We must first of all thank ‘Reprobate’ for alerting us to the paper on ATS (Active Transport to School) which we’ve uploaded. We’ve also copied some extracts from this paper for readers’ consideration and response since we feel that the issues raised here are not exclusively about ATS, but impinge on all policy and governance decision making in Glen Eira.
“The paper further examines actor behaviour and institutional cultures in the processes of ATS policy implementation in local government through an investigation of the Cities of Glen Eira and Boroondara, two middle-ring Melbourne council areas with quite different ATS outcomes. Boroondara experienced an eightfold growth (from 891 to 7,278) in ATS participation between 2008 and 2010 whilst over the same period ATS participation in Glen Eira declined by 23% (from 5,442 to 4,187) (Bicycle Victoria, 2010b). Exposure to State government policy and other external influences are the same for both organisations. So, it can be presumed that the key differentiating factors relate to the processes of policy implementation at the local government level.
The role of local government diversified following council amalgamations in 1994-95 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2008). An outcome of these changes was an expectation that councils ‘…would have greater resources to manage more complex and diverse services and to engage in more difficult urban issues in a more sophisticated manner‘ (Stone, 2008, p. 110). ATS programs fall into this domain. However, the strategic direction of some councils including Glen Eira, has been to resist the diversification of responsibilities. Glen Eira City Council resists many of the existing policy goals. In large part, the resistance is due to the culture within the institution, lack of clarity on the delegated responsibility of local government, and an aversion to cost shifting from other tiers of government.
A request was made for the researcher to interview Glen Eira Council staff. The request was refused by the CEO ostensibly due to the perception of bias resulting from the researcher’s involvement in local active travel advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted with two elected officials who shed light on the role of Councillors and Council Officers and their attitudes to ATS. Councillors are not subject to the CEOs restrictive powers and were willing to participate in the research.
The CEO at Glen Eira has an overriding influence on the activities within the Council. Theoretically, local government CEOs work for the Council and have the role of managing the council entity (Cetinic-Dorol, 2000). Although it is not unusual for conflict to arise between the CEO and Councillors, the conflict that has plagued Glen Eira City Council is extreme and has hindered the organisations ability to achieve its objectives. His stranglehold on the organisation is further reflected in the council’s organisational chart…
Glen Eira promotes itself as a ‘low cost council’ with an aversion to real or perceived cost shifting (Glen Eira City Council, 2008, p. 25; 2010a, p. 13; 2010b, p. 13). The council models itself on the traditional council with an emphasis on ‘roads, rates and rubbish’(Glen Eira Councillor 1, 2010). They are involved in two programs with limited regard to ATS- part-funding (with VicRoads) school crossing supervisors and two (4% of schools) road safety audits are undertaken by traffic engineers around schools annually. Institutionally, the council is reticent to become involved in better facilitating ATS despite external funding opportunities with seed and match funding programs dominating funding opportunities for sustainable transport projects. The objective of such programs is to embed cultural change within institutions. As a local government, Glen Eira fears other tiers of government shifting responsibilities and costs onto local government so ‘…they won’t, as a council, support an unfunded or defunded government programs…’ (Glen Eira Councillor 2, 2010). This fear of cost shifting is common to many Victorian local governments, but it is used at Glen Eira as a device to avoid participation in programs that challenge the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ mindset. This is a governance issue and stems from the institutional culture operating within Glen Eira.
The culture within an institution can be a barrier or facilitator of sustainable transport programs. Interviewees suggested the various departments within Glen Eira operate in a siloed or independent rather than integrated manner (National Bicycle Advocacy Group Representatives, 2010). This siloed approach includes a reluctance to engage external expertise. The unwillingness extends to the involvement of the local government in external funding programs such as Victorian Travel Smart programs, Supported Employment of Sustainable Transport Officers and Local Area Access Program. These programs require local governments to match funding from the state government. The institutional unwillingness to contribute adequately to such programs hampers program facilitation (State MP, 2010). This aversion to adequately fund programs has resulted in Glen Eira receiving the lowest Grants Commission funding per resident in Victoria (DPCD, 2010; Glen Eira City Council, 2010a), signifying a failure to utilise external funding opportunities for programs including ATS.
