Trust is imperative in any relationship and in any organisation. It is especially imperative in a ‘business’ such as a council which has responsibility for tens of millions of ratepayers’ monies. There simply has to be trust in the CEO and his staff; trust between the Mayor and the CEO, and trust between the Council as a whole, and the CEO. Residents must also have trust and belief that their municipality is well governed and accountable. History, as well as recent issues, tell us that trust is a scarce commodity in Glen Eira.
When questions are asked of council, ratepayers have every right to demand that responses are accurate and truthful. When they are not, then suspicions arise as to the competence and accuracy of administrative record keeping systems. Questions also need to be asked about the level of trust that is granted by Mayors who sign off on such documents. By placing her signature on responses to public questions for instance, is Esakoff complicit in any errors? Is she fulfilling her legal and fiduciary duty in overseeing the administration? When councillors accept facts and figures that are questionable are they liable as well? Or is she (and Council) merely the victims of blind trust?
These are not idle questions. At the last Council meeting a public question asked for the number of open space and casual bookings at Allnutt Park over the past 2 financial years. Information was also requested on the number of commercial bookings and how many of these bookings originated from businesses outside of Glen Eira. The answer, provided we assume by Officers, and signed by Esakoff, reads:
“The information is as follows. From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 there were a total of sixty one bookings. These included ten bookings from not for profit organisations, three from commercial organisations and forty eight general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $6,893. From 1 July 2010 to 15 May 2011 there were a total of twenty bookings. These included five from not for profit organisations, five from commercial organisations and ten general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $2,260.
In relation to part three of your question, Council does not collect data in that form.”
For those readers unaware of the circumstances, Council Officers place a booking sheet alongside each rotunda/barbecue whenever there is an official booking. The sheet contains the following information: name, date, time, number of people, alcohol ‘permit’, and the actual booking permit number. The photo below shows one such notice which has not changed over the years.
Over the past few years several residents have collected and maintained a daily register of all such bookings. Their records differ markedly from that provided by Council. As to the last financial year, we are told that only 20 bookings took place. This is incorrect (see below). We are also told that only $2,260 was collected. Again incorrect. We estimate that the income should be at least double this given the actual number of bookings! We are also told that council does not collect ‘data in that form’. Again incorrect, since the notice included the individual’s name and the application form requires the filling out of name and address of person making the booking.
So we come back to trust once more. Can we trust Newton, who is ultimately responsible for his officers? Can we trust Esakoff in her affirmation of the information? Can we trust a COUNCIL who appears to rubber stamp so many policies and documents. There are also many other important questions that need to be asked –
- Where is the additional $2,000+? Where has it gone?
- What does this reveal about the record keeping practices of this administration? Can we trust these systems?
- Can we as a community have any faith in the answers to our questions?
- What else is inaccurate? Gone missing? The victim of poor record keeping?
- How well are councillors fulfilling their role in overseeing that administrators provide data which is correct, truthful, and unbiased.
The evidence that contradicts Council’s is below –
|
|
NUMBER |
DATE |
TIME |
PEOPLE |
NAME |
ALC. |
| 1 | 20287 | 17th october |
1 – 5pm |
30 |
Hall |
yes |
| 2 | 20438 | 24th October |
9 – 3pm |
40 |
Perdriau |
YES |
| 3 | 6332 | 24TH October |
10 – 5pm |
20 |
Doherty |
No |
| 4 | 20493 | 31st October |
10 – 6pm |
40 |
Persi |
No |
| 5 | 19466 | 31st October |
10 – 5pm |
25 |
Counsel |
No |
| 6 | 16293 | 7th November |
10 – 6pm |
20 |
Nazaretian |
No |
| 7 | NO NOTICE | 17th Nov |
