If any further evidence was required as to the machinations of this administration then readers need to look no further than the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. We will highlight just a few examples.
AUDIT COMMITTEE
The incamera section of the agenda contains this item: “12.3 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee membership”. We assume that this refers to the reappointment (again, and again, and again) of either Mr Gibbs, or Mr McLean. We highlight the secrecy once more and the questionable probity of the potential presence of these men for a consistent and extended period of time on the most important committee in a council.
We also note the recommendations in the Officer’s Report (no name attached to this report – Again!) to reappoint Cr. Lipshutz and Magee to this advisory committee. We have previously stated our concerns about the unbroken presence of Cr. Lipshutz on this committee. If Council is really concerned about potential perceptions of good governance, and adhering to national and state standards, then there must be regular rotation of committee members. We have also stated that we believe the best candidates for this most important position are Crs Lobo and Penhalluriack. Given their business and banking acumen and their long years of experience in worrying about bottom line figures and fiduciary responsibilities, they are both in our view, ideal councillor representatives on such a committee.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
There are at least 2 highly contentious planning applications before council – the Morrice St, 2 storey 120 place child care centre, and the 3 story Mahvo St., development with 10 apartments. We have again noted how this planning department fails to adequately inform residents; how the number of notifications sent out appear to be directly correlated to the number of anticipated objections. For example: the erection of lighting in Caulfield Park, literally hundreds of metres away from the nearest house, occasioned over 500 notices. C60 which will have a direct and devastating impact on humdreds of homes, also had about 500-600 notices. Now we have these two applications, both of which were recommended for planning permit approval –
Morrice St – 20 properties notified; 23 notices; 76 objections & 1 letter of support.
Mahvo St. – 10 properties notified; 11 notices; 47 objections
In contrast we find the Lillimir application (which is already inundated with 3 storey developments and major multi units) received 86 notices sent and garnered 10 objections. This is not to decry the importance of this area. We are simply tired of the continual failure of the planning department to inform residents and to ensure that notices in all areas are distributed equitably and fairly. If people don’t know what’s going on, then how can they object? Could this in fact be the hidden agenda?
We are also taken aback at the sheer nonsense and gobbledygood that features in these officers reports. The reports lack substance, detail, statistics, and most importantly, they repeatedly fail to adequately address residents’ concerns. Here are just a few examples of this nonsense. We urge readers to note the vacuous/evasive language often used –
“Whilst there would be an appreciable increase in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon periods, these additional vehicle movements would not have an unreasonable effect on the current level of amenity of Morrice Street which would remain quiet throughout most of the day and at weekends.”
“Applying the State Government tests set out in Rescode, there will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties. There will be some overshadowing impacts to the habitable windows at 34 Mavho Street….The recommended increased setbacks at the first and second storeys will also assist in improving the degree of overshadowing.”
RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY
There are countless tit-bits of information in these ‘records’ that lead on to countless questions of planning, especially for GESAC. Here are a few –
7th February 2012 – GESAC indoor courts – update. Mayor to contact Bentleigh Secondary College
14th February – GESAC an update on the situation in relation to the allocation of time for basketball.
We’re also told that meeting resumed only in the presence of councillors. If so, then where is the ‘independent minute taker’? Was he/she present? If so, then why not listed? If not, then why not given the last Municipal Inspector’s recommendation and councillors promise to accept these recommendations?
Cr Hyams – informed the meeting that he had received a telephone call from the Municipal Inspectorate in relation to complaints and investigations.
Make of the above what you will!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM
You highlighted Caulfield Park lights and C60. in both cases the Council was the proponent. It is up to the proponent to letter box. The Council cannot force other proponents to extensivly letter box residents. It is probably illegal for the Council to draw attention to any proposals execpt their own.
We wouldn’t want greedy developers litigating against the Council would we?
March 18, 2012 at 9:13 AM
Its certainly not illegal for Council to notify residents of proposals. This is covered in Section 52 of Planning and Environment Act.
Either the responsible authority or the applicant must give notice to “to any other persons, if the responsible authority considers that the grant of the permit may cause material detriment to them.” [S52(1)(d)]
“The responsible authority may give any further notice that it considers appropriate of an application for a use or development which is likely to be of interest or concern to the community.” [S52(3)]
What appears to be of concern to some is that the notice given is considered in adequate. S52(2) spells out the ways notice can be given, including a notice on the land, publishing a notice in newspapers, sending the notice personally or by post. While Council isn’t obliged to send out letters, Council does at its discretion send out letters to nearby residents.
If people really want to be kept informed then they can use the electronic planning register Council provides. They could for example search for all applications in their suburb. Some residents groups do this routinely so as to be aware of all that is happening around them.
March 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM
No Pools committee report when this is bleeding us dry. Good job Lipshutz and Magee.
March 18, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Interestingly, nothing on GESAC itself – when the ph*ck is it opening.
The announcement of an delay in the opening date was followed by silence until the Feb 28 Council Meeting. At this meeting at end March opening date was announced. Since then more stoney silence and nothing in the Agenda.
It’s mid March and nothing!!!! This plain ain’t good enough.
I’m beginning to suspect that when they accounced a December opening date they got the month right but the year wrong.
If any one is out there looking for a case study on how to keep constituents in the date, Glen Eira’s handling of the GESAC delays fits the bill.
March 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM
The officer’s Report doesn’t actually recommend reappointing Crs Lipschutz and Magee to the Audit committee. Instead it discloses that the councillors have already secretly decided the composition of each advisory committee, and provides an appropriate resolution if councillors wish to give effect to that arrangement.
The trouble here is that there is no advice concerning the Audit Committee, nothing to assist councillors in applying “Audit Committees–A Guide To Good Practice For Local Government” to their decisions. Audit Committees although advisory, are “special” in that they are a statutory requirement, and the Minister for Local Government has published guidelines to assist councils in establishing charters for their Audit committees. These guidelines explicitly state “It is important…to provide a fresh perspective through succession planning and the selection process”. The Charter (Item 9.8 as recommended by the Audit Committee) talks about Term of Membership, and refers to following the Best Practice guidelines, but here we see the councillors planning to reappoint all the existing members *yet again*.
The Audit committee is at the heart of the Mulch Saga, for which it failed to deliver advice to Council. Its practice of classifying everything Confidential is inconsistent with good governance. Its not even clear if it has the wide range of skills required by a modern Audit committee, which has to deal with issues such as information and communication technology (ICT) governance, or management and governance of the use of data, information and knowledge. In the UK, councils are repeatedly falling foul of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
For all these reasons its time for Council to take appointments more seriously, and in particular make a start on introducing fresh people to the Audit committee. It should also consider tweaking the Charter to reflect the Guidelines about succession planning.
If Council does ever review the performance of the Audit committee it may wish to consider the following from the Charter: “The Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and internal auditor (whether a member of staff or contractor) should attend all meetings, except when the Committee chooses to meet in camera.” It should then look at all the meetings, how much of them were held “in camera” (closed to “the public”), and who attended.