Strategy within Glen Eira exhibits a desire to resist change and continue with a business as usual approach where roads are for cars. The unwillingness to invest time and money into programs facilitating alternate modes of travel illustrates the higher priority given to motorised travel. This is despite traffic congestion being a concern cited by the community and in strategic policy documents (Glen Eira City Council, 2008).
Glen Eira has the fourth lowest per capita expenditure on bicycle infrastructure in Victoria. The 2010expenditure of just $2.91 per capita on bicycle infrastructure was in contrast to Boroondara at $6.51 percapita (Bicycle Victoria, 2010a). The total capital expenditure in Glen Eira in 2010-11 was forecast to be $47 million, with 19% allocated to the renewal and upgrade of roads. Only 0.2% of the budget is allocated to bicycle lanes, 2% to pedestrian safety and 0.03% to ‘upgrade of safety treatments around schools’(Glen Eira City Council, 2010b). In the same budget period, Booroondara allocated about 4% of their capital works budget to active travel infrastructure (Boroondara City Council, 2010b).
Within Glen Eira, the CEO and his senior managers are the most influential, whilst elected officials, whose role is to represent community needs and interests are generally supportive of ATS yet their input is nullified.
Glen Eira City Council is an example of a technocratic community network (see Fig 3). Such networks resist policy change including the implementation of delegated responsibilities such as ATS programs. The Council uses cost shifting as an excuse within the institution to account for the local government’s reluctance to engage in ATS programs. However, funding is allocated to a number of programs which although beneficial to the community, do not fall within the tradition council realm. These programs include aged care facilities, an arts program, and business development programs.Based on Peterson’s (2003) policy network variables, Glen Eira is a stable policy network in which the same actors dominate decision making (Fig 3). Outsiders are not encouraged to engage with the local government nor are outsiders actively invited to provide input.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Brilliant stuff. This has hit the nail on the head all right. Culture is the problem and that means Newton and Burke. Ya don’t apply for grants cos that’s means accountability and loss of control. Easy to ply the spin of cost shifting then and convince gullible councillors that you’re a genius. How about revealing all the grants that aren’t applied for? There’s heaps and heaps in this paper that everyone should read if they really want to understand the rot that’s consumed this Council for years and years.
January 13, 2012 at 3:05 PM
What happens in other councils is the telling point for me as a reaction to the last couple of posts put up here. The manipulation and total rubbish that comes out of this council would be fine if it didn’t in the end impact on ratepayers and their rights. Glen Eira is slowly but surely coming to be a police state where everything is top secret and the overpaid lackeys are all singing the same tune that Newton’s written for them. I can’t believe that this lot gave him another two years. It’s a real tragedy.
January 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM
I read this post with extreme interest. It is very very interesting to see that an outsider from council has highlighted exactly the same issues that contributors to this blog raise all the time. The comments in this report need to be discussed by councilors with Glen Eira constituents so we can have a full and honest explanation about why this council does so little to attract external funds to develop more for this community. I will be contacting my councilors asking for an explanation. I am pleased to see that this report puts an external perspective on how this city is managed now we have to do something about it. Thanks Reprobate for your work!
January 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM
I’d like to congratulate the authors of this paper for their detailed and comprehensive analysis. Whilst the subject area is ostensibly ATS, the issues raised are all about governance, and control, and how to maintain a tight rein on that power base. It makes for very sad reading when compared to what happens in Boroondara and I think numerous other democratic and responsible organisations.
January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM
Not all councillors are stupid, nor are they ignorant of what is happening with the CEO and his behaviours. The question harps way back to the Roman times and no doubt far beyond, I have said it before and I will say it again, Cui bono.
January 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM
If you don’t apply for available grants then you don’t get them. It would be good to know how many grants this council has applied for – outside of sporting ones – and how many they got in comparison to other councils. If they applied equally and failed to get the grants then this says a lot about the expertise in writing up the applications. Maybe instead of hiring so many lawyers and outside consultants, some of the money should be used to employ a full time person with experience to be the applications officer. That would be their job. Writing up applications for all kinds of grants.
January 14, 2012 at 1:44 PM
MODERATORS: Dear Anonymous,
We would be pleased to post any evidence you might have to substantiate the claims made in this comment.
