GESAC, LAWYERS & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Buried in the financial report we finally, after several months silence, get some more comment on the tussle with Hansen & Yuncken. Problems are far from resolved. How much this is costing ratepayers in legal fees is anyone’s guess. But we can at least be certain that it is not chicken feed and that there are some very real problems with the construction of GESAC itself. Here’s what’s been disclosed –
The GESAC construction contract was entered into between Council and Hansen Yuncken in December 2009, for an amount of $41.2M. The defects liability period has been extended under the contract and the final certificate of completion will not be issued until at least May 2014. Council has paid $39.99M against the contract. The contract provides for mechanisms to determine matters in dispute.
There are a number of issues concerning the building of the centre which are currently in dispute. They include the delay in completion of the centre (liquidated damages), variations, and back charges for use of Council utilities during construction and defects. The matters are the subject of proceedings brought by Council. A Directions Hearing has been adjourned to 23 August 2013.
It would seem that another $122,000 has been ploughed into GESAC this financial year (as carry over) and that’s on top of the previous $45,000 a few months back. Please note: we still do not know how many full time, part-time and casual staff are under the employ of council and how much this is costing per year. Transparency and accountability are the inevitable victims here especially when all figures are either fragmented or lumped together into a general, but vague number. We’d even go so far as to doubt whether councillors themselves have ever sighted a proper balance sheet or ledger that clearly itemises every single expense against every cent earned as income.
RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY
Revisions and amendments to the records continue unabated. At least 4 ‘alterations’ to the ‘minutes’ this time around. Rewriting history has become par for the course it would appear.
For the VERY FIRST TIME (August 13th) and well after the 5th August announcement by the Minister on the Residential Zones, we find the notation – Item 9.14: Mandatory Maximum Height Limits over all Residentially Zoned Land. Only after the fact does this major item surface in the Records of Assembly and its link to C110. For month after month the records of assembly have been nothing more than a deliberate attempt to camouflage and thus keep secret what was going on.
COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT
In the light of the above paragraph it’s quite laughable that one of the proposed changes to the code includes the insertion of the word ‘transparency’ – The business of the Council is conducted with efficiency, impartiality transparency and integrity.
One extraordinary new addition reads: 4.8.3 It is important that outside parties feel they can deal with Council in good faith and that officers can advise councillors in confidence. In order to achieve this Councillors should not distribute or disclose the contents of correspondence to or from Council or internal Council working documents unless it is for the benefit of Council and the Councillor group has agreed.
The noose tightens some more but the hypocrisy remains. That’s why Newton can decide to publish private correspondence of individuals and councillors as he has done in the past with equanimity?
Our last comment on this document draws readers’ attention to the glaring absence of ANY MENTION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES BETWEEN COUNCILLORS AND STAFF, AND/OR THE PUBLIC. All that this code contains is a short blurb about disputes between councillors alone. Given this council’s history under Newton (ie investigation after investigation) the inclusion of protocols that deal with councillor/staff disputes would seem to be essential. Other councils that have been chosen for the Notice of Motion item have no problems in including such protocols in their codes of conduct – ie. Bayside; Boroondara, Greater Dandenong and Knox. There are plenty of others throughout the state – but NOT GLEN EIRA!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 1, 2013 at 8:46 AM
The games that people play. Hide and seek has reached new levels at council. They hide and residents have to seek. Akin to looking for a needle in a haystack to find out the state of our dosh.
On lawyers I’m hard pressed to find where all the cash is listed. Corporate council doesn’t cut it so it must be under consultants and that’s a big big figure of millions. Adding up the costs for the Penhalluriack farce and that’s ongoing plus the Gesac battle and the total would be in the million plus by now.
Quite brilliant accounting when the aim is to conceal and keep the paying public out of the picture. Councillors are also included here I’d wager.
September 1, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Pools closed for about 2 weeks lately. Must be something very wrong and another year to fix things.
September 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM
We take heart from the following Facebook entry by Mary Delahunty.
“Coming up on the agenda Tuesday night is a discussion on meeting procedures. Glen Eira council, unlike EVERY OTHER Victorian council does not have the right to raise a notice of motion. If you think this outdated practice should change “like” this link or even email your local Councillor (probably a waste of time to lobby me though – pick anther one!)”
September 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM
As a keen observer of council for many years, the noose that Newton has so successfully placed around too many willing councillors’ necks is incredible. Every vestige of transparent decision making has been stripped away. Not only via the code of conduct and the meeting procedures but in almost every facet of reporting standards. Delahunty’s call then for residents to “like” her post and contact councillors is exactly what is wrong with this council. Integrity, common sense, and a full acceptance of obligation to the community should make this entire councillor set aware of what must be done. It should not take 100 likes or 2000 emails to change the current status. Councillors need to have the courage to stand up to the bullies or to resign.
If all Delahunty is worried about is the notice of motion then she is basically fooling herself. Much, much more needs to change within meeting procedures and countless other policies.
September 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Should make for some good viewing at council meeting. The item calls for guidance. That means a motion and the necessity of the motion being carried. We will see how genuine and committed these bods are by what they come up with and how all encompassing it is. A general mealy mouthed motion with not teeth is not worth even considering. They have to guarantee that any notice of motion can’t be ruled out by the powers they give Newton and his buddies. That’ll be decided by the fine print not the motion itself.
