The minutes of last council meeting record the following in regard to a public question on traffic management –
“Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: Did you in fact inform the traffic department of the agreement you had reached with the Rowan Street Elsternwick residents group to hold off implementation? If so when did you inform the traffic department? How many survey returns did Council receive in order to proceed with this work? What was the total cost of running the Council survey & implementing the 6 parking restrictions signs in this small section of Rowan Street?”
Cr Lipshutz read Council’s response. He said:
“I met with two residents and requested the Transport Planning department on 5 June 2012 to hold off while the residents returned their surveys. At this time, the Transport Planning Department advised that the installation would be placed on hold for one month. The signs were not installed until 25 July 2012.
Eight questionnaires were received from residents during the consultation held in April 2012.
The parking restriction consultation was undertaken as part of the day-to-day operation of the Transport Planning Department. I am advised that the cost of six parking restriction signs manufactured and installed by Council’s depot was less than $200.”
All well and good EXCEPT that the first part of the question has been edited out. Whilst not strictly a ‘question’, the background provided is essential in order to understand the situation and the actions taken by council.
This is not the first time that residents’ questions are conveniently edited (censured?). The old excuse of exceeding 150 words is also invalid since many questions have been published that far exceed this count.
Residents rightly expect that when public questions are submitted that the full text of that question will be entered into the minutes. Without a firm, written and public policy on how public questions will be recorded, the pattern of rewriting history remains unchallenged.
Here is the full question:
“Below are questions personally directed to Councillor Lipshutz
Following notification by Council’s traffic department to Rowan Street Elsternwick residents in April/May 2012, of Council’s intention to erect 2HR parking restrictions in Rowan Street (section between Shoobra St & Orrong Rd, a group of residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 to voice their concerns regarding Council’s decision to proceed with the parking restrictions, based on a very small number of responses received to its Survey. Of the total 15 properties abutting Rowan Street, 8 responses were received, which according to Council traffic department 5 supported the restrictions & 3 did not.
At the 4 June 2012 meeting, Councillor Lipshutz agreed to request Council traffic department to hold off implementation until all 15 properties had been surveyed by the residents group. The residents group kept Councillor Lipshutz informed of progress via email on following dates 7/6/12, 8/6/12, 13/6/12, 20/6/12, 13/7/12). The last email to Councillor Lipshutz from the residents group dated 13/7/12 stated that as 2 properties were vacant (one being renovated & the other being rebuilt), efforts were being directed at locating the 2 owners and the email emphasised that it was expected as per our agreement, that in the meantime, the restrictions would not go ahead. The email also stated that of the responses received to the residents group survey, the majority were not in favour of the 2HR parking restrictions proposed by Council.
However, to the absolute amazement of the Rowan Street Elsternwick concerned residents group, despite the agreement reached with you Councillor Lipshutz, the Council traffic department disregarded this agreement you had with us & proceeded to implement the 2HR parking restrictions in late July 2012.
Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is:
Did you in fact inform the traffic department of the agreement you had reached with the Rowan Street Elsternwick residents group to hold off implementation? If so when did you inform the traffic department?
How many survey returns did Council receive in order to proceed with this work?
What was the total cost of running the Council survey & implementing the 6 parking restrictions signs in this small section of Rowan Street?”
Glen Eira Debates 
August 20, 2012 at 12:14 PM
When passing the infamous C60, Council made a really big deal of how skillfully they had negotiated with the MRC in that they had gotten the MRC to agree to pay for the restricted parking signage in nearby residential streets.in the nearby residential streets. At the above cost of $200 for 6 signs vs the cost of providing adequate on site parking it’s no wonder the MRC jumped at the signage option.
Yep, congratulations to the designated main negotiators (Esakoff and Andrew Newton) and also to other Committee Members Hyams. Lipshutz and Pilling. Just don’t expect the congratulations to come in form of votes at the forthcoming election.
August 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Excuse me – anyone with any inkling of how much things cost these days is going to do a double take on the reported cost of the restricted parking signage – that 6 restricted parking signs can be manufactured and installed for $200 (i.e. $33 each) strikes me as the bargain of the century and makes a mockery out of Council’s standard “costs too much” refusal response when residents request their installation. At this price I’d be willing to pay for one or two in front of my place – a once up cost of $33 each to be reasonably sure I can park outside my property to do a quick drop off or pick up or be reasonably sure that parked cars will not block my vision when I back out place is definitely a deal.
Does Council really expect us to believe this costing and was Lipshutz just reading from the script without thinking or is this a typo in the minutes? Either way, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy and totally devoid credibility and the superb administrative skills they claim they have.
