Recent events such as the GESAC fiasco raise the question of who is actually running council – our elected representatives, or those faceless and unelected bureaucrats? We therefore thought it might be a good idea to remind councillors of their legal and fiduciary duties – according to the guidelines set down by the MAV, State Government, and VLGA in their combined document The Good Governance Guide. All the quotes below derive from this publication.
“It is important that issues of transparency and accountability are considered with regard to Council briefings. If councillors determine their position through the briefing process, and only go through a brief or perfunctory endorsement at the meeting of Council, this can impact adversely on the public’s ability to follow the decision-making process. The opportunity to fully explore and address an issue in private must be balanced with the accountability and transparency requirements of good governance.
To ensure transparency and accountability, it is also important that the administration is made accountable for the formal advice it provides to the Council meeting which subsequently takes place. This advice may or may not be entirely consistent with the discussions which took place at the council briefing. (page 12)
The elected body is ultimately accountable for the financial management of the local government. While the elected body should not have a hands-on role in financial management, it needs to ensure that it has the information to be satisfied that the finances are in order and that budgetary and financial planning goals are being met.
The role differentiation between the elected body and the administration is important in this area. The elected body should not be micro-managing the finances, but must demand financial reporting which provides the information it requires to meet its financial accountability responsibilities. (p.32)
Councillors must ensure that they have all appropriate financial information regarding financial performance. It is not enough merely to rely on assurances by the administration that all is well. If the financial situation is not as it should be, councillors will still be held accountable, even if they maintain that they received assurances from the administration. Councillors should ask questions, until they are satisfied that they know and understand the financial situation. Other potential sources of information and assurance are the internal auditor and the audit committee. (p.35)
QUESTIONS:
- How often did councillors ask questions about GESAC?
- Were the answers (if given) acceptable? If not, what did councillors do?
- How often were councillors provided with up to date information?
- What evidence was provided to councillors that the income from GESAC would be $2.91 million as stated in the budget?
- Why does it take a public outcry before any ‘action’ is initiated by councillors?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM
It’s been obvious for years now that council affairs are not run by councillors but by administrators. The gesac events are merely the latest illustration of this truth. Whatever questions are asked are always done in secret and so are the provided answers. This may suit some councillors since they therefore avoid public scrutiny and accountability. All in all it is abysmal governance and further evidence as to why the majority of these councillors and administrators should not be permitted to continue to hold their positions and elected office.
June 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM
And this schemozzle is with 3 lawyers on council. they’re really keeping a close watch on things ain’t they. Oh gosh, I forget this is all under Lipshutz’s watch as well cos he’s chair of gesac and knows better than anybody else. He must have asked so many, many, many questions in this role and on the audit committee. Shucks, get rid of the lawyers and give me business men with nous any time.
June 21, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Feldman where are you?
June 22, 2011 at 2:11 PM
He should be invited to open the new swimming pool. He was the driving force behind this wonderful project. I can’t understand why Cr. Magee thinks he had much to do with it. Maybe because Feldman is not around others fill the vacuum. Once it opens people will soon see the value.
June 22, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Yes, it seems there has been very poor monitoring of GESAC by council.
But I find it difficult to believe that councillors were completely ignorant of how it is being managed.
The council minutes of 27 April contain two references to GESAC.
One was a report from the Pools Steering Committee meeting of 24 March – attended by Crs Esakoff, Lipshutz, Magee. But you could hardly call it a report – unlike the reports from the Environment Advisory Committee and the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee (included in the same council minutes) which contain considerable detail of issues discussed and actions agreed. All we are told is that there was a “Project Update Report” presented and that the committee had a site inspection. It doesn’t even tell us how long the meeting went for – but I’m estimating about 3 minutes.
The other mention of GESAC is under general business in the report of an Assembly of Councillors from 12 April which indicates Cr Tang raised the issue of “allocation and usage”. So presumably there was at least some discussion – and surely it’s up to our councillors to ensure they are informed about the operation of a facility costing ratepayers $40+million?
What this indicates is that there were opportunities for councillors to seek information and discuss the allocation issues prior to this belated attempt to save face.
June 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM
You seem to be forgetting once important factor. Lipshutz is chair of the pools committee. In theory he has the final say on the minutes. Since he’s in the pocket of Newton it’s no wonder that this is what happens. Magee of course is pro pool so he’s better off keeping his mouth shut. As for the others, well it’s debatable whether they even know what’s going on. The whole affair is disastrous when you have lackeys as councillors and all the information is in the hands of Newton , Burke and other assorted luminaries. Then there’s the problem of ask too many questions and you could be up for bullying.
June 22, 2011 at 9:29 PM
David come back to Glen Eira so you , and you alone can accept responsibility for GESAC.The decision was made by Councillors and Councillors alone. David come back to town so we can throw you out of town.
June 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM
We have so many issues now tightly woven into a knot as explained in the Whelan, Walsh and Wolf Reports. Another investigation may be coming with another Report. Will that provide a solution or continue the problem, because the intractable part is not being handled. Perhaps one should look at the Alexander the Great cutting the Gordian Knot http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_9_01.html
“The problem of untying the Gordian knot resisted all attempted solutions until the year 333 B.C., when Alexander the Great — not known for his lack of ambition when it came to ruling Asia — cut through it with a sword. “Cheat!” you might cry. And although you might have been unwise to have pointed it out in Alexander’s presence, his method did seem to go against the spirit of the problem. Surely, the challenge was to solve the puzzle solely by manipulating the knot, not by cutting it.
But wait a minute. Alexander was no dummy. As a former student of Aristotle, he would have been no stranger to logical puzzles. After all, the ancient Greek problem of squaring the circle is easy to solve if you do not restrict yourself to the stipulated tools of ruler and compass. Today we know that the circle-squaring problem as posed by the Greeks is indeed unsolvable. Using ruler and compass you cannot construct a square with the same area as a given circle. Perhaps Alexander was able to see that the Gordian knot could not be untied simply by manipulating the rope.”
June 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM
If there is to be another investigation then it should be stipulated that whoever leads it should have a name beginning with W.