Council is committed to utilising current and emerging technology to provide greater transparency of its processes and to enable more people to have their input. |
Community engagement provides an avenue for the community to become involved in local decision making and encourages collaboration from all members of the community. Based on the principles of democracy, social inclusion and accessible government, Glen Eira City Council is actively seeking to involve members of the community in Council’s decision making process.Community engagement is a regular and important part of Council’s everyday services as it helps Council to fulfill its mandated roles of providing governance and leadership for local community through advocacy, decision making and action, and fostering community cohesion and encouraging active participation in civic life.Council is committed to governing the City of Glen Eira in a democratic, open and responsible manner in the best interests of the community as a whole. |
| 2.1.1 What is community engagement?Community engagement refers to the many ways in which Council will connect with citizens in the development and implementation of policies, programs and services.Engagement covers a wide variety of Council-community connections, ranging from information sharing through community consultation to active participation in government policy development and its decision-making processes. Engagement acknowledges the right of citizens to have a say and to get involved in the business of Council. It is not about public relations or marketing a particular viewpoint or issue, rather it involves assisting Council to fulfil its obligations to the community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions. Effective community engagement allows Council to tap into diverse perspectives and potential solutions to improve the quality of its decision-making. |
Community engagement refers to the processes through which the community and other interested parties are informed about, or invited to contribute to, Council services, events, strategic plans, issues and projects. These processes may take the form of consultation about proposals or policy changes.Community engagement acknowledges the right of citizens to have their say and actively encourages thecommunity to get involved. Engagement enables Council to best meet the needs of the community by ensuring that planning and decision making is based on an understanding of the needs and aspirations of thecommunity. Tools used by Council to engage the community and encourage participation include, but are not limited to, information via the |
| It leads to better decision-makingThe Good Governance Guide says ‘good decision-making is likely to occur when decisions are based on good information, when Councillors have the opportunity to put forward their point of view, and when there has been community input.’ Community engagement means keeping the community informed and involved in ongoing consultation, so that Council can make better decisions that more closely match the needs and aspirations of the community. |
Good decision making is dependent upon the quality of information used to make the decision.Community engagement aims to ensure all stakeholders or potential stakeholders are informed and given the opportunity to participate in a consultative process so that Council can make decisions that are more closely matched to the needs and aspirations of the community. |
| Creates a strong communityA community that is informed about, and engaged in, local issues creates an involved and therefore strong community. The Good Governance Guide suggests that ‘local governments have an important role in building strong communities. Engaging the community should be highly valued and a goal which influences all activities of local government.’ | 4. Creates a strong communityHaving a community that is informed about, and engaged in, local issues creates a strong community.Community engagement informs the community of policy directions of the Council and empowers the community to input into Council decisions and to implement and manage change. |
Glen Eira Debates 
May 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Thank you for doing your homework on this GlenEira cos comparing the two councils shows up the hypocrisy of Glen Eira. First of all Bayside sees consultation as ‘valuable’ in all its ‘business of government’. Glen Eira never comes close to this view and in fact states that only on some issues will community input be sought. Who decides and on what, is of course left in the hands of the fat cats. The other thing I’ve noticed is that somehow a policy document on ‘engagement’ suddenly becomes a tool for informing the community on ‘policy direction’ – all one way, from them to us. No mention of the decision making role that residents might play. The whole policy is a gigantic wank and window dressing.
May 25, 2011 at 8:55 PM
I have to agree with you Anonymous. There is no attempt by this council to include residents in decision making that matters. The continual verbage about informing, is simply that – words that are not given full effect to. It’s also clear that in the end it will be administrators who decide what goes out for “consultation” as opposed to the Bayside vision where every aspect of service, policy and strategy is classified and mechanisms are enunciated according to category “A”, “B” etc. Nothing like this is to be found in the Glen Eira policy. It remains short on detail, short on quantification, and very, very short on specifics such as evaluation. I’m simply left with the impression that what we’ve got here is not a policy which will actually change anything, but a public relations exercise designed to dupe the populace into believing that Glen Eira Council actually cares about what the community might think.
May 26, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Bayside is not a good example. In a town planning sense they think that they are not part of Victoria. Nothing over 3 storeys is their policy. Get real. Recently a 10 storey in Bay Rd was approved by VCAT. They were horified. They had a huge petition etc. They have no structure plan and their urban village plans will not meet future demands.
Now go up to Moreland. They never stop consulting. They are still working on the structure plan. Been at it since 2003. Lots of meetings. Some residents make a career out of it. None of course have any training in Town Planning. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme needs to be more prescriptive and defined. It is streets ahead of many others. You will see.