August 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM
200 bucks for 6 signs? Pull the other leg willya. No way. Not when ya have to dig a hole in the pavement, pour cement, have men and trucks show up and so on. What all this does is make me and plenty of other people I bet not believe a single bloody word that this council puts out especially when it comes to how they spend our money. It’s bullshit all the time and if not bullshit then clerical errors. Like hell is what I say.
August 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM
I don’t think the Council take into account the cost of labour. They are paying the staff whether they are installing signs or scratching their bums. These signs retail for about $25 plus the pole. $200 would be around the mark.
August 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM
In leaving out the beginning sections of this public question, council is activating its “protected species policy”. In this instance it applies to both or either of Lipshutz and the traffic department.
Did Lipshutz forward on the repeated emails to the department? If he did then according to the questioner the department would have seen that the majority of residents were not on favour of introducing the 2 hour limit. Then, if they saw these emails and just went ahead off their own bat, then is serves again to tell us exactly how much credence is given to residents’ views and how much council’s stated policies are a sham!
On the other hand if Lipshutz didn’t pass on the regular updates, then he’s a lousy councillor and not doing what he promised. Either way, there’s much explaining that has to happen here – not only about why this section of the public question has been censored, but why the 2 hour signs went up at all when the majority of residents opposed it.
August 20, 2012 at 9:44 PM
My understanding is that the mayor reads out answers to public questions from a prepared script that is written for him by Burke. None of the answers are off the cuff, straight out verbal responses. If this is what happens then Hyams answer to another public question from Tuesday night got me thinking. What’s written as the response is – ““Council dealt with this matter at Item 9.8 earlier in this meeting. Council resolved to write to the Chief Commissioner of Police to request him to review the decision not to monitor CCTV at the Bentleigh Rotunda.”
This is commenting on a decision that was made in the council meeting probably less than half an hour before public questions were read out. If the responses to public questions are prepared before the meeting, then how can we be told about a decision that took place before the vote? The only way this can happen is that councillors in their assemblies sit around and actually make the decisions before they get into the chamber. All illegal of course. Plenty of people have said that the actual meetings are performances. The votes and decisions have already been taken in secret and illegally. They mightn’t be “formal” votes, but everyone as sure as hell knows what the outcome is going to be before they sit down to start the public meeting. Answers like the one Hyams has given proves my point.
August 21, 2012 at 7:42 AM
This ain’t the first time and definitely won’t be the last time that Councillor Assemblies or pre-meetings are used as a rehearsal for the open meeting performance. It ain’t right but it relects this Council’s consistent stance of acting strictly within the letter of law while ignoring the spirit.
The same thing happens as a result of the “no surprises” policy i.e. only in very limited circumstances can an issue be raised at an open Council Meeting without it first being hashed out behind closed doors. Yet each time an issue, not included in the agenda, is raised at an open Council it’s presented as if it has never been dicussed before. Bullshit.
Council currently supports the Municipal Association’s push to have Local Government enshrined in the Constitution as the third tier of government – when a Council uses the rehearsal tactics and has (and enforces) a no surprises policy, they don’t have a snowball in hell’s chance in succeeding in gaining constitutional recognition. Because quite simply they fail a basic test of what consitutes a democracy.
August 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Similar to Rowan, my street, thanks to Council traffic treatments on nearby McKinnon Road, is fast becoming a ratrun delight. I have therefore been following the Rowan Street issue and the meeting after meeting public questions raised. There’s been at least 4 consectutive months of public questions which I guess are the result of many more months of fruitless and frustrating dealings with individual councillors (Lipshutz is particularly singled out) and the extremely unhelpful traffic department.
The issue in Rowan Street is speeding vehicles, on street parking has never been an issue. Yet, against residents expressed wishes restricted parking has been introduced (at a cost that clearly strains credibility) and Council has consistently refused to implement anything that would reduce speeding. Blind Freddy can tell you that restricted parking only encourages speeding since it mistakenly gives drivers the impression of a more open road. What the hell is Council thinking (the issue is speeding, the introduction of restricted parking may be unbelievably cheap but it is not a solution to the speeding issue) and why aren’t Councillors representing the residents and holding the traffic department to account.
Speeding is an serious (life threatening) issue, it is growing and will continue to grow. Rather than addressing it (by implementing traffic treatments in problem locations as they arises), Council seems hell bent on ignoring it and will probably only address it when it reaches mega proportions (and costs a gazzillion – say 10 per year vs. the whole municipality all at once).
Why is this?