Esakoff moved to accept ‘as printed’ with Pilling seconding.
ESAKOFF: Began by stating that ‘it’s impossible’ to compare this set of figures with any previous results and read out several sections from the actual report to support this statement. ‘results appear to be very good’…….’overall performance rated at 91% which included very good, good and average’. Esakoff went on with other purported figures – ie higher than state average in many areas and in comparison to inner Melbourne councils ‘good or very good’. Claimed that satisfaction ratings were ‘generally higher’ for those areas ‘under Council’s control’ and lower for those areas that have ‘shared responsibility’ (with the State Government that includes) ‘parking…..high density development’. Said that council’s community forums on the Council Plan are ‘fully reflected here” with ‘waste management ….recreation facilities at 77%’. Went through other results such as footpaths, customer service – all these services which ‘rated very well, as usual’….’all in all a very good result for Glen Eira’ and need to improve areas that didn’t do so well and ‘maintain areas’ that did well.
PILLING: ‘good report’. Commented that Glen Eira does well against the other councils in the group. Thought that this was a ‘positive change in strategy’ (ie new methodology).
LIPSHUTZ: Thought that council needed ‘to look’ at the areas where they ‘weren’t so good’. Highlighted page 6 as the ‘areas where we can improve upon’ …’traffic and parking are two big ones….town planning…..communication….that comes through in our community consultation’. These things council has sought to ‘address in our community plan’….’those are the things that substantiate the direction that council is taking’….’within twelve months or more we will see further improvement’….
HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Lipshutz in that the report ‘let’s us see the areas where the community would like us to improve’. Emphasised that only 6% of surveyed people said the council ‘was poor or very poor’ versus 64% who said it was ‘good or very good’. Claimed that a comparison could be made with previous years on ‘general direction’ and 20% claimed it had improved ‘and only 7% said it had deteriorated’…..’outstanding result’….’anyone who seeks (to present this in any other light is) ‘simply being dishonest’…’does let us know where we do need to improve….take that on board’
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENTS:
We congratulate councillors (Hyams, Esakoff, and Lipshutz) once again on their incredible sleight of hand manoeuvrings. First, trot out all the supposed ‘positives’, then make minimal mention of the ‘negatives’ with the promise to ‘improve’. We take issue with:
- Esakoff’s spurious and misleading statement that the areas where council scored lowest are those that comprise ‘shared responsibility’ with Government. Apart from MAIN ROADS, Council is 100% responsible for all other roads in the municipality. Traffic management on these roads is totally Council’s domain. With planning Council has the ability to amend its Planning Scheme. Again we reiterate that this is a council without structure plans, without parking precincts, without height limits and has never even attempted to introduce any of these elements into its planning.
- Lipshutz’s argument is equally fallacious. Yes, keep your eye on the components that need improvement. But then to go on and argue that since this survey “substantiates the direction that council is moving’ is quite laughable. There is ‘no direction’ whatsoever, except more of the same! The council plan fails dismally to address issues of parking, over development, etc. There’s also the simple fact that these major issues are nothing new. Council has been told over and over, year after year, that these are major resident concerns. To then claim that further improvement will be ‘in the next 12 months’ is quite remarkable.
Finally there is one very revealing set of figures in this survey. Respondents were asked to name areas/issues they thought were important and then to rate Council’s performance against these expectations. No councillor really highlighted, much less mentioned these results. We provide them for residents and emphasise that there is an incredible difference between what residents expect, value, and rate highly, with how they assess council’s actual performance in these areas. For us, this is the most telling result from the survey! (Full survey uploaded here)
“Services on which rated importance exceed performance include:
– Planning & building permits: performance 53, importance 73 = -20 net differential
– Planning for population growth in the area: performance 53, importance 72 = -19 net differential
– Traffic management: performance 55, importance 72 = -17 net differential
– Community consultation and engagement: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential
– Council’s general town planning policy: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential
– Parking facilities: performance 56, importance 69 = -13 net differential
– Elderly support services: performance 67, importance 79 = –12 net differential
– Informing the community: performance 61, importance 73 = -12 net differential
– Lobbying on behalf of the community: performance 54, importance 64 = -10 net differential
– Disadvantaged support services: performance 64 , importance 73 = -9 net differential
– Environmental sustainability: performance 63, importance 72 = -9 net differential
– Condition of local streets and footpaths: performance 68, importance 75 = -7 net differential
– Family support services: performance 66, importance 71 = –5 net differential
– Enforcement of local laws: performance 65, importance 68 = -3 net differential
– Waste management: performance 79, importance 81 = -2 net differential
AND
It is recommended that Glen Eira City Council pay extra attention to areas where it is underperforming on a relative basis in comparison to the State-wide and Inner Melbourne Metropolitan groups such as Consultation and Advocacy……”
AND
Glen Eira City Council should also pay particular attention to the service areas where importance exceeds performance by more than 10 points, including:
– Planning and building permits
– Planning for population growth in the area
– Traffic management
– Community consultation and engagement
– Council’s general town planning policy
– Parking facilities
– Elderly support services
– Informing the community
July 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Brilliant results. Best rubbish removalists in the world and bottom of the pile when it comes to traffic planning consultation. Achieved heaps – all heading in the wrong direction
July 26, 2012 at 3:20 PM
The services that are outsourced such as waste collection – no problem. Services undertaken from within Council such as mowing and landscaping – big cultural problem. Merge with Stonnington, sack everyone at Glen Eira town hall and save big bucks for ratepayers whilst getting a better service. Problems solved. Gleneira can even go back to their day job.