6pm – ? |
40 |
Puppy school |
? |
| 8 | 20485 | 22nd Nov |
12 – 4pm |
30 |
Nire |
Yes |
| 9 | 20316 | 28th Nov |
10 – 5pm |
25 |
Burnside |
No |
| 10 | 20489 | 5th Dec |
11 – 5pm |
50 |
Pollock |
Yes |
| 11 | 11508 | 5th Dec |
11- 5pm |
100` |
Aust. Pacific Trading |
Yes |
| 12 | 20549 | 11th Dec |
10 – 1pm |
30 |
Kakafous |
No |
| 13 | 20567 | 11th Dec |
10 – 6pm |
25 |
Gilliland |
No |
| 14 | 19425 | 12th Dec |
10 – 6pm |
30 |
Clarke |
No |
| 15 | 15502 | 15th Dec |
5 – 8pm |
50 |
Comm. Bank |
Yes |
| 16 | 20510 | 18th Dec |
12 – 5pm |
40 |
Renown Bus. Solutions |
No |
| 17 | 50308 | 18th Dec |
1 – 8pm |
70 |
Blomberry |
Yes |
| 18 | 20145 | 19th Dec |
3 – 7pm |
30 |
Willison |
Yes |
| 19 | 20553 | 19th Dec |
11 – 4pm |
40 |
Power |
Yes |
| 20 | 20658 | 25th Dec |
9 – 9pm |
35 |
Fivy Taweel |
Yes |
| 21 | 16918 | 26th Dec |
11 – 7pm |
50 |
Knowles |
Yes |
| 22 | 16918 | 16th Jan |
12 – 5pm |
25 |
Jones |
No |
| 23 | 20717 | 26th Jan | 10 – 3pm |
100 |
Millingen |
No |
| 24 | 20052 | 26th Jan | 10 – 6pm |
100 |
Vic.Lebanese community |
No |
| 25 | 20824 | 29th jan |
1 – 7pm |
30 |
Cannizzo |
no |
| 26 | 20215 | 29th jan |
9 – 4pm |
30 |
Nousis |
no |
| 27 | 20792 | 30th jan |
10 – 1pm |
30 |
Gorov |
no |
| 28 | 20846 | 5th Feb |
1 – 9pm |
30 |
Verbene |
No |
| 29 | 20859 | 13th Feb |
12.-6pm |
30 |
Callaghan |
No |
| 30 | 15502 | 24th Feb |
5 – 8pm |
50 |
Comm. Bank |
Yes |
| 31 | 11477 | 25th Feb |
5 – 9pm |
60 |
Hurlingham |
No |
| 32 | 18603 | 27th Feb |
120 |
Hamptom Comm. Kinda |
No |
|
| 33 | 20896* | 5th March |
3 – 7pm |
30 |
Blue eyes Ski-Op | |
| 34 | 20896* | 6th March |
10 – 5pm |
30 |
Nguyen |
No |
| 35 | 20953 | 6th March |
12 -5pm |
30 |
Dudson |
No |
| 36 | 20880 | 20th March |
10 -5pm |
30 |
Frances |
No |
| 37 | 21078 | 26th Mar |
1 – 5pm |
30 |
Macgowan |
No |
| 38 | 21012 | 27th March |
11 – 5pm |
30 |
Kubes |
No |
| 39 | 16931 | 2nd April |
12 – 6pm |
30 |
Main |
No |
| 40 | 21119 | 2nd April |
11 – 2pm |
25 |
Banks |
No |
| 41 | 21085 | 9th April |
10 -4pm |
40 |
Aquilina |
YES |
| 42 | 21009 | 10th April |
11 – 2pm | 40 | Rousso | No |
| 43 | 20887 | 23rd April |
10- 3pm | 30 | Lillywhite | No |
| 44 | No notice | 30th April | ? | 45 | Jump castle set up/balloons for kid’s party |
? |
- This is not an error: the identical numbers appeared on both these booking sheets!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Sure looks like they’ve been caught with their pants down telling real porkies. The unblievable bit is that their dollar figures are only estimates. How do you like that? Nothing should be an estimate if this council is doing its job properly. Every single penny should be accounted for. What is the real worry is that this is only one park and only $2000. There are heaps of other parks which means heaps of money that could have gone astray and noone knows anything about anything.
Maybe a simple error and maybe this also is indicative of the way they treat peoples questions and that any made up bullshit answer will do. Whatever is behind it, well done blog. You’ve highlighted the possible corruption, lies, and how pathetic these councillors are in accepting everything thats put before them. Maybe they’ll learn their lesson now.
May 26, 2011 at 11:14 PM
I think you’re onto something here Anon. Either truth is not a very high priority with this administration and after all it’s only a poor old resident asking a dumb question, so we’ll fob him off with any old answer – or they have no idea of how much money actually comes in. Either way, this is appalling. The third possibility of course is that someone is helping themselves when they shouldn’t and the accounts aren’t being put through. Again, not a great situation. Personally, I’m leaning towards the first option. This has the advantage of technically answering a question and providing a good cover up for whatever creative accounting might be going on so a little extra is slipped into another fund that is really hard to trace. by my reckoning there are at least 20 parks which offer bookings. At $2000 a pop that makes it at least $40,000 a year that disappears. a neat little sum that could go into GESAC or example or some other enteprise that doesn’t show up in the budget.
Which all leads on to another hot issue – how well will these councillors question the budget figures and will they do their sums properly? That’s what they’re supposed to do, not just sit there and keep saying how wonderful the officers are. This post shows exactly why Newton and Burke aren’t to be trusted.