September 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM
It could be argued that a notice of motion capability is not the highest priority reform needed in GECC governance, but the Agenda is tightly controlled currently by the CEO and Mayor. I’m more concerned about the lack of transparency in Council decision-making especially under delegated authority, the regular breaches of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct, the abuse of exceptions to the requirement to have open meetings, and the quality of responses to Public Questions.
BTW Council has published on its website that “Glen Eira City Council has won approval for mandatory maximum height limits over all residentially-zoned land in Glen Eira”. It’s not true though, as Council has *not* placed mandatory height limits on MUZ residential zone. This is on top of the silent changes made to MUZ as part of VC100.
Whereas once the purpose of MUZ included “encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character”, that’s been replaced with “encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area”. By failing to specify local content in the Schedule to MUZ, Council hasn’t made clear what its preferred neighbourhood character is and have yet again left it up to VCAT to tell us.
September 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM
From what we can see of the planning scheme as it currently stands, it is a total mess. In the haste to be first, both council and the department have been sloppy and inefficient. There are contradictions and inconsistencies galore such as references to policies that no longer exist and the mangling of the past and the present.
The map that council has released is also highly suspect and we maintain deliberately obtuse. Commercial areas are not differentiated from public park land. Nor are they clearly marked on this map except as blank spaces. For residents trying to figure out what these changes mean for their local streets becomes almost impossible. Yet, Hyams can blithely claim that in the past the minimal change and housing diversity areas were ‘well understood’. What bunkum! The changes now make such “understanding” even more unlikely! and VCAT’s role from now on becomes even more significant.
This entire amendment has been orchestrated, implemented, and enacted in secrecy and without even the decency of informing, much less seeking, community input. When councils have been given until July 1st 2014 to get their act together, Glen Eira’s hell bent haste explains why the outcome is so shoddy and stands as testimony to the failure of diligent and proper strategic planning. When no attention has been paid to parking, open space, and the numerous other flow on effects of development and their designated locations, then we’re in trouble.
September 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM
Lipshutz kept telling everyone Council’s on top of things. Another year to fix things up is really on top of things.
September 3, 2013 at 9:12 AM
COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT 4.8.3
Someone is trying to set this council back 20 years if I am reading this right.
So if you get a gang of councillors in control of council they can decide what goes out and what doesn’t. It must be Hyams or Lipshutz behind this. Interesting to see who votes for this.
September 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Whoever drafted the new code of conduct had better go back and re-read the LGA. All council decisions are supposed to be supported with the relevant documents out in the open at council meetings. If officers advice is in “confidence” (as it already is because nothing is out in the open) then that would represent another breach of the LGA. All this with three lawyers sitting on council who should know better!
September 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM
The Councillors’ Code of Conduct draft *still* hasn’t fixed up the sentence in section 4.6 of the Code that reads “Relevant information should not be available to some parties but not others”. Has anybody at Council actually proofread this document??
September 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Double negatives always make a positive in Glen Eira.
September 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM
“doubleplusungood”—Nineteen Eighty-Four
September 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Glen Eira councillors consider self-imposed ban on disclosing council correspondence
Andrea Kellett •
September 03, 2013 12:18PM
GLEN Eira councillors will tonight vote on changes to their code of conduct that could impose strict new rules on what they can and can’t share with the public.
The proposed changes include a new clause that would prevent councillors from sharing correspondence to or from the council if it does not benefit the council.
Public interest does not rate a mention.
The reason, as stated in tonight’s agenda, is that “it is important that outside parties feel they can deal with council in good faith and that officers can advise councillors in confidence”.
Mayor Jamie Hyams denied the proposed new clause was a gag.
He said the intent was to “clarify a grey area in the code of conduct”.
“It’s not a gag on councillors giving their opinions,” he said.
“It’s a matter of people feeling they can trust the council.”
The proposed new clause states:
“Councillors should not distribute or disclose the contents of correspondence to or from council or internal council working documents unless it is for the benefit of council and the councillor group has agreed”.
Glen Eira councillor Mary Delahunty tweeted: “Debate at council tonight about a proposed gag rule in the code of conduct. Wait. This is Australia right?!!”.
The Leader understands a number of councillors and residents are fired up about the proposed clause.
All councils must, by law, review their councillor codes of conduct within 12 months of an election.
September 3, 2013 at 6:19 PM
Of course it’s a gag. It involves a hopelessly vague term “benefit of council” and a concept, “councillor group”, that doesn’t appear anywhere in the Local Government Act. What the hell does “councillor group has agreed” mean legally or in practice? How does one demonstrate that disclosure is to the benefit of council? Is the onus on a councillor to prove that it is beneficial, or the onus on the councillor group to prove that disclosure is not beneficial to council? What constitutes evidence that the councillor group has agreed? How does the councillor group make any decisions outside of Council?
September 3, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Possibly far more salient questions should be:
1. Why is this clause there in the first place?
2. Who inserted it and with what authority? The Local Laws committee? Newton? Burke?
3. At whom is this punitive and draconian clause directed at? Any councillor who might just have the temerity to occasionally let the cat out of the bag?
4. Why do councillors allow such actions? What do some of them stand to gain perhaps?
Finally, the above points raised by Reprobate call into question the very legality of this draft.