Agenda Item 9.7 features a report presumably written by Paul Burke on the possibility of redeveloping the Victory Park pavilion. In November 2007 there was also a report which included a ‘Pavilion Priority Listing’. Victory Park was ranked 6th in 2007 for redevelopment. In this latest report on Victory Park we find the usual tactics employed – need to adhere to the strategic resource plan and budget, as well as providing 4 options, two of which will cost the earth and a third which recommends ‘do nothing’. Option A is of course the cheapest, so if councillors are really adamant they’ll opt for this far from ideal solution. Memories of the GESAC car park extension argument resonates strongly here. Apart from all this history, there is one vital sentence in the current Burke report:
“A recent review in August 2011 of the report ranked the Victory Park Pavilion seventh in priority list.”
We point out that such a ‘review’ has never made it into the public domain. Further, if such a review was conducted in August 2011, then why on the 20th September 2011 was this August ‘review’ never mentioned? Instead there was a vote on the redevelopment of the Centenary Park pavilion and the $500,000 grant received from the State Government? If councillors were aware of this August ‘review’ then the following debate from the chamber is superfluous, if not ridiculous. However, if they were not aware of the review and its sudden reassignment of Victory Park to category 7, then what does this say about information dissemination within council? Or is such a ‘review’ only for the eyes of Mr Burke and the Sports Department? Or the other possibility of course is does such a ‘review’ even exist?
Below is part of the post we put up following the September council debate. Please note carefully the interchange between Hyams and Tang.
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’.
COMMENT
- In September councillors are still referring to the November 2007 priority list. No mention of Burke’s review of August 2011!
- The magical appearance of grants for Centenary, and now Marlborough even though these are out of order according to the priority listing from November 2007
- If priority listings have changed then to quote Tang, ‘council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’!!!!!!!
- What is the real truth and how much of this report is just more smoke and mirrors? Does this report even exist? If it does, then it must be in the public domain and the criteria and rationale for changes also published!
- Finally, we mustn’t forget to mention that the Audit Committee Annual Report still hasn’t appeared! Why?
Glen Eira Debates 
February 25, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Of course the report doesn’t exist, the list is as rubbery as Hyam’s sincerity, and Mumbles (MODERATORS: word deleted)
Solution, vote Hyams out in October, get new progressive councillors in, then sack Mumbles
February 26, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Progressive is the modern term for socialist. It is unlikely that people with these ideals will be elected in Glen Eira. You should move to Richmond or Brunswick. Or even closer Port Phillip where they have the idea of the Council paying for every indigenous persons funeral. They reckon about 250 people will will be eligable. This is to help square off for Invasion Day. (Australia Day) What a great progressive idea.
February 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM
MODERATORS: comment deleted
February 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM
The report probably does exist it’s just been discussed in secret as always. Of course the mug public is then expected to believe that decisions are only made out on the chamber floor rather than in these briefing meetings. Tang for once is dead right – there is no transparency. Everything is decided beforehand and we’re expected to believe everything that we’re told – what little that is of course.
February 26, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Almost 8 years in office and Tang get his first thing right, slow learner that man.
February 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM
No surprises here. Burke’s report advocates the status quo. Victory Park has been a real thorn in some councillors sides for years now. Girls changing outside under trees or in front of urinals. But McKinnon gets the first nod for over 8 million and Victory gets a bone thrown to it. It’s also an election year and my summation of the likely situation is that Magee has been stirring things up for his electorate – as he should. The result is this mealy mouthed report. Magee can then pat himself on the back for trying and if defeated by the gang then he’s in the clear. If something gets up then all the glory is his. Good politics I’d say. But lousy governance as made clear by the exchange between Hyams and Tang. That councillors knew nothing about the August report is damn obvious. There’s no reason why it should have been kept secret when the Sept vote took place. Hyams and Tang just didn’t know about it full stop. I’m told that Tang even went on to talk about the need to do a review. How’s that for being informed when we’re told that the review happened a month earlier!
From 2007 to August 2011 is 4 long years for something that was supposed to be reviewed regularly and that’s costing millions. It’s the same with every policy that’s created – left to rot on the shelf while the world marches on. People have already put up comments about how out of date most things are and even Pilling has said something about the open space strategy that belongs in the dark ages. What we need to keep in mind is that once a policy exists it is justification for everything you want to do, so you don’t change it. Reviews only highlight what needs changing and in Glen Eira they don’t want to change a single thing of substance.
February 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM
I would say that this is a pretty astute reading of the situation Macca. There’s a priority list that exists only on paper. It’s flexible as everything else that crops up, such as the extension of the gesac car park at the last minute. I seem to remember some post or comment about the materialisation of grants for Centenary Park and now Murrumbeena for a $1,000,000 playground. These things just don’t happen. They have to be lobbied for, arguments presented and political buttons pushed. All this has gone on behind the scenes – which again makes a mockery of the idea of any openly disclosed strategy or policy. If you look at the Centenary Park ranking from 2007 it was ranked third . Now it’s way up the list as Tang said, leap frogging other listings.
“Review” in Glen Eira is a euphemism for “let’s do nothing” – apart from what we want to happen. Everything else is, as the posts keep telling us, “smoke and mirrors”. They’re right. The cost isn’t just money poured into projects that perhaps don’t warrant it. This is all about governance in my view and exactly what councillors are told, what they know, how they act, and whether they are in possession of all the information so that they can really make informed decisions. The Burke statement tells us a lot about what’s wrong with Glen Eira.
February 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Anon, If progressive is the modern term for socialist, then Backwards is the term for Liberal. Inbreeding …. with the Nationals is the term for conservative