FINANCIAL REPORT
LIPSHUTZ: ‘excellent result’. Said that Delahunty had asked that the reports be more ‘intensive’ and they’ve now included a few additional items as a result. “Council has got a work strategy’; capital works is ‘slightly behind forecast’ and they’ll catch up by the ‘end of the year’. “Council liquidity is tracking well’ and although council has to be ‘careful’ all is going well.
DELAHUNTY: ‘great’ that there is more detail in the report and ‘helps us do our job’ so that councillors can get a ‘greater picture of the finances’. There are 1.3 billion dollars of assets so the ‘big picture’ is needed. ‘Peter’ is right about cash flow in that ‘there is a definite need for caution’. ‘Our position is strong, the balance sheet position is strong’ and GESAC is ‘an absolute standout’ and because membership is growing ‘we may not see a dip’.
LOBO: said the report ‘really shows the financial strength of this council’ and not the things ‘that come on Glen Eira Debates’. There are ‘doubting Thomases’ writing ‘day in and day out’ and they write and ‘hide’ under the ‘name of anonymity’. Said that if people really believe that ‘there is a problem put your name and address’. Went on to say that being ‘negative will not keep you in good health’ because ‘negativity doesn’t give good health of mind and body’. Concluded with the hope that ‘you can take a new leaf from this’ as well as ‘stop your Glen Eira Debates’.
MOTION PUT: carried unanimously
COMMENT
- Caution has been urged month after month yet Lipshutz still refers to $600,000 as ‘little’!
- No real explanation of why capital works and other projects are so far behind schedule? It couldn’t be anything with ‘saving money’ and managing the cash flow, could it?
- We note that $529,000 is now to be returned to the government as a result of the decision on Boyd Park water harvesting. Another ‘cash flow’ problem?
- Previously Hyams saw no problem in calling certain councillors to account when their comments were totally irrelevant to the item under discussion. We wonder why this was not done in the case of Lobo’s comments? There was a 5 second statement about the financial report and the remainder of his ‘speech’ addressed ourselves. We are indeed flattered by the attention.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM
I’d say this is another example of Hyams brilliant running of the show. Somethings only irrelevant when it suits.
December 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM
MODERATORS: comment deleted as the claims are not substantiated
December 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Amazing all three towed the party line but two at least kept the topic. I am not sure why the third thought bringing in GE debates was relevant to the discussion.
December 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM
“Irrelevance” might have been one of the curriculum subjects at the highly credentialed Pacific Southern University. 😉
December 23, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Autonomy – What are you going about?????
December 23, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Have a look at the following thread entitled “Need We Say More?”:
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/need-we-say-more/
And in particular the contribution (13) by “Glen Huntly” and “John C”
December 23, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Dunno about other bloggers, but I find it quite beneficial for my health, that after experiencing the frustration of dealing with Council, I can express my dissatisfaction on this site.
December 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM
It is open to any councillor to raise a Point of Order about Cr Lobo’s speech. That no councillor did is prima facie evidence that they all condone the behaviour–or that since the chairperson is the final arbiter of points of order, they didn’t dare speak up. As a reminder, “relevance” is a ground for a point of order about matters raised by a councillor when speaking to an item at a meeting under our Local Law. There’s also Councillor’s Code of Conduct, covering amongst other things Respect, Community Engagement, Transparency and Objectivity. I wish Cr Lobo would admit the number of occasions he has possibly submitted comments here anonymously since he feels so strongly about it. He could also ask his colleagues and publish their answers.
As for the substantive matter, the periodic financial report of Glen Eira, it would be normal to let people digest it before criticising them for their attitudes to it. I noticed in Monthly Report Relative to Auditor General’s Indicators(g) Sustainability Assessment, it simply states “green”. Curious, I went to VAGO website, searched for “Sustainability Assessment” and found nothing relevant. What does it mean? Is green better than puce? I was curious because Council has planned for rate rises indefinitely into the future that exceed projected inflation and income growth by several percent. Council is also having trouble maintaining its services, and is obliged to fund infrastructure to support the increase in population being forced upon us. If the situation were truly sustainable, the increase in population would fund the extra services and infrastructure required.
The report doesn’t mention all the fees and charges revenue that Council forgoes by refusing to prosecute developers for breaches of its Local Law. $6M is still a huge sum of money to lavish on pavillions and associated concrete and asphalt. Delaying $10M of capital works for a year may help the financial position, but was there a downside? Getting down to details, what does $75K of software for cashflow management give us that we don’t currently have? Is there an officer report covering the $1M for IT and what the benefits are that it will deliver? If it goes to frontline troops so they can expediently access images of documents rather than rely on paper files, I’m for it. If it represents status symbols for execs, I’m against.