The following is set down for Monday 13th August at VCAT
Room 1.4 – Senior Member R. Davis, Member E. Bensz
10:00 AM B54/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack
10:00 AM B114/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack
August 11, 2012
Our Rates At Work – All ~$400,000!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
Glen Eira Debates 
August 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM
There is a lot riding on the outcome of this case apart from the money. If Penhalluriack wins then Newton would be well advised to start seeking alternate employment and the gang, including Pilling and Lobo, should hand their heads in shame and resign immediately. The only positive that can come out of this witch hunt is that the behind the scenes manipulations might get some light shed on them. We will then be able to judge who has blood on their hands.
August 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM
I agree with the D. Evans about the potential light shedding.
Personally I have never understood how a group of elected representatives (supposedly community spirited) have been so unable to work together that they have had to resort to an expensive legal process. My personal and professional life’s experiences have shown me that while I will not always like, or even respect, everyone I encounter there is always some work around that will provide a way forward. That Councillors and the Administration have been unable to find a way to work together without legal recourse, in my opinion, points to how dysfunctional both are and how deficient both are in servicing those they purportedly represent.
Therefore, if true light shedding occurs I welcome it
August 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM
400,000 is far too low a figure if this goes for more than a few days. Not when you’ve got senior counsels involved. By the time this is finished I’d back us having to pay around half a million dolllars and then there’s Penhalluriack’s costs on top of this. If Penhalluriack wins this then there should be a full investigation into the workings of Glen Eira concentrating on several councillors and Newton especially.
August 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM
I think this will be well over a cool mill – at least half a mill in legal fees paid and the rest in Senior Admin time (they have been at this for almost 2 years now). Ain’t it money well spent!!!!!
August 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Kev it would be easy to agree with you except it is possible that Frank is 100% at fault and not fit to hold office. You can dissmiss the internal report and the Ombudsman, but you will not be able to dispute all 3 if VCAT finds against Frank.. The mention of money is irrelevant. Nobody would be jailed if you took into account funding.
August 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Your argument has so many holes you could drive a truck through them. For starters, these are not criminal charges. Penhalluriack hasn’t killed anyone. Jail is not on the table. What we’re probably talking about, at worst, is a little finger pointing and the message to stop being such a bad little boy. That’s sure worth about half a million dollars isn’t it? The only reason it’s got this far is Newton. He’s upped the ante with plenty of previous practise behind him. In addition it always helps when you’ve got such gormless allies as Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, and two up Hyams.
August 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM
There is nothing in my post that either supports or disparages Penhalluriack. My point is that Council (Councillors and the Administration) should never have let it reach the point it has. That they have chosen to spend what will probably be close to a million of ratepayers funds this way shows they are unworthy on representing residents and have lost sight of their election promises.
Even if as you say Penhalluriack is at fault, his purported actions do not justify this amount of spending. The spending of money is relevant in this instance – Council is mandated to act prudently and responsibly with ratepayers funds and they have not done so in this instance
August 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Well it may not be criminal but it certainly has the VIBE.
August 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Absolutely correct Anon above & Kev (4) in particular.
This is about how dysfunctional this antiquated Council is.
So it seems if you disagree with the ‘group’ think mentality of the Councillors & CEO & you dare to ask the hard questions in the interest of the community/ residents you represent, (Transparency & accountability) then you are witch-hunted!
Let’s wake up – we need more people to represent the community interest & who are prepared to fight for openess & transparency of the Council, not to shut them down, as has been the case with Penhalluriack
August 13, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Mary says
Ratepayers money spent on a witch hunt. No wonder our rates are so high. The whole saga is bizarre and as we are overgoverned it isan example of why we need to abolish local government.
August 13, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Funny thing, ever since Mr Newton has been CEO there have been two or three aspiring councillors come in enthusiatically to represent us, only to have their aspirations and new ideas trampled so they disappear from council.
Frank seemed to be an independent thinker who definitely will not be gently silenced or steamrolled as many in the last decade. The truh must be sought… no matter what the cost.
To let the current regime continue without question is far too expensive ,,.
OUR RITE TO PROPER REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN ROBBED…
Would you believe the latest vibes from council suggest that one souldn;t challenge their decisions at VCAT unless you live very close to the works in question.
August 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM
On the one occasion I challenged a Council decision at VCAT, I had the delightful spectacle of the Member turning her back on me to stare out the window while I was presenting. She later chose to spend 40 min deciding whether a front setback should be 6.5m or 7.5m—nothing else mattered. Not the side setbacks, the overshadowing, overlooking, steeply sloping driveway with zero sightlines, or even, and most criticially, all the infrastructure problems of the area that Council admitted they couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything about.
The Member played her role as mandated by the Government, which was to override residents to help a developer make more money, but it reminded me just how corrupt the process actually is. Its not the decision per se, but the dodgy reasons given for failing to consider all the issues a Planning Scheme theoretically requires them to consider. Under VCAT, representative democracy is dead. They replace everything that we as a community have fought, built, or paid for, with their own ideology. They have no minimum standards for anything, aren’t obliged to *apply* planning schemes, rely on ex parte information, ignore anything inconvenient, are careless with the facts, make bald generalised statements like “strongly supported by State policy” without identifying the policy and the document containing that policy. They’re not accountable for their mistakes, don’t have to pay for the infrastructure required to support developments (meaning underwrite developer profits). This is simply *no* mechanism to rein in their pro-development personal views.
The consequences are profound. VCAT readily accepts as an argument that something similar has been built nearby (“emerging character” argument, an odd expression since it doesn’t appear anywhere in GEPS) and that therefore it is acceptable everywhere in the subject area. One decision in one place sets a new “minimum” standard for development everywhere in the area. It should be mandatory that VCAT considers the net effect of that decision if it was widely replicated. The current thinking is that you’re not entitled to any protection of amenity. That includes solar access, secluded private open space, freedom from illuminated advertising penetrating a home, or even pedestrian safety as you walk past driveways with no sightlines. We’re now starting to see developers get pissed off at other developers affecting the amenity of their developments before they’re fully sold.
The only difference I can discern between Council decisions and the toss of an unbiased coin is the degree of bias—they don’t explain the reasons for their decision to objectors and they don’t have to. The only way to find out what Council’s reasons are is to go to VCAT. On each occasion I’ve gone to VCAT the developer has requested a review of Council’s decision, and generally clawed back what they wanted in the first place. Council might decide to reduce the scale of a development in order to provide reasonable solar access for affected residents, but VCAT unilaterally decides that you can’t expect solar access in a Major Activity Centre [MAC]. Once again, there is effectively *no* minimum standard. This includes developments in a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ), despite the *purpose* of the zone including “to encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character”. Apparently not. VCAT claims that “state policy” means a unilateral declaration by DSE (now DPCD) that a suburb is a MAC overrides everything else.
There’s a lot more criticisms that could be levelled at VCAT, but you can tell I’m pretty pissed off with VCAT as an institution. And Council, well, its major “contributions” include the formalisation of discrimination as the central plank of its planning strategies, the lack of standards for anything in and around Activity Centres, repeated failures to enforce violations of planning permits, and its persistent refusal to consider the long-term consequences of each decision.
August 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM
I don’t understand you people. The Victorian Ombudsman found serious allegations regarding the behaviour of Cr Penhalluriack to be true. He and only he is the one responsible for the costs incurred by Council and subsequently by ratepayers. He should be ashamed of himself and do the right thing and resign. Council officers do a hard enough job without being bullied and undermined by someone who is supposed to represent the community. Instead, he seems to be representing his own interests alone and not doing the job he was elected to do. Shame Cr Penhalluriack, shame.