Once again Officer reports to Councillors’ requests take on the aura of naysaying to all attempted ‘improvements’ to the municipality. We urge a careful reading of the Public Toilet report and the Queen’s Avenue pathway. The usual tactics of ‘it will cost too much” (ie $250,000 for ONE public toilet; conflicts with agreement with MRC, public safety, etc. etc. etc) dominate.
On committee reports, nothing much changes except that the Pools Steering Committee ‘minutes’ now include the staggering number of 4 items instead of the usual 2. The most important item simply states: “Project Update Report”!!!! So much for communication’, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ for a project costing mega bucks.
It also appears that ‘clerical errors’ are becoming the achilles heel of this administration. They just can’t seem to get it right. In the report on Public Questions, we’re told that there were 22 questions asked and answered in the space of 3 months and that NONE were taken on notice. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We totally disagree with the figures provided and as proof, here’s a statement taken directly from council’s minutes – “A Public Question taken on notice at the 19 July 2011 Council Meeting was tabled for inclusion in the Minutes of this Meeting”.
In camera items are again fascinating. Amazingly we’re told that there is a tender going for “information systems support services”. The value of this contract? Only a paltry $4,250,000. Given that the financial reports and budgets state that just under $1m is for IT, we can only wonder what on earth ‘support services’ actually means and why it would cost this astronomical amount?
Then there’s another half a million or so for the upgrade of another sporting oval; a cleaning contract for GESAC with no sum attached, and numerous (ongoing) legal issues that are sure to keep accruing further costs – ie. ‘compliance’ with Local Government Act; GESAC contracts; and a strange “OH &S request for information”.
PS: NO RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY INCLUDED, especially the really important one of 20th September, post council meeting where the Special Committee was set up.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM
You’re being too kind Glen Eira. There’s no such thing as “clerical errors” only attempts to make this council look as good as it possibly can be. If that means a little distortion here and there, then so be it. I also remember heaps of questions recently that were taken on notice and took months to include in minutes. Funny, that these numbers haven’t been mentioned anywhere in service reports.
October 28, 2011 at 2:17 PM
What the hell is going on here? 4 million bucks for information support is unbelievable. Even nasa, fbi, cia wouldn’t spend this amount and here we’ve got a hick local bullshit council that can’t get it’s figures right time after time and we’re expected to believe this crap. whose fiddling the books here?
October 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Basketball allocations still aren’t sorted out by the looks of this. Just more lawyers fees. The whole place is turning into a circus run by monkees.
October 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM
Not monkeys. Elephants and they’re all white.
October 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Anyone got a good sized tent they can lend the city?
October 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM
The length and amount of information contained in the Environment Advisory Committee Minutes is a reminder of what can happen when the community (non-Councillors) participate. The lack of anything substantive in most Committee Meeting Minutes remains an affront to democracy.
It may be a minor quibble but in the report covering Public Questions, it confuses providing a response to a question with answering a question. There are several examples where Council’s response doesn’t actually answer what was asked. Wonder what response we’d get if we asked Council how many questions they believed they actually answered.
I don’t agree with the Officer’s report re Queens Avenue that money should be spent on discouraging people from using the west side. The “temporary wartime fence” that the MRC so loves *will* go. The MRC had better get cracking on planting vegetation on the Crown Land that the State Government believes they should have absolute control over. Since David Southwick is looking for photo-ops involving the community, a mass planting of trees and shrubs in the Caulfield Racecourse and Public Reserve along the eastern boundary would be a start. Council has the power to render Queens Avenue safe for pedestrians cheaply, albeit at some inconvenience to cars. Doing so would merely be an extension of Jeff Akehurst’s strategic planning policies.
While it may not quite get the same media attention as the Berlin Wall, a ceremonial knocking over of the first panel of the WW-II fence may lift community spirits. Cut it up into small pieces and sell them on EBay. Give one to each MP regardless of whether they voted to entrench MRC power and control over the precinct. Reserve the barbed wire for the MPs who are also members of the MRC.
