We have long bemoaned the failure of this council to actually ANSWER a public question. More often than not, residents receive replies that neatly dodge the central concerns of the query or, the response is padded out with superfluous nonsense and irrelevancies. The most common tactic, is the tendency to engage in semantics. When it suits, council seems quite incapable of understanding the question. On only two occasions from the recent past, has any councillor objected to either the tone or content of these answers – presumably penned by Paul Burke. They sit there dumbstruck, and hence complicit in allowing such practices to continue. To add further insult to injury, councillors often do not even get the time to READ the public questions prior to the council meeting. At most, they might spend 5 minutes at the end of their assembly meetings and are confronted with the already written responses. If there have been numerous questions, then there is no time to even read the responses and to contemplate their import. None of this is good enough.
We’ve decided to keep a running score on public questions and their responses. Readers will be able to access all questions/responses from our new category in the header – ‘Public questions’. They will be arranged in chronological order of council meetings and be classified according to our categories – ie governance, transport, performance, etc. After each council meeting we will also be featuring a separate post on some or all of these questions and responses. If appropriate, we will comment directly on the responses given and invite, as always, your feedback. Here is one from last week’s effort:
QUESTION 1 – Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”
ANSWER: The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward. Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.
Councillors were informed of this during that time.
It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”
COMMENT: The question is clearly not answered! Will residents get to see the submission? Your guess is as good as ours! Not for the first time are formal council submissions done in secret. Secondly, if this submission did involve councillors being “informed” then why, oh why is there no mention of it in the relevant records of assembly? Or was it a tiny one liner in some briefing paper that could so very easily be overlooked by councillors? Did councillors in fact ever discuss this issue? Did they have any role in the writing of the document, vetting some of the ideas/suggestions, did they in fact have any say whatsoever? Or worse, did they even know this was happening?
As an aside, we remind readers that Glen Eira in its wisdom scrapped the levy. Thus, we assume that no monies are being collected from developers for drainage and other infrastructure whilst high rise apartments are mushrooming everywhere. The State Government has now released its response to the committee’s report and is again seeking submissions. We note that other councils have publicised this submission process. Glen Eira of course, keeps it under wraps. Please see: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/130727/Fair-and-simple-development-contributions.pdf
Glen Eira Debates 
February 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM
I see a lot of problems identified here and all are tied up with governance. Answers to public questions belong in the dust bin. They are designed not to answer the question and to reveal as little as possible. The role that councillors play is another issue altogether. How much they’re told or know is essential if they are being allowed to do their jobs. Too much goes on in secret at assemblies. Mav conferences and the position that council will take on motions should be discussed and voted on in an open council. That hasn’t happened. Now we’re getting important issues brought up and the deliberations are probably made 100% by officers and not councillors. No good reason has ever been provided to support the decision to drop the development contributions levy. If the state government forces council to reintroduce this levy then residents need to know the details and what council’s position is. Absolutely nothing of this nature, especially public submissions, should ever be secret and kept away from councillors and residents.
February 12, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Ya don’t want a levy when ya trying to give developers a helping hand.
February 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM
MODERATORS: Comment deleted
February 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM
The rhetoric of “transparent and accountable” is wearing very thin indeed. No organisation can be transparent and accountable when so much of its business is conducted away from public scrutiny. Newton’s nominations of items for in camera discussions are voluminous and I would think entirely unnecessary for the most part. The only legitimate use of such a tool should be commercial in confidence items and not anything else.
Officers write submissions in the name of council and residents have no idea what the position taken might be. Councillors have no idea. Very few of these items have been listed as agenda items but they become official documents claiming to represent the collective body of council. The most ridiculous part is that the receiving authority or body often makes these submissions public since they are after all “public documents”. The residents of Glen Eira don’t qualify as the “public” then. We become second class citizens who are treated differently to residents in other councils. This happens only because councillors allow it to happen.
February 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM
agreed….but what can we do?
February 12, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Nothing looks technical in the report. More bullshit by Burke. He’s got to come up with a better excuse in the future. It also implies that us poor dumb bastards wouldn’t have a clue about the submission because of its technicality. Release it then and let us be the judge of whether we can understand it or not.