We’ve decided to revisit the issue of Grill’d and the ripping out of public seating in order to make way for private tables and chairs. Since Grill’d has now expanded its area into Jersey Parade itself, we thought a rethink may be in order. However, no matter how one looks at this issue, things just don’t add up.
The in camera item of the December 13th Council Meeting read: “under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie.” Section 89(2)(d) refers explicitly to “contract matters”. There are only two possibilities here – either this entry is bogus, or an actual ‘contract’ was signed. If a contract was agreed to, then we have to question why. Putting out tables and chairs IS NOT a contractual matter. All it requires is an application and a permit from Council. So, why is this Grill’d matter treated so differently? If a contract was in fact granted, then why are the minutes indicating ‘land’? Is council leasing land? Since when does the placing of tables and chairs require a land lease?
But the 64 dollar question still remains. Why, oh why, was this entire item considered in camera and why no outcome reported?
Councillors need to fess up and answer the following very simple questions:
- Were councillors informed that public seating had been ripped out BEFORE they decided on this item?
- Did any councillor query why this was designated as confidential?
- Did any councillor even wonder as to why this did not go through normal procedure as a simple permit application for tables and chairs? If they did, did any councillor have the temerity to ask what was going on?
Whichever way one looks at this entire episode, nothing adds up, and we can therefore only assume that there’s a lot more to this than council is willing to disclose. Again, secrecy, and Newton’s determination of ‘confidential’ outstrips accountability and transparent decision making.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM
hi a topic that you might like to cover. I notice that the
Dudley Street apartments are now being offered as whole floors for 3.5 million with 27 bedsits in each. Obviously they have found them difficult to sell. Doesn’t go well for the MRC project does it?
January 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM
The abuse of the power to close a meeting to members of the public has been commented on before, and been the subject of an article in The Age. Under the execrable Local Government Act, and lax attitude of the Local Government Inspectorate, there is little to compel Councillors and Council officers to change their behaviour. Although Glen Eira Council routinely breaches LGA, there are limited sanctions available under the Act. I suppose LGI *could* investigate and recommend to the Minister for Local Government that the Council be sacked, but you’d be more confident of 11-storey buildings appearing in Carnegie than concerted action being taken.
The secrecy is simply unacceptable. LGA requires Minutes of each meeting to be kept, requires those Minutes to contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made, and requires relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process to be incorporated in those Minutes. Anything less than this would mean that Council has failed to achieve to achieve the objectives prescribed by LGA, which includes ensuring that there is transparency and accountability in Council decision making.
There are two possible “outs” for Council though. LGA doesn’t say anything about making the Minutes public (an extraordinary oversight), and s93(6)(d) implies a power not to record some resolutions in the Minutes despite s93(6)(a) saying the Minutes “must contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made”.
Still, in the last publicly-viewable LGI report (which Council was not keen to release), the Inspectorate “uncovered councillor behaviour that is at odds with the objectives of council”. Further, the report urged (repeatedly) councillors “to consider the Objectives of Council outlined in section 3C of the Act. [Why the Inspectorate thinks s93 and s79 of LGA are only “guidelines” remains a mystery, and its comments about “no evidence” for many alleged breaches is as trustworthy as that of UK police with respect to the Phone Hacking scandal.]
Do Councillors truly believe that their use of closed meetings, non-disclosure of resolutions made, failure to incorporate details or summaries of reports considered in the minutes, are all compatible with the Objectives listed in s3C of LGA?
January 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM
There’s so much that’s dodgy about this that councillors need to speak up and answer the questions. If they don’t then there’s obviously something to hide. Secrecy makes everyone suspicious and when we’re talking about a handful of tables and chairs and some public seating, then you’ve really got to wonder why such stuff is held in secret. Even if they had 30 tables we’re still talking chickenfeed in the overall scheme of things. So it can’t be the money. There has to be another reason, or reasons, why Newton didn’t want this out in public. The whole thing is highly irregular and you’ve got to wonder whether grilld is getting special treatment and for what reason. The only decent thing that these councillors can do is speak up and tell us the truth.
January 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Nice to blog about it all but the truth lies within the town hall. Have your question ready for the next Council meeting and seek an answer.
January 19, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Agreed, a lot is dodgey … my bet is some Councillor or Senior Administrator’s snout was in the trough. Probably legal but not within the spirit. We will probably never know because Councillors are not about to ask the legitimate questions you pose.