October 28, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Readers should also focus on the actual recommendations coming out of the Environment Committee. Two meetings have now discussed ‘impervious surfaces’ and what’s the outcome? More requests for reports! and again, not to full council but to a committee where the actual reports are never made public.
Perhaps those community reps on this community would like to offer their opinion(s) as to the goings on and the possible machinations that appear to be occurring. A little while back there was the comment from one that the minutes could be more expansive. The answer of course was the Council is not Hansard!
Again we remind councillors that the solution to these problems are very simple. All it takes is a resolution from 5 councillors who recognise that there is an enormous gulf between open, transparent government and what appears to be continually occuring in this council!
October 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM
I will have a walk along Queens Avenue on the weekend before I comment but from memory I thought the racecourse side to be an excellent place for a bike path much like along the railway line between Hughesdale and Murrumbeena Stations. to now see that the Council is spending $25000 on a bike path that is already there plus $20000 more now on signage just shows what waste there is. pPriacks idea of a path on the racecourse side of Queens Avenue makes total sense
October 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM
I would be looking for kick-back through secret bank accounts here.
Never under estimate the ability for crime to rise its ugly head in any organisation were money and accountability is clouded by in-fighting and constant blaming of others for over-runs.
October 28, 2011 at 6:57 PM
Every time I read a new post I become increasingly depressed about the state of affairs we seem to be experiencing in Glen Eira. Secrecy, subterfuge, doubtful accounting practices, lack of accountability, and lack of respect are fast becoming the hallmarks of this administration. Councillors on the other hand are proving themselves to be not only incompetent overseers, but impotent against the tactics of the ruling clique that undoubtedly operates in line with Newton’s dictates. Under such circumstances the future is indeed bleak for representative government. The only hope is that in line with history, despots eventually self destruct and common decency returns. I urge all councillors to put an end to such discord with their desperately needed decision to advertise the CEO position and to appoint someone new.
October 28, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Somthing stinks to high heaven here. 4.25 MILLION for “support”. Come off it. Only 2 tenders to boot and just 3 criteria. Bull dust and double bull dust. All this on a total budget of around 70 mil and they want to spend this on “support” plus all the other dough that’s gone into computers. An inside job or job for the boys I bet my life.
October 28, 2011 at 7:45 PM
Dear Anon,
the real questions about tendering, especially in regards to an amount of this size are:
1. Do ALL councillors get to read the application tenders?
2. Do SOME councillors get to read the application tenders?
3. Do any councillors sit on a committee to decide tenders?
4. Do councillors have any say as to criteria?
5. Do councillors even get to see the full tender documents?
6. Do councillors get full explanations as to what IT “support” actually entails, much less means?
Recent experience over GESAC allocations would suggest that the answer to many of the above questions is a firm, but definite “NO”
October 28, 2011 at 8:09 PM
The prices that we pay for various bits of work and installations in this council are literally mind boggling. I’m still getting over $160,000 for the mulch shed. Now this $4m and $250,000 for an exeloo toilet that no one wants and should never have been installed anywhere. I’m also noticing that the costs put down are never the final costs for anything. They always seem to go much higher. Money is just pouring out all the time with very little to see for it. Designs that cost $700,000; consultations around $60,000. It’s incredible. I would like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Newton can call on people in the community to run the consultations and to provide design work for a fraction of the cost that this council pays out. We could certainly do things a lot cheaper and I dare say much better.
October 28, 2011 at 9:27 PM
Excellent title for the post. To obstruct literally means to impede, to hinder, to prevent progress, to delay. It also means carefully plotted manoevring all designed to achieve particular (power) ends. Does this sound like anybody we know?
October 29, 2011 at 9:05 AM
Noticed in todays Age an ad for the CEO’s position in Boorondara. Councillors with courage and conviction maybe. Good to see.
October 29, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Stonnington gave its ceo of the past five years only a single year extension on her contract with no option of renewal. Reckon they’ll spend the year looking long and hard for someone else.