May 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM
‘gleneira’ you’ve done it again! Yes, and Alnutt Park is only 1 of 32 Parks listed on Glen Eira Council website. But wait, not ALL 67 Parks are listed or available to view on the website. For example, the Dega Ave in Bentleigh East is NOT THERE. Why not? Shouldn’t the local community know something about it?
But wait there is more. What does this misinformation tell us about the Asset Management practices in Glen Eira? Is there an Asset Register that is accurate? Can you rely on the information provided by this Council? Can you trust their data? In IT a common experience is ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’. So how can the Audit Committee do their job properly if the basic data eg Park List is incomplete or worse still incorrect?
But wait, there is still more. To my surprise, dismay, and astonishment I find that the 2 greatest Park Assets Glen Eira has are NOT LISTED. They are: The Caulfield Racecourse and The Yarra Yarra Golfcourse. I am totally gobsmacked. Why for goodness sake? Aren’t we proud of those Parks or is there something fishy that GE Council needs to hide from the Public on its website?
May 26, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Glen Eira you have breached the Privacy Act and as such it will give me a great deal pleasure to report your disgraceful breach of The Law of the Land to the Privacy Authority. I believe a serious first offence, such as this, normally results in a hefty fine.
May 26, 2011 at 11:33 PM
Guess you’d better report Newton then too!!!
May 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM
hmmmm ….. the information was gathered from a public notice, posted by Council, on a public notice board in a public park.
I must be a little slow … could you please explain to me how this can be deemed a breach of the Privacy Act?
May 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Ben it is a very old tactic. The best defense is attack and when that proves useless then try intimidation, bullying and the like.
May 26, 2011 at 11:52 PM
A point of clarification. The list of bookings does not include bookings made by council itself (ie. Party in the Park). It is also a conservative estimate since there was a two week gap over the Christmas/New Year period when notices were not put up, yet residents had booked – several hand written notes stuck to the notice boards advised of this. Hence, we maintain that there were many other bookings (and revenue) which simply were not posted.
May 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Glen Eira what about a copy of the exact question and the exact answer. Also how do we know the information you have provided is correct? Also it is possible that an error has been made. If you can question the honesty and integrity of Council then the same could be said of you. I don’t want your twisted interpretation, I want the original facts.
May 27, 2011 at 1:32 PM
I tend to agree with many of the comments already put up. This fiasco is all about governance and the roles of councillors and CEO. If monies are not accounted for then the controls in place are inadequate. If officers are not capable of telling the truth when a public question is asked, then they should be held accountable. If councillors are incapable of fulfilling their mandated duties, then they should step down. Ultimately someone should be held responsible for all of the above. It may be unreasonable to expect councillors to go through booking sheets, but they need to be far more vigilant about the information that is presented to them. They need to question (and in public), they need to ask for further evidence whenever they may have doubts, and they need to make 100% sure that every single cent adds up. One comment focused on the word ‘estimate’. Once more I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing but nothing should be an estimate when it comes to accounting for public money. But councillors simply sit there and let responses go through to the keeper. As a ratepayer I want more vigilance, more accountability, and far less taken on trust when it comes to financial figures. Trust must be earned. This episode merely shows how much work is still left before the public can accord this council any trust.
May 27, 2011 at 8:27 PM
seems like an issue for the governance officer. i just wonder who is glen eira’s governance officer? i had a look at ge website. nothing cameout. most surrounding councils mention the governance officer. mmmm … how one should interpret this? here is one way. there is no need for a governance officer, because there is no governance issues to deal with. but then one of the themes the council pursues is governance!? how much money does the council spend on this theme if there is no governance officer responsible and accountable for the spend?
May 28, 2011 at 1:45 AM
I’m really curious as to what governance is taken to mean in this council, especially when there are so many things that seem counter to good governance. The latest is the whole business with the budget. The draft budget which we’re supposed to comment on has been amended yet no new draft budget has been published. This is insane. It means that people are commenting on something which is now obsolete and isn’t worth a cracker. I would have thought that good governance should mean that when a council asks for submissions they are asking for comment on what is current and not what has been. We could possibly get the ridiculous situation of residents complaining about the 6.95% interest hike, when in fact it’s now supposed to be 6.5%. They’d only know that things have changed if they use the council website and if they’re lucky enough to have the Leader put into their letterbox. This surely is lousy, lousy governance and the only people responsible for this are Newton and Esakoff because they’re supposed to call for another special council meeting. Just shows how much they think of what the public might have to say.