Poor governance has been the perennial issue at Glen Eira. It continues unabated. We’ve taken the time to compare the Community Plan as accepted by formal Council Resolution on June 26th and what now appears as part of the formal Community Plan in the Quarterly Report (13th Nov minutes). The changes are alarming. Further, they have NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY FORMAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION and nor has there been any public statement, officers’ report, or open discussion about these alterations. We allege that these changes represent another failure of transparent and open government in Glen Eira. We are especially concerned about:
- Changes in wording from the accepted Community Plan to what is now paraded in the current Community Plan
- The removal of certain actions from the original plan
- Resolutions relating to Amendments withdrawn without another full council resolution
- Measures that are meaningless and do not address either the objectives or the stated measures
There are only two conclusions possible – either unelected bureaucrats made these decisions or, if councillors did have a say then they were made behind closed doors in secret. We find it appalling that unless the public are willing to analyse and compare documents word for word, then such changes remain unknown, hidden, and the public is continually being duped and kept ignorant. The only conclusion possible is that this tactic is deliberate. Important policy decisions are continually buried in the volumes of waffle rather than highlighted and commented upon. The result is the failure of good governance and open, transparent government.
In the June version of the accepted Community Plan there was this ‘action’ item: “investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan”. The ‘measure’ was stated to be – “Report provided to council”. This has now completely disappeared from the September version. We ask: who made this decision? When was it made? Where is the ‘report’ to council?
Next there is the subtle change in language. Another of the ‘action’ items from the June version states “Introduce a Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”. The measure is: “Local Law considered by council” The September version has altered this to read: ‘Local Law adopted by council”. Whilst not earth shattering in itself, the very fact that terms can be changed without formal resolution is a concern. Again, who decided and when was the decision reached? Doesn’t this in fact pre-empt the entire process of community consultation on the Local Law?
We also need to highlight just one of the ludicrous ‘progress reports’ on vital aspects of planning which totally ignore both ‘actions’ and ‘measures’. Here is an example:
Measure – “Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.” The progress reports says: “DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 4 mediation meetings held to date”. We note that:
- No report has gone to a formal council meeting
- No logical connection between the ‘success’ of a video and ‘mediation’
- No statistics that reveal the success or failure of mediation, video, or anything
Also buried in the documentation is the withdrawal of Amendment C90 – ie the ‘Transition Zones Policy”. This came before council on the 30th August 2011. The resolution to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit the amendment was passed unanimously. Now over a year later we find out that “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”. Once more the question becomes: who decided upon this? When was it decided and why, oh why, did this not go to a formal Council Meeting? Even the language associated with this decision is conflicting and unclear. The Quarterly Report stated the the Amendment will be ‘withdrawn’. The Community Plan Report simply states this is ‘on hold’. Whichever is closer to the truth the fact remains that none of this has ever been highlighted, explained, or discussed in an open forum.
Since a year has now practically passed since the original council resolution we cannot believe that the matter wasn’t referred to the Minister for permission to exhibit. The Amendment has not been advertised as far as we know, nor has it been gazetted as granting permission. Thus we suspect that someone must have contacted the Minister and said ‘hold on’ – again without any formal announcement to the public, nor any formal council resolution.
It would appear that it’s business as usual with this Council – a clear case of the tail continuing to wag the dog! Residents would be well advised to ask their supposed representatives the following questions –
- How well do councillors actually read officers’ reports?
- Do any of them question the data/information that is provided?
- If the above questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then why was nothing said about any of the points we have raised in this post?
- Why do these councillors continue to allow what appears to be unelected officials to make crucial decisions on issues that dramatically impact on residents?
Glen Eira Debates 
November 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM
I would have to agree that these changes are surreptitious. They are meant to be hidden away so that there is no need to give reasons or explanations. I’d even be willing to believe that councillors have got no idea that this has happened. The less people know what’s going on then Newton can do whatever he likes without being called to order. Yes, it is full steam ahead with officers leading and the poor old councillors trailing away in their wake.
My compliments to the blog for doing the hard yakka and pointing this out. Without this site they’d get away with even more or get off scott free without having to attempt the usual spin.
November 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Resolutions aren’t worth a cracker. Same goes for agreements with the MRC.
November 19, 2012 at 7:36 AM
The transistion zone policy (which contrary to it’s “great sounding” name related only to setbacks in housing diveristy properties abutting minimal change areas) has served it’s electorial purposes and is by itself no real loss. However, I agree demise of this policy without formal notification and open Council resolution (both of which the proposed implementation received) does not augur well for how the newly elected Council will operate. Obviously open, transparent and accountable will be even less applicable than the have in the past.
Additionally, since the new reforms are not to be implemented for at least 12 months, in the absence of the pending approval of the transition (setback) policy just what/how does Council intend to minimize the impact high density developments (overlooking, overhshadowing and visual bulk) on abutting minimal change areas?
November 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM
What;s all this about Southwick and his qualifications?
November 19, 2012 at 9:42 AM
3AW’s Neil Mitchell would love this type of human interest story.
November 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM
In response to these comments, here’s an article from The Age –
MP sorry for padding his resume
Date
November 16, 2012
Tom Arup
State Liberal MP David Southwick has apologised for misleading personal information on his website, including false claims he was an “adjunct professor” at RMIT and had obtained a graduate diploma from Monash University.
The Member for Caulfield has now removed the claims from his website, which had appeared as late as yesterday.
