What does ‘Report to Council’ mean, especially when part of a proposed ‘Action Plan’ that is the foundation of a Community/Council Plan? In other councils such a phrase would be self evident – ie an officer’s report tabled and discussed at an ordinary council meeting. Not in Glen Eira. Here it can mean anything and everything, including disappearing entirely and never to be heard of again.
We’ve compared the 2012/2013 Action Plan against the objectives for the coming financial year and there are indeed some strange goings on. Apart from the usual humbug of measures not having anything whatsoever to do with objectives, there are many ‘reports to council’ which never saw the light of day in a transparent and accountable fashion. Perhaps they never even landed in the hands of councillors behind those tightly closed doors? Here is just a sample and we cite verbatim:
- Review and update council policy ‘Exclusion of Specific Developments’ from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme to implement measures to ensure multi-dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking. MEASURE: Report a revised policy to Council.
- Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan. MEASURE: Report provided to Council.(We note that on June 28th 2011 this was removed from the Planning Scheme. This also applies to the ‘Transition Zone’ policy which we discover is now ‘on hold’)
- Council Engagement Strategy and consultation processes reviewed. MEASURE: Engagement strategy updated and posted on Council’s website. (Please note that the Engagement strategy was last looked at by council on the 11th October 2011. Not only hasn’t this been revisited since but the full policy is nowhere to be found on Council’s website. What is up there is the pathetic little ‘6 steps’ which date back to at least 2009).
There are many, many more omissions and changes that the current Community Plan does not even mention or account for. Residents should not have to scour through the fine print in order to discover what is truly happening. Nor should secrecy and the pathetic games of semantics replace transparency and good governance. When the stated outcome is ‘report provided to council’ that must mean one thing only – a full and comprehensive document that is produced in the agenda for ordinary council meetings. We repeat ourselves ad nauseum – secrecy is the opposite of good governance, transparency and accountability.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Par for the course all this.
May 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Over the past year I’ve found myself having quite a few discussions with friends who live in other council areas. They’ve got gripes like most people have about politicians, rates, and services. The one thing that is missing from their complaints is any talk about lack of information or opportunity for them to be involved in council matters if they want to. When I tell them that this council doesn’t have community representatives on the important committees or even have a notice of motion in its meetings they can’t believe it. I have to assure them that I’m not mistaken and that this is the way things have been going in Glen Eira for many years.
Now there’s the budget and the misnamed Community Plan. Other councils have got huge debts but they somehow seem to be able to keep their rates on the downward spiral rather than increasing them year after year as happens in Glen Eira. They also make sure that every possible avenue of consultation about community plans are open to people. Glen Eira had a community consultation group going for the community plan last year. What’s happened to it?
I can’t see too much difference between last year’s plan and this years. None of the things that people put in their submissions have borne fruit. The blog mentions the woeful measures and how they are an irrelevancy to the actual objectives. This should have been attended to first off. Next there should have been a summary of any changes. Instead we get the same old plan with nothing changed.
I also keep asking myself what makes a good council. I would think that it comes down to councillors who actually care about the tasks set down for them and councillors who make the effort to ask the appropriate questions when they’re not satisfied or don’t understand something. That doesn’t look like it’s happening. Worse is probably the fact that when someone does have the intestinal fortitude to ask something that they are fobbed off with mumbo jumbo. My conclusion is that we have a group of ineffectual councillors and an administration who likes it that way. The council plan and the budget is the latest example of this.
May 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Our Council lacks meaningful metrics for most of its activities, for example what it has chosen to “measure” under the general banner of Best Value Principles. Few councillors have shown any interest putting pressure on the Administration to improve the quality of information provided to asssit Council in its decision-making, but we’ve also seen what can happen if a councillor does dare ask awkward questions.
Andrew Newton has in the past disputed that he has failed to provide various reports to Council despite them failing to appear in meeting Agendas or Minutes: the definition of Council became the subset of councillors that he deemed appropriate. He demanded that if a report was supposed to go to Council then Council should formally include that requirement in the Motion requesting a report. Ex-mayor Esakoff should be able to explain the criteria used to restrict circulation—she was prepared to use her extraordinary powers to defend Andrew’s judgement publicly when her own investigations revealed all bar one of a list of requested reports had failed to appear in Council Minutes.
The preparation of the Council Plan last year was a blatant breach of LGA, as all councillors well know. What we *don’t* know is which councillors secretly supported having the plan prepared in a manner that didn’t comply with S125, secure in the knowledge that the Local Government Inspectorate would take no action. It doesn’t excuse the Administration lying to the public about it being a statutory requirement to finalise the Plan by 30 June 2012.
D Evans has picked up on a theme that has really irked me—the tendency for Council to provide responses to Public Questions that fail to address the substance of the questions. Its as if Council relies on what the Administration drafts for it, and is prepared to publish any old rubbish due to a lack of interest. There is little evidence that it embraces the principles of continuous improvement, and goes to extraordinary lengths to deny mistakes made.
May 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Ziggy’s report on Essendon hierarchy could have been written about this administration too – totally dysfunctional governance practices.
May 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM
People need to have a very very very close look at the current action plan because there we have it in black and white that Newton and his stooges do not intend to do a single thing about planning. There’s this – “Commence translation of new residential zones to reflect local planning policy objectives”. The “measure” is: “Implementation report considered by Council”. Not a single word about “reviewing” the MSS and other sections of the planning scheme and no mention whatsoever of introducing structure plans and its assorted strategic planning requirements. There’s been no clearer statement of the intention to merely rubber stamp and extend the current chaos than this. Planning under Newton and Akehurst will continue as pro-development and piecemeal disasters one after another. Watch out folks – a 3 storey, twenty plus units with no parking and no open space is coming to your neighbourhood very soon.