As one of our final posts for the year we thought it would be helpful to emphasise again how the governance of this council is totally out of step with the vast majority of its neighbours. Last council meeting featured the incredible spectacle of several councillors attempting to justify why Gibbs and McLean have repeatedly been reappointed to their posts as ‘independent’ members of the Audit committee.
At its last council meeting Port Phillip just happened to appoint totally new members to their committee. We quote from the officers’ report:
“3.3.6 External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.
3.4 Council is reminded that as the Charter states that ….. “External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.” Mr Densem’s term is for an additional 3 years with no further option to renew.”
Please also note that this is tabled at an open council meeting. NO IN CAMERA SECRECY!
By sheer serendipity, Port Phillip also considered Amendment C97 – Energy Efficient Design which proposes to “include a Local Planning Policy relating to environmental sustainable design’ and to request permission from the Minister to exhibit. Readers will remember that at the last Glen Eira council meeting, the Akehurst report had stated : “Building approval is universally required for all developments. This point alone places building in front of town planning for applying any ESD standards. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) currently sets energy efficiency standards that both residential and commercial developments need to meet. These provisions were reviewed in 2011 and have been increased to require a 6 Star Energy Rating for new residential buildings and a significant increase in energy efficiency requirements for all new commercial buildings.”
Here is the Port Phillip ‘answer’ to this position:
Currently the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is limited to setting minimum standards for energy efficiency of new buildings, as opposed to the holistic elements of best practice sustainable design, which typically includes water, stormwater, transport, waste and landscape. It is considered that leaving sustainable design requirements to the building approvals stage is too late in the design process after important design decisions, such as siting, have already been made through planning approvals.”
Diametrically opposed points of view it seems! Whom would you believe?
Sadly, our Glen Eira representatives merely delayed things once again. Another report! Another do nothing action! Their resolution read:
Crs Sounness/Okotel
That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:
(d) requests a report on the status of Environmental Sustainable Design principles being developed for incorporation into the Building Code of Australia by the Australian Building Codes Board.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Also of real interest is the BAYSIDE SUBMISSION to a KINGSTON PLANNING AMENDMENT! Kingston has put out for consultation its proposed Structure Planning Amendment for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre. Bayside, as the neighbouring council, has some concerns over height limits, and the need for ‘negotiation’ between these councils – AND GLEN EIRA. Strange, that we have not heard a single whisper from our planners. Even Stonnington, in one of its planning applications raised concerns about what is happening in Glen Eira along Dandenong Rd and how it will impact on its municipality. When all is said and done, our glorious council remains the lone ranger – unwilling to publicise anything, and perhaps even unwilling to work in collaboration with other councils to achieve the optimum outcome for residents. What a sad state of affairs!
In the light of what is happening in other councils, Glen Eira’s inactivity is deplorable. The status quo of open slather for inappropriate development, the lack of structure planning, and real environmental initiatives are the legacy that future generations will continue to bear.
The coming 10 months are vital for the future of this municipality. We will see:
- Decisions on CEO appointment
- Planning zone reforms
- Community plan
- Local law and probably the attempt to maintain the current abhorrent meeting procedures
- Open space strategy
Watch this space – and be alarmed not merely alert! 2013 is certainly not going to be dull.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 23, 2012 at 8:39 AM
There’s the Newton/Akehurst vision of the world and then everyone elses. Of course Akehurst recommends the do nothing approach. Adding anything that might put off a few developers is just not on. Better to inflict more lousy planning on residents rather than offend developers. Then there’s the other consideration. The more you include the less chance there is that you can get away with so many approvals.
December 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Your pathetic Anon 1. Akehurst is the best planner in Melbourne as is recognised by the Industry. He is that far ahead of other planners, so much so that the State Government has adopted many of Jeff’s policies.As for the Audit Committee, how can you possibly compare us with anything Port Phillip does. P Phillip’s rates are enormous, the city is full of prostitutes and destitutes and is the Gay capital of Victoria. You cannot park there and if you find a spot it costs. Look at our parks and look at the rubbish tips they call parks.They are a hopeless Council with huge incomes from high rates and parking fees and yet P Phillip has hopeless facilities and is full of potholes and dodgy footpaths.They do zero capital works except for using mamouth amount of rates on their Town Hall. The Audit Committee of Glen Eira has overseen the financial viability of our City, A task made easy by our fantastic Staff. Merry XMAS Andrew , Paul , Jeff , Peter etc and all our Staff, and thanks for a job well done.
December 23, 2012 at 4:09 PM
If you’re serious then my sincerest sympathy. You desperately need some help I think. If this is your idea of a joke, then I’ll admit to getting a huge laugh out of “our fantastic staff”.
December 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM
We all know why Gibbs and McLean keep being re-appointed. They are mates with Newton and don’t ask any tricky questions. Glen Eira is in deep trouble and will continue to be until we rid ourselves of (MODERATORS: phrase deleted)
December 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Re anonymous #2: Assessing the success of planning policy in Glen Eira, and the contribution of the person largely responsible for the outcomes we’re seeing, takes more than a trite, evidence-free rant against a neighbouring Council. A starting point would be what that person is responsible for, agreeing on the metrics to be used to assess their performance, collecting the evidence independently, evaluating the evidence against the metrics, providing feedback, and noting the extent to which the feedback is positively received and used to improve outcomes.
It is only very loosely true that there are similarities between State Government policies (spanning both Labor and Liberal) and Jeff’s policies (perhaps they should be called Council policies, but we know who ultimately authored them). Once one delves deeper, the gaps between the two open up, as a close inspection of just SPPF 11 Settlement alone reveals.
