Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.
TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.
Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.
MAGEE: Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it? And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…
LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.
ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?
BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’
HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers
TANG: Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.
MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.
COMMENTS
We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!
Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.
This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?
PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 4, 2012 at 5:54 PM
What a load of crap from Hyams and Tang and Magee. The first 2 voted to give gesac to the warriors. $95,000 sure sounded good. Now that the courts are standing empty half the time probably we the ratepayer suckers are subsiding the colossal Burke stuff up.
July 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Standing empty??? I have a son playing there and I play in the Men’s comp. When I am there the courts are full and something is always happening, so I don’t know where you are getting your info from smart alec.
On reading your post i enquired to the people who manage it at the front desk. They advised me the only time they had trouble with was middle of the day Sunday, but this was mainly due to the clash with junior football season effecting teams training times they have allocated for that time. Also GESAC opened three weeks into the current season, so teams committed elsewhere, they were expecting to be house full come the summer season when both those factors were no longer relevant.
Interestingly I discovered that Sundays were a non-event as in all their negotiations with McK about compromises the MBA NEVER wanted to use Sundays anyway. So from what I can say from being there every week, a great decision was made to allocate GESAC to the Warriors. People are friendly, members are joining every week, a great format for basketball is provided and the group is committed to the entire allocation,
So while certain people continue to deride this decision from what I can see on a weekly basis the decsision was the correct one.
PS Using the article from the Leader is very misleading. That was two Over 35 Ladies teams trying to recruit more Mum’s teams to a competition before space was no longer available at GESAC as other competitions were filling the available court space so quickly. So in fact it was no a case of courts being empty, rather two teams being proactive about getting a comp due to concerns about courts space evapourating due to significant competition growth.So using that article and photo in that way is quite misleading.
July 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM
There aren’t that many groups that can promise a higher price than the next then be given 6-8 months to grow before they start paying for all they promised. Or do they? Our Council officers have done a deal with warriors, something that probably wasn’t afforded to the other group. Who will be accountable when the rental figures are released?
Smart Aleck is representative of most ratepayers and looks for a decent return on their investment, he just may be a bit more vocal than most!
Fill all 3 courts and pay the promised rate and everyone will be happy.
July 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Last year Magee escaped punishment and was reprimanded by Ombudsman as he tried to influence the decisions made by the Officers. Apparently, he encouraged all the members of the MBA to come to the gallery when a submission from MBA was tabled at one of the Council meetings. There was no need to get all the members and their parents to the gallery. The members went disappointed as no decision was made at the time of submission. Magee lacks procedural knowledge and will go to any lengths to come out as a hero. Did he know of the financial offers, definitely he knew it many days ago and made it look yesterday that he was not aware
July 4, 2012 at 6:15 PM
We beg to correct you Annon. There has never been an ombudsman’s report released to the public on GESAC allocations. The allegations were all in the newspapers and coming from certain quarters. Lobbying is a legitimate political tool available to councillors. Our view is that more councillors should be actively and publically lobby for what is in the best interests of the local community. Permitting untramelled control by certain administrators does not equate with good governance, transparency and accountability.
July 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Is it only me, or do other people find that the way these councillors approach Burke quite disgusting in their grovelling and obsequiousness. His response I’d say is also unacceptable with its thinly veiled threat -“at this stage”. The gesac debacle does not appear to have taught councillors one single thing – especially Lobo. When the local community comes a poor second to the wheeling and dealing of administrators and their attempt to maintain their power base, then I’d argue that “revolution” is long, long overdue.
July 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM
I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry over Esakoff’s appeal to Burke. I’ve got to laugh because its pathetic. Like a little kid asking for permission to go to the loo from big brother. Who gives a damn what he thinks anyway. His job is to do what councillors tell him to do and not the other way around. That’s the reason for my inclination to cry – that after all this time in office Esakoff and her mates haven’t understood this basic rule.
July 4, 2012 at 6:44 PM
D. Evans – you seem to be genius! why then don’t you start the revolution – You appear to be Jack of All Trade……… Were you present for the meeting or are you one and the same person under different names?
