We take this opportunity to respond to the comments made by Cr Pilling featured above. It’s worth noting that this posting has now been removed!
GE Debates is labelled as ‘unfair’, ‘irrelevant’, consisting of ‘cowards’ and ‘untruths’ amongst other things. It is also claimed that we do not ‘verify’ our data. All of these labels are symptomatic of a council and its councillors who believe that by attacking the messenger they can absolve themselves from having to deal with the countless issues we have raised over the past 3 years. On every vital aspect of governance this council has underperformed. Here is a list in case Cr Pilling has forgotten –
- Meeting procedures that stand in stark contrast to every other council in the state
- Consultation or lack thereof especially in relation to the residential zones, budgets and council plans
- Lack of transparency re countless decision making processes – especially planning and role of the DPC
- Acceptance of sub-standard reporting by officers
- Lack of commitment and action on numerous issues – carbon reduction targets; tree register, vegie gardens, cctv cameras; car sharing; ESD policies; WSUD policies; Urban Design Frameworks – and the list goes on and on.
- Repeated failures to provide comprehensive cost-benefit analysis within officer reports
For each of these issues we have taken the time and effort to contrast this council’s performance with that of its neighbours. We have supplied facts, figures, statistics, and we believe sound argument. Glen Eira Council, in contrast, has repeatedly come up short when it comes to these basic elements. Residents need to ask themselves just one thing – Why? Why is it that other councils can achieve all these things and Glen Eira is incapable, or even worse, unwilling? And, if we are so ‘irrelevant’ then why bother putting up such a post and why the repeated attempts in council meetings to answer our criticisms.
Pilling’s post is typical then of the modus operandi of this council. Ignore the issue and slay the messenger. If the issue just can’t be ignored then there is always spin or secrecy. The most self incriminating comment that Pilling can make and which exemplifies his own inadequacies is the sentence – In my view the authors of this blog are trapped in the bitterness and outdated practices of local government as conducted in the last century….. . It is certainly illuminating and sad, that a current councillor believes that the call for transparency, accountability, and sound financial management belongs in the last century! Our view is that times may have changed, but that Glen Eira Council remains marooned in a past where oligarchies ruled and their actions went unquestioned. In 2013 thanks to the internet and social media all is open to scrutiny. That is the foundation of good government – so sorely missing in Glen Eira thanks to the inability of its councillors to recognise and accept this simple fact. As decision makers councillors should be called to account when their decisions so often fly in the face of community aspirations and their arguments lack all credibility and substance.
Finally it is worth pointing out that over 461,000 hits must be a sure sign of ‘irrelevance’!!!!!!

August 22, 2013 at 3:35 AM
Funnily enough this “good” councillor, like all the others, just sits there speechless as the person called the mayor parrots off all the replies to public questions drafted by the salaried officers. Only once has an opinion been ammended .. what a joke.. all the speeches lately just a show complete disinterest in residents especially when most motions are carried unanimously.
Not one of them asked why council had agreed with the Skyscraping planning minister when the new plan for Glen Eira was greeted so enthusiastically without amendment or any community consultation as has been the case in other MUNICIPALITIES.
OF COURSE CR.PILLING IT SEEMS THAT THIS COUNCIL WHERE WE LIVE DOES NOT VALUE DEBATE,
BUT RATHER DECIDES ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE RICH DEVELOPERS AT THE COST OF THE FAMILY BACK GARDEN and so far only buying two house sites for the thousands of units which have been/or planned to be built with “open space budget”.
More often than not this money is spent on tree chopping, concrete and bitumisation of parks. The councillors all just sit there in favour every time.
August 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Pilling’s fit of pique is unworthy of anyone in public office and indicates a decided inability to deal with criticism while feeling free to dispense it.
There is not one comment on the planning zones in his original, or replacement, posting that constitutes an original thought/argument. All he presents is a cut and paste version of already published material while implying it is his own (as he did with his approval of the infamous C60 development).
Height controls in the new zones are good (it is something Council has refused to implement since 2002) but there is also much that is not so good (minimum lot sizes, restricted third party rights, as of right developments). Residents had a right to be informed and consulted on the new zones yet they were not.
Pilling, along with other Councillors, decided behind closed doors, not to consult the community and instead opted to apply for a ministerial exemption from public consultation – by doing so not one shred of community input was allowed on zone boundaries or zone/schedule content. Even now, more than two weeks after the announcement and in line with its minimalist approach to community consultation, Council is waiting for legal implementation before making full details available.
Pilling, along with other Councillors, makes no attempt to justify the decision to exclude the community and that is what is wrong with this Council.
August 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Cr Pilling must have had second thoughts and decided to remove his post or he was ordered to. There’s much that could be said about the content of his post but I’ll concentrate only on his allegation that this site lacks credibility. That I would say is a charge that could be levelled against councillors and council far more easily than against this blog. I read the reports on council meetings with great interest, hoping to find some cogent and reasonable debates. The great disappointment is that lucid argument substantiated by evidence is continually lacking. I get the distinct impression that grandstanding, emotional appeals, and the constant rehashing and repetition of officer reports is the mainstay of all debate in the chamber.
As far as I can tell the issues and questions raised by the blog have never been satisfactorily answered. That is to the detriment of the community. When my rates keep escalating then I want to know if I’m receiving value for money. I also would like to think that my council cares enough about its residents to keep them informed about major changes such as the residential zones. I’d even like to think that we were thought worthy enough to be given the opportunity to have a say. It doesn’t look like this is the case. On these grounds alone Pilling should be the last person to complain about credibility when he and his colleagues continually ignore council’s charter through their actions.
August 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM
HmmmmmmmH! Cowardice is a mighty strong allegation by Pilling. My questions to him and I would be very appreciative of his answers are:
1. If cowardice is equated with anonymity, then could you please insist as a councillor that all officer reports at least bear a name of the author and the individual responsible.
2. Do you Cr Pilling think that it is cowardice when Mayors use their privileged position to denigrate other councillors or members of the gallery? What do you think that other councillors should do on such occasions?
3. Is it cowardice when councillors accept without comment the tripe that is contained in responses to public questions?
4. Is it cowardice when councillors allow other councillors with clear conflicts of interest to partake in voting on an issue?
5. Is it cowardice that councillors always defer to management?
6. How would you Cr Pilling define transparency and could you please supply at least one example where council has been fully transparent and accountable on any decision of significance?
August 22, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Fab questions but you ain’t gonna get an answer
August 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM
A somewhat embarrassed Councillor I think.
August 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM
If you live in a glass house then you for sure shouldn’t be chucking stones Neil. Your blog has been going for 4 years. Only 26,000 hits and barely a comment. Who is irrelevant now?
August 22, 2013 at 1:26 PM
It is indeed unfortunate that Cr. Pilling’s posting is a precise example of all the criticisms that he levels at this blog site. Not one substantiated argument is presented to justify his comments yet lack of substantiation is a constant in his allegations.
Perhaps he thinks he can take this “holier than thou” approach because his name is attached to his blog – a remarkable piece of reasoning as, in a classic example of “cowardice”, he has removed his comments.
August 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Pilling has to be the last person to rave on about credibility after his performance on the c60