In a statement released late on Friday evening, Mr Southwick said he had undertaken a number of teaching positions at RMIT including being the university’s first “Entrepreneur in Residence.”
Mr Southwick said he had also taught in a program through the RMIT Graduate School of Business in Hong Kong which “used the local title Adjunct Professor in course material.”
Advertisement
RMIT has said Mr Southwick had never been appointed to the role of adjunct professor at the University.
In the statement Mr Southwick apologised for also claiming he completed a post graduate diploma in marketing at Monash University. The University has confirmed he did not graduate from the course.
Mr Southwick said he had started the graduate diploma sixteen years ago while running a small business to improve his skills and grow his business.
“It was my understanding at the time that I had completed all the necessary units towards that further qualification,” Mr Southwick said.
“Today I was informed that I did not complete all the points required for that diploma.”
“I will now remove all reference to it from my website and any official publications issues by my office. I apologise for this error.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mp-sorry-for-padding-his-resume-20121116-29hop.html#ixzz2CcWzlqTk
November 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Too bad he only owned up when he had been found out. In some jobs, this would be a sacking offence.
Funny thing is he’s Chair of Parliament’s Education and Training Committee and has a keen interest in education of gifted students.
Not much chance anyone will be calling you gifted, David.
November 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Southwick’s credibility took a huge hit when he campaigned against the Racecourse Overdevelopment then did a huge about face when elected. Now we have the extremely misleading padding out of qualifications (like you don’t know what qualifications you have) and the affrontery to publicly proclaim them… an even bigger hit on credibility. Time the Libs looked for someone else to pre-select.
November 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM
GERA has put up a new post announcing details for its AGM. Guest speaker is Julianne Bell – Protector of Public Lands. See http://geresidents.wordpress.com for full details.
November 19, 2012 at 7:04 PM
C90 was only ever a crock, a half-hearted attempt to address some of the problems caused by the sloppy drafting of Council’s MSS and local policies. That still doesn’t excuse Jeff Akehurst though, and he needs to remember that he is a member of Council staff and therefore not accountable to the public. Policy is properly the domain of Council, so that it can meet its facilitating objective “to ensure transparency and accountability in Council decision making”. The proposed new Zones, which are still being tweaked by political spinmeisters, are not a solution to the problem either. Jeff has inexplicably already revealed that he wants to be able to apply them via a fast-track process, in which the public is excluded. He also had the temerity to mislead Council, by stating that 12.6 metres is approximately 3 storeys. What bullshit.
The latest Service Report contains the following whopper: “Applications that are clearly policy non-compliant, or are an overdevelopment, are refused at Planning Manager level. These applications are refused even prior to the public notice stage”. As several of us can attest, most higher density developments in Glen Eira fail to comply with one or more Council or state policies. We have to go through the charade called a planning process to find out why policies are being repeatedly violated. Since Council (well really Council staff—98% of decisions are made by officers or DPC) doesn’t have to give reasons for its decisions to us mere residents, VCAT is a necessary step if somebody really wants to find out. While VCAT is even worse than Council at ignoring great chunks of state and local policy, its decisions are to some extent documented. Its informative to discover that the primary reasons for policy waivers are generally to do with helping developers make more money. Sad but true. I’ve never heard VCAT justifying a decision as being “to improve overall quality of life of people in the local community” or being in any sense “fair”.
November 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM
All Councils, but Glen Eira in particular are wedded to growth of dwellings, because it adds to their Revenue quite substantially. As I have mentioned before we will have a growth of 500 to 600 dwellings per year till at least 2023 http://forecast2.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=133&pg=5230 . By that stage we will have even greater growth. The cumulative effect of such a growth on additional income is about 1% in the first year; 4-5% in the 5th year; and 8-10% in ten years time. That is a very significant injection of money into the coffers of the City. How it is spent is the critical issue. If the Councillors do not drive the issue of expenditure strategies and savings on bureaucratic expenses, they are not doing their job.
November 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Most of the examples cited here are probably trivial in themselves. Taken together, I’d say that they reveal the ongoing disregard for transparency and proper process that has plagued this council for years. When Hyams and his masters are such sticklers for the letter of the law, then the onus is on them to adhere to the letter of the law. I think the post correctly points out that there has not been any council resolution to accept changes in the adopted community plan. There hasn’t been any formal decision on rescinding any resolution to seek the Minister’s permission to advertise. But all of this has still happened and will undoubtedly continue to happen unless councillors are far more vigilant and show due respect for the law and residents.
November 20, 2012 at 7:31 AM
For $20,000 you are expecting too much. Councillors are not paid. The get a taxable allowance. Mr. Evans you appear to know how everything should work, would you make yourself accountable for $20K. p.a. The Councillors take advice from the public servants. It will always be this way, because it works.
November 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Excluding the mayoral pay out, you’re right about the $20,000 pa for councillors. Unfortunately, the law doesn’t take this into account. It is councillors who are held responsible very much like directors. If things go belly up then it’s not officers who cop it in the neck, but those elected to set policy and oversee financial management. That’s councillors – full stop. If they don’t do their jobs properly by being vigilant then they have no one else to blame except themselves.
November 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM
The current allowances are $26843 for councillors and $85741 for the mayor, plus the equivalent of the superannuation guarantee contribution (currently 9%). Whether the current governance arrangements work is debatable.
November 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Yes we need another candidate to replace D. Southwick after he deliberatly stated that one person had held up our park in the “Pip of the racecourse area” because they wanted a hard surface… totally a misquote as well.
His bad score of misquotes is growing every day!!!!!1