January 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM
I would qualifiy “nor are outsiders actively invited to provide input” by adding unless they are lawyers (who we pay generously) who are willing to push Newton and Burke’s interpretation of local law (without mentioning that it is an interpretation and that other views exist) to drive home the outcome Newton and Burke want. Doesn’t matter if it’s not in the interests of anyone other than themselves
January 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM
The last line of this post says it all about the culture that is dominating Glen Eira. “outsiders” are banned completely. This is evident in all council policies and right through to the way meetings are run. What a waste of talent that could be utilised to improve things in the community. Until this council accepts that there is much expertise out in the community and that there are people with plenty to offer, then it will remain out of touch with residents.
January 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM
The people at the town hall do not think that they are out of touch. In fact they would show you figures that show that most residents are satisfied. The odd bods that blog and compalin about secret meetings are so few that the Council are not concerned at all. Their are only a handful of people bloging to each other on this site. I have no doubt that this site is essential reading by council staff and that the staff would adjust their behaviour if they were found wanting. It is very unlikely that the modus operandi will change. If you think that the bloggers that support thios site are untapped talent then think again. it is easy to knock, not so easy to bring forward ideas that may have 50 year outcomes.
January 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM
You’re dead wrong Anon. This blog is more than essential reading for staff. It’s mentioned in council meetings (negatively) and subtle changes are brought in largely as a direct result of the comments made here. You also comment on the talent that’s out there with the bloggers. Well, I’d rather the talent of residents instead of the incompetence of officers and councillors. Okay, it’s easy to knock, but the ideas are there from other councils and you don’t need to be Einsteins to figure out how consultation can improve. You don’t need to be a lawyer to make changes to governance practices. All of these things can happen if residents took over. I believe it will once we’ve got rid of the gang and Newton and maybe even earlier than that.
January 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM
You would be joking the community is the enemy to be driven from any process, ignored, treated as idiots. It about time we established just who pays the wages, and sack the fools that run this plague ship called Glen Eira. But first we need to deal with the traitors that keep Newton in power. November is looming, lets see how it pans out.
January 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Agree that Glen Eira is not an inclusive council. And the unadulterated rubbish that emanates from Paul Burke’s office when council admin is under fire confirms how often they treat residents with utter disdain.
That said, Councillor Pilling organised a number of public meetings when he was in his transparency, openness and accountability phase and only two and a dog turned up. Unless those who whine so regularly here – with some justification – show some numerical strength when these opportunies arise, council will continue to believe we are merely a noisy minority.
January 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Have to agree with this comment that some councillors nb. Cr Pilling work very hard to be inclusive of the community that he represents. Unfortunately, he is all but alone in this endeavour.
Newton and Burke treat the GE community with disdain and show a complete disregard for those members in the community that have an interest in improving Glen Eira.
The sooner they are knocked off their perches, the better Glen Eira will be.
Greater representation by progressive councillors is required for change within Glen Eira.
January 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM
Progressive means that the council will be in everyones lives. If they stick to collecting the garbage and mowing the grass that is enough. Stay out of childcare and other so called “progressive” pursuits. You are in the minority. Greens like Pilling poll no more than !5% across the City. Newtons replacement won’t be alot different. Your dream of progressive (socialist) councillors won’t happen. Move to Richmond.
January 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Christ you’re such a cynic. Since when does “progressive” mean “socialist”? Anything that belongs in the 20th century in Glen Eira is progressive. It’s progressive when decent answers are provided to public questions and when notice of motion is in the meeting procedures and when minutes are accurate and truthful. Most progressive would be when the gang actually fades into oblivion. None of this is socialism and I don’t want to live in Richmond. I want to live in an area that has the same rules that other councils live by and not what Newton and Burke decide is good for them and have the gang stomp on people’s rights all the time. That’s fascism to me not socialism.
January 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Yes all good points Autonomy, we are own greatest enemy, and for every one person that cares there is a legion that don’t, Newton and PB count on these legions, for their silence is used as their consent. And as for our mostly lazy councillors who leave it up to Newton to set the standard, hoping for a few crumbs from the high-table, look-out, people are waking up to your weak games.
I am beginning to understand why Cr Whiteside resigned caught between her role as wanting to represent her ward, and the ultra conservatism of her right-wing fellow councillors, and always being honey-dripped by Newtons nonsense that appearance is more important that function.