These are the facts currently facing Glen Eira:

• a ‘high risk’ council as determined by the Auditor General
• a liquidity cash crisis due to GESAC
• repeated statements on the need to curb spending

So, given these circumstances, it is absolutely astonishing that we find the following Media Release by the Minister for Sport & Recreation.

Funding boost for new playspace at Murrumbeena Park

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Families in the Murrumbeena area will soon have access to an exciting new accessible playspace thanks to $258,921 of Victorian Government funding set to go towards a new community facility at the popular Murrumbeena Park.

Minister for Sport and Recreation Hugh Delahunty visited Murrumbeena Park today to announce the funding boost from the latest round of the Community Facility Funding Program.

“Local parks provide a fantastic outdoor space for families to get together, socialise, enjoy a picnic, relax or get active,” Mr Delahunty said.

“The proposed new playspace will add a whole new dimension to the Murrumbeena Park, providing even more recreation options for this growing community.

“This new project will introduce a variety of new play equipment to excite and challenge children of all abilities and backgrounds, testing their dexterity and, most importantly, encouraging fun activities,” Mr Delahunty said.

The project includes the development of a new regional playspace and social area featuring play equipment that ranges from junior to senior level and will be complimented with creative garden landscaping.

Mr Delahunty said the new playspace was also designed to complement the park’s existing charm and character.

“Murrumbeena Park is also home to several local sports clubs including the Murrumbeena Football and Bowls Clubs.

“Once fully established the new play space will encourage not just local kids but the whole community to venture outside more often to exercise, socialise, join a club and get more active, more often,” Mr Delahunty said

“By investing in high-quality, accessible community sport and recreation facilities across Victoria, the program goes a long way towards increasing participation and improved access to sport and recreation activities in communities like Murrumbeena,” Mr Delahunty said.

Mr Delahunty congratulated the City of Glen Eira for contributing $776,764 towards the project.

COMMENTS:

• A playground already exists (see photo below)
• The $776,764 does not appear anywhere in the 2011/12 budget
• Did councillors know of this proposed expenditure & grant application?
• Why does it seem that all grants have something to do with either sport, or appearance? How many applications have gone in for structure plans, transport plans, children’s hubs, etc. etc.? The real ‘nuts and bolts’ for successful planning?
• Why is council now spending another million dollars on a park when we have a ‘cash crisis’? What does this say about the financial management of Glen Eira and the strategic directions being pursued?

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.

Once again we have to marvel at how other councils conduct their consultation in comparison to the pseudo consultation methods that characterise Glen Eira’s approach. Presented below is a diagram taken directly from the Bayside Council website depicting their timeline for community consultation on an Integrated Transport Strategy. Please note:

• Two rounds of consultation
• Dissemination of both background and discussion papers – both with provision for feedback
• Draft follows consultation
• That this can all be achieved within a 4 month timeframe

Members’ GESAC swim centre protest

17 Jan 12 @  06:00am by Jenny Ling

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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.

We’ve copied the following from ‘The Mayne Report’ as another example of what occurs in other councils. Firstly, there are transcripts/audio recordings; secondly the non existence of the ‘no surprises’ policy where councillor questions have to be written and submitted days ahead, and last but not least, the Mayor’s endorsement of the fact that councillors are entitled to ask whatever questions they wish of other councillors since ‘there is a right to be able to do it’. In Glen Eira such ‘rights’ have been continually and deliberately eroded.

“Mayor Geoff Gough: Cr Mayne, any questions?

Cr Stephen Mayne: Yes Mr Mayor, I note that the former mayor Charles Pick has made a fairly rapid transition from mayor of Manningham to lobbyist for local developers and I was just wishing to ask you whether we as a council need to develop a protocol about the appropriate way to engage with our former mayor now that he is financially engaged by local developers to achieve planning outcomes in Manningham.

Mayor Geoff Gough: (after conferring with CEO Lydia Wilson) Mr Goldsworthy.

EGM Corporate Services, Steve Goldsworthy: Through you Mr Mayor, there are provisions in the Local Government Act that deal with misuse of position and they apply both to current councillors and past councillors. And there are a number of provisions that are referred to, but one is in relation to information that comes to a councillor, or a member of a special committee for that matter, by virtue of their position. So it’s not information that would be readily in the community sphere. So that’s probably the extent of the legislative provisions. It may well be though that if councillors feel uncomfortable with contacts being made by a former mayor and feel that there may be community perceptions that would flow from those contacts and from developments that might occur, then it may well be worthwhile for the council to develop a protocol that councillors feel comfortable with.

Cr Stephen Mayne: In light of the fact that I’ve received calls (from former mayor Pick) canvassing and requesting information and feedback as to my feelings on things like the Coptic Church and the Mathieson pokies venue in the Yarra Valley Country Club. And in light of the former mayor’s intense activity within the council on a continuing basis, I’m asking you Mr Mayor whether you think that we, at a political level, as a group of councillors, need to actually sort of formalise the protocols around which a former mayor, active still inside the council, about how we as politicians should engage with that individual in light of the fact that he is now paid by developers to achieve development outcomes in Manningham.

