One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only – please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.
It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –
Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee
ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’
MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.
HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.
TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’
HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).
TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.
HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?
OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.
ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’
MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 22, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Jamie, me boy, I’m really starting to worry about you. Fair dinkum, I’m becoming more and more convinced that you definitely ain’t Mayor material. Not with youR lousy jokes, your continual spitting the dummy, and that’s when you’re subbing in the Mayoral Chair. Honestly, it’s not becoming. Take a deep breath, take a bex, and relax.
September 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I think this post has got it right. There had to be lobbying for the money which means that a decision was made that it be Centenary Park. Now there’s the argument that because we received the money specifically for Centenary Park we have to use it for that park and the priority list thus becomes irrelevant. It would be good to see the paper work on this one and how Centenary Park was selected. I don’t mind things changing if there are excellent and up front reasons provided, but I do agree with Tang that there is no transparency here. It’s all been achieved in the back rooms where such decisions are made.
This also means that Marlborough Reserve could be the ultimate loser. We’ve for sure had massive costs associated with these plans and the mock consultation process to boot. Now most of this sounds like it’s all on hold. I shouldn’t be surprised at how much money this council is prepared to squander. They’ve been doing it for years.
September 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM
I agree that the $500,000 for redevelopment of the Cooper Pavillion in Centenary Park is extremely welcome. However, that it came out of blue really strains credibility. That it warrants changing the “objective ranking table” to being a “guide” only is highly questionable and makes one wonder how seriously Council’s priorities are set and adhered to.
As per Tang’s advise ($500,000 is 25% of the estimated cost) Council is planning on spending 2 mill on a yet another sporting pavillion. If past pavillion developments are anything to go by, the net result of this pavllion development will result in the loss of 25% of current parkland due pavillion expansion and associated roads and car parking and massive over budget expenditure in the latter stages of development due to poor planning.
The challenge for Council will be to design a pavillion that actually
. suits the stakeholders needs (i.e. listen to the stakeholders)
. is comprehensive and includes everything (no more “opps-now-we-need-to” relocate the sporting ovals a.k.a. Caufield Park or carpark expansion a.k.a. GESAC)
. is brought in on time and on budget.
Is the Council up to the challenge – past performance indicates that it isn’t.
September 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM
This is what the Pavilions Priority report actually said (Minutes, November 27th, 2007) – “It is recommended that a full review of the Priorities for Pavilion Upgrades be undertaken on a regular basis to ensure that changing circumstances are reflected. This review would include checking that the scores for individual pavilions are still correct”. Four years later and we’re still waiting for this ‘review’.
September 22, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Hyams’ flippancy is to be deplored. “Subsequent decisions” are being made once again with few facts or figures to back up the alteration in priorities. No real justification has been provided except for the grant money which admittedly is a political decision that may have earned some votes for Miller. Others on this blog have already raised suspicions as to the lobbying that must have gone on for the funds to be earmarked specifically for Centenary Reserve. What needs to be looked at carefully is why Centenary Park was chosen above Victory Park and the countless other parks in Bentleigh and the role that the priority listing didn’t play in this decision.
September 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM
You have to be kidding. All funding is political. You must be one of those …. retentive process driven drones that doesn’t get politics. Get over the lists. They only draw up lists to keep people from ringing up and writing letters. Old public servants trick. No one ever expects anyone to take them too seriously, or maybe you do.
September 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM
Sounds like we agree after all. The lists are there for public consumption and nothing else. So much then for “objective” criteria and the value that can be assigned to any reports. And for budgets – well, they are also malleable. Says a lot about planning then, doesn’t it?
September 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Hi Jamie, any other Councillor, Council officer or anyone who knows the rules and can help,
I was wondering if you could clarify something for me that I am still a little confused about.
This is not regarding this particular issue itself, but the actual commentary and question process from the Council meeting.
I assume by reading this it has a Council Officer of some stature replying to an issue/question raised at a Council meeting.
It’s my understanding from personal experience that officers NEVER answer public questions, or as I am so kindly reminded “public questions are directed to Councillors and not Council Officers”.
Why has a Council Officer suddenly been allowed to answer a question regardless of who has asked it.
I have asked on numerous occasions to have my questions answered by a Council officer and it is ALWAYS denied for some strange reason.
My question is simply can a Council Officer answer questions at a Council meeting?
September 22, 2011 at 6:11 PM
Dear Mr. Varvodic,
our understanding is that:
1. councillors are permitted to ask questions of officers
2. it is up to the chair’s discretion whether she/he passes a public question onto an officer
September 22, 2011 at 7:17 PM
OK, well thanks for the confirmation that we have been treated with contempt, lack of respect and as bunch of fools.
I do recall a very interesting and debatable comment along the lines of “Councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community”
Well obviously you do as Councillors are allowed to ask Officers questions when it suits you but the general riff raff are not, seems like a double standard to me
I’d still love to hear Councils version?
September 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM
Magee actually spoke. What a surprise. I expect he will be down at the cricket club telling all that will listen how he secured the funding. In fact during the last election campaign Magee was working to re-elect Bob Hudson. Miller probably did get their vote and she delivered. The boys at Bentleigh Uniting are smart enough to work that one out. He doesn’t fool anyone, except of course himself.