May 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM
How about getting some of your facts right. 3 storeys is for activity centres and this is a permanent height control approved by the minister. Bay rd development was outside this, but at least council fought for its residents. Next, Bayside has plenty of structure plans, which do have permanent height controls again unlike our council. Then I wonder whether you’re actually contradicting yourself when you say that the Glen Eira planning scheme needs to be ‘more presecriptive and defined’. Structure plans would do this and sure they take time to prepare properly. In Glen Eira the planning is left to developers rather than council and residents. Last, but not least, Moreland has plenty of structure plans for its various districts. They realised the benefits years ago and have stuck to this vision. Glen Eira has no vision except lets get as many units built as we possibly can.
May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Like I said, Bayside think they are not part of the State. Height limits of 3 storey. They need to get with the program. Where are people going to live. Maybe a one bedroom unit in East Bentleigh. Developers won’t build stuff they can’t sell. They are meeting a demand. The Glen Eira scheme caters for all types of housing. You must understand that if the Council had town planning that was right out of whack with what most people thought was reasonable then they would’t get away with it. Most people are adapable to change. There are a few that don’t like change. The blokes (and women)in the town hall have it measured. They can smell the wind as well as anyone. Keep up punchin.
May 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM
Couldn’t resist this piece in the age. Talk about comedy and plagiarism – fits in perfectly with Glen Eira’s fat cats.
A Gold Coast stand-up who’s made it through to the semi-finals of Australia’s Got Talent did so by lifting jokes from other comedians’ routines.
Jordan Paris, 22, appeared on the Channel Seven program on Tuesday night to laughter from judges Dannii Minogue, Brian McFadden and Kyle Sandilands, who unanimously voted him through to the next round.
Jordan Paris has been accused of using other comedians’ material during a performance on Australia’s Got Talent. Photo: http://www.jordanparis.com
Sandilands described his jokes as “legitimately funny” while Minogue said he did the Gold Coast “proud”.
But today it emerged both jokes Paris told in the routine were ripped off from other sources.
The Gold Coast Bulletin this morning reported how one joke – about singer Robbie Williams – was taken almost word-for-word from a set performed by British comedian Lee Mack in 2007.
And a quick search by brisbanetimes.com.au this morning revealed the origins of the other half of Paris’s routine – about his three requirements for dating a woman – had been lifted from a routine by US comedian Geoff Keith.
The joke is repeated almost word-for-word.
Paris told the Bulletin he knew of Mack but had not ripped off his routine.
“Comedy’s a funny thing,” he told the newspaper. “Obviously there are a lot of people doing a lot of things, but a joke’s a joke. If it’s making people laugh then I’m happy.”
Channel Seven this morning would not comment on whether Paris would now be disqualified from the show.
Contestants on Australia’s Got Talent, which is now in its fourth year, compete for a prize of $250,000.
It’s one of Australia’s top-rating television programs, drawing more than 1.8 million viewers on Tuesday nights, 500,000 more than the second most-watched show, MasterChef.
While cover versions of songs frequently appear, Fedele Crisci, of Brisbane’s Sit Down Comedy Club, said repeating another comedian’s routine was nothing like a singer singing someone else’s song.
“Stand-up is a very different kettle of fish,” he said. “[Copying jokes] is very much frowned upon. People have their routines and people in the industry know whose routines are whose.
“It’s not the done thing.”
Mr Crisci said comedians sometimes would take a “stock-standard old joke” but they’d put their own spin on it and incorporate it into part of a bigger routine.
“The bottom line is we encourage people to be original,” he said. “That’s what it’s about. Anyone can go to America and watch a comic and come back and do [that comic’s] act.
“You need to write your own material.”
On his website, Paris describes himself as a singer, actor and comedian who auditioned for Australian Idol four years in a row – from 2004-2007.
Paris’s manager has been approached for comment.
May 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM
While plagiarism is unacceptable in academic circles, it seem silly for a Council to have to spend resources writing their own unique document for something that should be generic across all Councils. A big concern though, as highlighted here, is the wriggling about when consultation should occur–whether a policy, strategy, program, project or issue “significantly affects” the community.
Under its own draft Engagement policy, Council is struggling with several aspects of community engagement, especially around “open transparent decision making”.
You can read the Minutes and be none the wiser about why Council made a particular decision. Many decisions are made via committees with delegated authority, and they too fail to publish the reasons for their decisions. C60 is just a very recent example.
Last year’s review of the local components of the Planning Scheme was especially galling. Half the eventual report was devoted to advertising what a wonderful job the Planning Department was doing, a conclusion that would be hard to reach based on the feedback I heard at community consultation sessions. The only recommendation the report made is that changes to the Planning Scheme should be prepared by Council officers, away from public gaze. It did at least identify several issues of concern to the community, but made no comment about their merits or whther they should be pursued via changes to the Scheme.
There is a lack of transparency in decision-making, and that certainly doesn’t build “trust and confidence” in me. Each time noncompliance with standards contained in the Planning Scheme are waived to help a developer make more money, at the expense of the amenity of neighbours, it is especially important to the integrity of the Scheme that the reasons are documented.
I do agree with the reasons why community engagement is vital though.