Glen Eira Council pretends that it cares about resident views. It pretends that it is transparent and accountable. It pretends that it not only listens to residents, but acts on their views. We believe that nothing could be further from the truth. All any resident has to do is to start questioning what information is in the public domain, and the format in which it is disseminated, to realise the smoke and mirrors and selective nature of disclosure consistently practised by this Council.
Section 223 of the Local Government Act provides residents with the opportunity to make submissions on important strategic and policy decisions such as budgets, community plans, selling of property, etc. Councils are bound to ‘consider’ such submissions. Countless other councils ensure that full submissions are published in agendas and minutes – as well as an officer’s summary and response to these submissions. In other words, interested readers can see what residents wrote, as well as how their views are responded to. In Glen Eira the process is far more selective – and, we believe, censored.
Yes, the minimalist legal requirements of Section 223 are fulfilled because they have to be. But in most cases, that is the extent of it. The most important policy decisions and issues, and what residents think about such proposals have not, in recent years, been published. For example, residents have not been provided access to submissions on:
- Community engagement/consultation policy
- Planning Scheme Review
- C87
- C60
- Bike Strategy
All of the above have been major issues for residents. Yet all that has been published are skimpy (and perhaps selectively edited?) officers’ summaries and responses. What has been provided in full is laughable in comparison – ie. submissions to the Toilet Strategy!!!!!!!!
Councillors need to realise that good governance demands full disclosure of submissions on all topics, policies and areas – unless the authors of such submissions request otherwise. Only publishing those that are perceived to be potentially less contentious and ‘sensitive’ is not a substitute for full accountability and transparency.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM
No one is going to get their knickers in a knot over a toilet strategy, so it doesn’t really matter what people say and if everyone can read what’s been said. It does matter however if 70% of submissions slam council for their draft policies and they go ahead and still vote them in. That’s telling the world that consultation is a joke and that everything has been determined right from the start. You just can’t allow such things so the solution is not to publish submissions when the likelihood is that you’ve been slammed to death for the jaundiced drafts. That’s how this council works and has always worked.
April 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM
I can’t see any excuse why we’re provided with toilet submissions and not planning scheme submissions. I’d also hazard the guess that the “summaries” don’t reveal a quarter of what people wrote. So much for openness and transparency from this council.
April 30, 2012 at 8:04 AM
One thing this Council is well known for is the inverse relationship between significance of the issue and quality of information presented to residents. Hence we get heaps on the Toilet Strategy and zippo on the Planning Scheme and Traffic Management.
Only way this is going to change is if Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are voted out. Let’s face it, they have been there too long and have lost sight of what community representation means. It’s time for new Crs. who will actually think for themselves and not blindly follow Newton.
After getting rid of these four the next step is not to renew Newton’s contract and recruit a new CEO from outside.
May 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Yep- absolutely agree will all views above. We get silly insignificant draftt documents to comment on as residents, but the real stuff, i.e. traffic management, transport strategy & planning & development strategies- nothing!
I agree definitely- we the residents & ratepayers need NEW BLOOD at every level in that Council (ITS TIME WE STOPPED ALL THAT BICKERING & POWER PLAYS IN THE COUNCIL- ITS DISGUSTING & IT MEANS WHILE THEY PLAY THEIR POWER GAMES THINGS ARE NOT BEEN DONE IN THE INTEREST OF US THE RESIDENTS!) – replaced with people who understand the meaning of community enagagement & input & take these views seriousl;y before decisons are made automatically by the Council.
Its time & we can do it later this year by VOTING THEM ALL OUT!