July 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Great result for the Community.If you doubt the overall picture ask any Real Estate Agent about the strength of prices in most of our City compared to other Municipalities.
July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM
10% drop in Caulfield North and a 30% drop in Caulfield East since the approval of C60. Thanks Councillors Pilling, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Hyams…thanks a lot.
July 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM
30% drop is not statistically reliable there are only about 100 houses in Caulfield East so there would not be high enough turnover to get a reliable figure.
July 26, 2012 at 3:35 PM
There are 568 private residences in East Caulfield according to the census figures.
July 26, 2012 at 6:36 PM
568 voters who won’t be voting for Lipshutz. Cant wait until October. Go Frank Go!!
July 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM
would include apartments. there are about 300 in Dudley street!
July 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM
The gulf between performance and importance on most of these areas is in anyone’s language huge. That’s not something that this council should be proud of. To then claim these results as “excellent” or “very good” further discredits the perpetrators of such myths. For at least the past five years residents have been complaining bitterly about the massive over development that is happening all around them. Council and councillors have basically remained deaf and dumb to the community’s pleas for action. The C87 is another example of a token “improvement”. It will achieve very, very little and the reverse is true in that it will relegate many areas into the Housing Diversity category without real justification or much less consultation. In addition, residents were denied the opportunity to suggest areas that they believed were worthy of greater protection.
None of this is justifiable nor excusable in my view. Councillors know what the issues are and how this impacts on people. That they can now sit back and again do nothing except try to present these results as achievements is incomprehensible to me. Worse, according to the post there was not one voice raised in opposition to the spin and it was accepted unanimously. Another black mark against all councillors for their silence on issues and attitudes that desperately need to be altered.
Moderators, if you have the time, could you please report on these differential rates in comparison to other councils? I would dearly love to know if Bayside, Kingston and other surrounding areas had such huge differences between performance and importance. Those figures would be a far more valid comparison of how this council is steadily but surely sinking into the mire.
July 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Dear Mr. Evans,
thank you for your excellent suggestion. When these results become available, we will endeavour to do as you propose.
July 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Nothing new about topics that are of greatest concern to residents ie. development, traffic and parking, open space and governance – all issues that have been raised since the lat 1990’s and keep on being raised because Council doesn’t adress them.
The only new thing in this survey if that the differential between residents expectations and Council’s performance has been quantified. If Tang, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Hyams get re-elected and if Newton gets re-appointed, the differential will continue to head in the negative direction by an exponential factor.
The only way to change anything is get rid of these 5. Not one of them gives a stuff about the residents.
July 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM
The survey does have its limitations. With such a small sample size (n=401) relative to an estimated eligible population of 109000, the odds are even if you lived in Glen Eira all your life, you wouldn’t be surveyed. Its curious that 17yo residents are especially discriminated against: not eligible, and whose existence has been carefully hidden through the choice of categories accompanying the questions.
While on the subject of survey technique, a recent survey of Park users demonstrates a methodological flaw which needs to be addressed. Its important to establish the reasons why many people are not making use of our Parks. One obvious issue is the proximity and distribution of them. I have argued for and will continue to argue for public open space to be provided within safe convenient walking distance of Activity Centres and other places of much higher than average density, to compensate for the lack of private open space. Soon, there will be a need to provide solar access as well, given VCAT’s alarming decisions that residents in Council’s Urban Villages are not entitled to even a modicum of solar access.
August 2, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Sadly, Glen Eira does not possess a separate ‘walking/pedestrian’ policy, even though its statements place pedestrians first. If our suburbs are to be made ‘safe’ for pedestrians, then there is nothing in the community plan which is geared towards ensuring this. Current international best practice is to manage roads via what is called a Road User Hierarchy. Basically, this ranks the most vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) as the number 1 priority with the last priority being a single occupant vehicle. Given Council’s long standing focus on main roads, rather than local streets, one can’t assume that Glen Eira, unlike other Councils eg. Stonnington and Port Phillip, has adopted this philosophy. Further these councils have implemented various road treatments which fully support such a strategy – ie. creating speed humps which are incorporated into footpaths to ensure safer pedestrian transition across roads. These councils also erect barriers on corners to protect pedestrians. Hence the vision of these councils is matched via practical strategies and funding. This is lacking in Glen Eira.