Jeff has won awards, absolutely. He has at times used them to deflect criticisms that Council advertises planning applications riddled with errors. One trouble with fasttrack processes is that their emphasis is on speed of processing, not the accuracy of information or the compliance with planning policy or the accountability and transparency of the decision or a consideration of the longer-term consequences if the decision is replicated for every other property in an area. The award was for the process, not the planning outcomes.
The Dormouse: You’ve got no right to grow here.
Alice: Don’t talk nonsense. You know you’re growing too.
The Dormouse: Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace, not in that ridiculous fashion.
—Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, possibly discussing planning policy
December 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM
A very hasty search reveals the following from just a sample of councils and their terms of office for audit committee membership (external members that is).
Monash
3.6 At the conclusion of their first three year (3) term, existing members will be eligible to apply to be reappointed at the discretion of Council for a second three (3) year term. Independent members can only serve for two consecutive terms.
Brimbank
Audit Committee members will be appointed for a term of not less than one (1)
year and not more than three (3) years by negotiation and agreement.
The maximum number of terms for each independent member will be three (3)
Boroondara
• External members shall be appointed for a two year term with a maximum of three terms to be served.
Darebin
(4) The external members are to be appointed for a two year term with an option
for a further two year term by mutual consent.
Hume
All members of the Committee shall be eligible for reappointment by
Council. Independent members shall be appointed for a period of up
to four years each term to a maximum of eight years.
Warnambool
Appointments of external members shall be made by Council by way of public notice inviting expressions of interest and be for a maximum term of four years. Where possible, the terms of external members should be arranged to ensure an orderly rotation and of overlap appointment membership, relative to the elected Council’s quadrennial terms.
Ararat
3.08 Independent members shall be appointed for a term of three years. The terms of
each member should be arranged so that there is an orderly rotation of
membership and avoidance of more than one member retiring at the same time.
3.09 At the conclusion of their first three year (3) term, existing members will be
eligible to apply to be reappointed at the discretion of Council for a second three
(3) year term. Independent members can only serve for maximum period of 6
years.
By our reckoning Gibbs & McLean have been reappointed 5 or 6 times!
December 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM
There is not one other audit Committee that has one independent member as long as Glen Eira, let alone both. The MAC frown upon it and they used to follow the AUstralian Stock Exchange principles of 12 year maximum until Gibbs got himself on the MAV Committee and made the term silent. As the saying goes, always back self interest. However most Councils have understood good governance and limited the terms, just like most gave done for CEOs. The first five years are OK, thereafter they are stale but spend their time trying to hang onto their job, no matter what cost. Now that sounds familiar.
December 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM
Nothing new in regularly replacing the watchdogs – the Manchu’s did it thousands of years ago – regular rotation has long been recognised as a means of keeping everything above board.
Even todays large audit firms do it – while they may have had the corporate contract for a long time, they make sure they rotate the staff that do/manage the actual audit. Not so in GE – it is Gibbs and McLean in person and its contrary to all the rules related to ensuring unbiased, impartial oversight (both seen and perceived)
December 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Lee, your comment gave us further food for thought. Hence, we’ve gone through the Audit Committee reports since 2006 and a couple of names are real standouts. Readers should note the following –
2006 – Geoff Harry, PricewaterhouseCoopers (items 3 & 4)
Mark Trajcevski, PricewaterhouseCoopers (items 3 & 4)
2007 – Mark Ridley, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Mark Trajcevski PricewaterhouseCoopers
November 2007 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Sri Indra, PricewaterhouseCoopers
2008 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2-7)
Mark Trajcevski PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2-7)
November 2008 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Jayme Metcalfe, PricewaterhouseCoopers (up to and including item 3)
2009 – Joella Gould, UHY Haines Norton (Item 1)
Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2-5)
Mark Trajcevski, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2-5)
Tala Al-Hili, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2-5
November 2009 – Paul Bryant, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2, and 3)
Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 2 and 3)
2010 – Mark Trajcevski, PricecewaterhouseCoopers (Items 3-5)
Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Items 3-5)
Paul Bryant, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 3-5)
November 2010 – Mark Trajcevski, PricecewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2)
Paul Bryant, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2)
2011 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
Mark Trajcevski, PricecewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
Paul Bryant, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
November 2011 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Nick Burjorjee,PricewaterhouseCoopers
2012 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
Nick Burjorjee, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
November 2012 – Jason Agnoletto, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
Nick Burjorjee, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Item 2-3)
December 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Akehurst’s plug for the building industry and its regulation comes as no surprise. My understanding is that inspectors are private and hired by the developer. Council has a role only when there is a complaint or some suspicion. The developer/builder holds all the cards. To then read Akehurst’s statement that “Building approval is universally required for all developments. This point alone places building in front of town planning for applying any ESD standards.” just doesn’t make any sense. It confirms that council does not want extra work and that they do not wish to put any impediments, or expense, in the way of developers. Glen Eira is quite prepared to assist the creation of new slums, albeit in five or ten years down the track.
December 26, 2012 at 12:31 AM
The probems start when private professionals give permission for dmeolition. This occurs unsupervised and if the foot[ath i s wrecked then there are no worries until the builder has coimpleted the construsction, If pedestrians wlak on road to avoid mud and slush for a year or two (when the builder finishes) then it this seems all OK????
December 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM
A “year or two” is a serious understatement. But yes, Council has shown little interest in ensuring footpaths are maintained in safe condition, that pedestrians are not forced onto a roadway unprotected from traffic, that deliberate damage by developers is a breach of their so-called “Asset Protection Permits”, or that repair of any damage can be delayed indefinitely under Council’s policies. Council also routinely extends planning permits without any consideration of the appropriateness or the extent to which developers have complied with their obligations.