July 4, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Thank you for the compliment Peter. I’ve never thought of myself as a Jack of All Trades – merely an ordinary resident who takes a keen interest in what is happening in our neck of the woods. I’m also a keen reader of the blog and remember countless times when councillors turned to Mr Burke with their Dorothy Dix questions in order to up-end Penhalluriack and silence him, or as in the case above. Any councillor sure of their role and legal rights, much less obligations would never, and I repeat never, ask for the personal opinion in the manner that Esakoff is said to have done here. Burke’s opinion is worthless. It’s the legislation that’s all important and councillors are within their rights to do whatever they like if they vote it in. In fact, they can even do all planning decisions themselves if they wanted to; they can change the local law; they can send back time after time any officers reports that they do not feel comes up to scratch, and more often than not, does not answer the question asked. They can even fire Newton at the next council meeting if they want and I’m sure that Burke would soon follow. They’re the ones with the legitimate power. But alas, they don’t use it for the good of residents.
July 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Are you then saying the council can be run without the administrators?
July 4, 2012 at 9:44 PM
I think Councillors need to work out who makes the decisions here in Glen Eira… Officers or themselves. In either case they both wear the consequences.
July 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM
It’s obvious who makes the decisions but they keep their hands clean by getting the gang to do their dirty work. The one percent of the time that councillors don’t vote in what the officers recommend is chicken feed – trivial stuff or because they’ve been browbeaten by angry residents or objectors to developments so it looks good to vote down a high rise, especially when there’s an election in a couple of months.
July 4, 2012 at 10:19 PM
If the councillors ever advertised for other administrators, then with the huge salaries whichwe pay (about $200,000.00 each), then I’m sure you nust agree that a few good candidtes could be intereted in applying.
July 4, 2012 at 11:18 PM
You are absolutely correct. The lack of external exposure to the market for the senior excutive positions is an absolute disgrace. As each tenure comes around none are tested in the market place. Being surrounded by toadies allows Newton to shore up his position. Only a weak – in many respects – dysfunctional Council would allow this organisational disgrace to occur.
July 4, 2012 at 11:49 PM
What a pathetic lot of Councillors – particularly Tang, Esakoff and Magee – not for sale to the highest bidder!!! Yet that is exactly what they did over the basket ball allocations.
And as for Lobo even more pathetic – guess what Councillor the Ombudsman does not assign allocations to the Administration. You as a Councillor do via delegations of authority – the Ombudsman only confirms what the Admin can and can’t do within the terms of the delegations of authority decided by Council.
This sounds very much another attempt to circle the wagons around Burke (who has probably over reached himself again) without any regard for the impact on the community.
July 5, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Reckon we’ve got another example of the Leader’s dependence on Glen Eira council. How nice of them to run the story on what is technically page 3 to then be followed by the full page ad on page 4. Money is no object when it comes to covering up embarassing and unforgiveable mistakes.
July 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Kev, did you know that the delegation of authority for allocation of grounds has already been given to the Officers? . The Council needs to cancel them if Councillors have to decide the day to day events. The Ombudsman knows that the allocation of the grounds is the responsibility of Officers
July 5, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Kev – Did you realise that the delegation of authority has long been given to the officers by Council’s resolution? Why then should the Councillors meddle into something that has already been delegated. If the officers are not discharging their responsibilities as called for then it may be necessary to visit the question of delegations. The report requested by Tang is contrary to what is in place.
July 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Officers advise Councillors of conditions and actions, prior, current and/or upcoming. Their advice to Councillors must be accurate, it is then up to Councillors to discuss this advice and continue with the status quo or implement new actions via resolution in an ordinary Council meeting. The comment that it is not uncommon for Club’s to contribute funds to enhance the possibility of jumping the queue is valid, but should not displace other facilities’ upgrade time line. Jump the queue if additional funds are available, not at the expense of another pavilion/s development. Or where the benefit is win/win, such as the Tennis Facility at Moorleigh. Actions such as a soccer club trying to displace Glen Huntly Athletics from Duncan McKinnon must also be discouraged by Councillors, given the history of the Athletics Club at DMcK. I have asked Councillors before on this site if the previous Pavilion Upgrade Scheme passed by Council resolution when I was Chair of Sport & Rec is still in existence, yet none have replied. As for Council facilities not being available to the highest bidder – this comment pales into insignificance given the tender history of the basketball courts at GESAC.
Rob Spaulding.