Mayor Geoff Gough: Well, people must be in receipt of news that I don’t know about, about the activities of our former mayor. But as far as I’m concerned I think Mr Goldsworthy’s explanation is correct. If you’ve got any further information about his activities, I don’t know.

Cr Mayne: just one more for Cr Macmillan. Cr Macmillan, is it correct that former mayor Pick advised you and helped in the specific wording of your motion that was rescinded this evening?

Cr Macmillan: I don’t have to answer and I won’t. It’s none of his business.

Cr Stephen Mayne: And a question for Cr Downie. Is Cr Downie aware of who sent the letter to a private school principal that was discussed in a meeting of councillors last night?

Cr Downie: I don’t have to answer.

Cr Mayne: I have no further questions, Mr Mayor.

Cr Macmillan: Mr Mayor, can I just object to this line of questioning. Yet again, we see the bullying tactics of a councillor using the valuable question time to ask misleading or insinuating questions to councillors. Is this appropriate?

Mayor Geoff Gough: Look I actually have to agree, that this question time is really to ask questions to get things onto the paper. I think other questions could be wisely put otherwise. It’s not the sort of behaviour that I would undertake at question time, but it is clearly, I suppose, someone’s rights to be able to ask that question. I would not be doing those sorts of questions and I think it brings council into disrepute and makes allegations that are unsubstantiated and unproven. It’s disappointing, I feel, that it’s happened. However, it has, and there is a right to be able to do it.

We’ve recently featured a post on the removal of public seating in Carnegie which was then replaced with private seating for Grill’d – part of a chain of hamburger joints.  We’ve also wondered whether this was a deliberate and calculated move by Council.

Interestingly enough, there is an item in the in camera section of the December 13^th Council minutes which reads: “12.6 under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie” . This sounds pretty innocuous, until we discover that Jersey Parade is actually directly opposite Koornang Rd and the Grill’d franchise.

Jersey Parade itself is entirely residential, so we have to wonder what kind of ruse is going on here and what kind of ‘licences’ are being handed out for ‘land’ in a residential area? Or, could it conceivably be, that this in camera item is actually all about giving Grill’d the permit to establish their private seating at the expense of public seating? If so, then further questions need answering:

• Why was this item in camera?  Why weren’t the results announced?
• We don’t recall any other ‘licence’ agreements for ‘land’ taking place behind closed doors. Even the C60 and other leases have all been included in agenda items for open Council meetings. So, what’s so special about this particular item?
• If the item is indeed about Grill’d then why isn’t the address Koornang Rd provided, since this is their listing in the phone book? Is this a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth?
• Finally – how much did it cost ratepayers to have the public seating removed and how much is Council getting back in revenue from the paltry number of plastic tables and chairs? From the photographs there are only 3 or 4 tables. Council’s rates for Koornang Rd are approx. $33 per square metre. There are additional charges for awnings, signs, etc all requiring a permit. Even if the area covers 20 square metres, which we very much doubt, the return to council is probably a pittance. So, if this item is about Grill’d and the monetary value is miniscule, then what’s the real reason for keeping it top secret and what’s the real reason for removing perfectly good seats in the first place?
• Obviously a decision was made somewhere along the line to grant a permit for Grill’d. If this Agenda Item is indeed about Grill’d and was held in camera, wouldn’t it be nice to know whether or not councillors were previously informed  that public seating had been removed in order to clear the way for this little deal?

The Auditor General has released various reports which bemoan the fact that many Local Government Annual Reports and budgets generally lack transparency and relevance – that what they contain is often incomprehensible to the lay resident. We believe that Glen Eira excels in this area. Attempting to make sense out of the published figures is nigh on impossible. Admittedly, we’re not accountants. But that’s exactly the point if the Auditor General’s recommendations are taken seriously. One shouldn’t need a PhD in accounting or economics to be able to grasp what is really going on! Let’s take a few examples:

• In 2011 according to Council minutes (excluding Special Committees) there were 21 items considered in camera which contained the words ‘legal advice’. That is just under a quarter of all items listed for in camera. We further assume that many of these items consisted of external legal advice and hence would probably not be recorded under the category of Corporate Counsel in the budget.
• What is recorded in the 2011/12 budget under Corporate Counsel is the following: Expenses for the forecast year of $1,458,000 and an ‘income’ of $8,000
• As if this isn’t enough there is also the strange category of ‘Customer Service and Council Governance’. Exactly what this means is anyone’s guess, since most people would expect Governance to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corporate Counsel. Not so Glen Eira! The figures for this department are: Income – Zero! Expenses: $4,963,000.
• One most also query exactly what Customer Service means? Is this staff? Telephones? Little leaflets? etc.etc.etc.

So what we seem to have, apart from vague, obtuse categories, is nearly $6.5 million dollars expenditure and we really don’t know a thing about how, nor why this money is spent. All we know is that Glen Eira sure uses a hell of a lot of lawyers at the drop of a hat with no real accountability for their use. Come on councillors – it’s time budgets and Annual Reports really informed residents as to what is going on, and precisely how their money is being spent, rather than simply winning prizes for ‘presentation’! What’s required is a lot more substance and less camouflage.

GESAC court battle over

10 Jan 12 @  07:00am by Jenny Ling