PS: AND HERE’S HOW STONNINGTON DOES THINGS RE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES –
September 17, 2013
Lawyers Hit Pay Dirt!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[16] Comments
[16] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- September 17, 2013 at 8:19 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
September 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Two things are certain. Lawyers are the inevitable winners here and ratepayers the inevitable losers. This will drag on for months and months if not years with lawyers reaping the rewards.
I’ve got no idea who is at fault. That’s for the courts to decide. But, having said that I’m a firm believer in not attempting things that are beyond one’s ken, experience and expertise. Fulfilling some grandiose vision required experts in both planning, construction and financial management. It also needed councillors who kept things under control. All residents got was Lipshutz in charge of the committee and continual assurances that they were on top of things. Now the truth is out as suspected for a long time. This has been a balls up from the start and I’m wondering how watertight the contract terms were to begin with and, if the Leader report is true, how many adjustments council wanted because money was leaking like a sieve and council was way in above its head. The car parks are salutary examples of abysmal planning right from the start. Now residents can expect more costs and payouts no doubt.
September 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Council’s ability to manage a capital works project of the magnitude of the GESAC project has always been very vocally questioned by residents.
From the start, Council knowingly recognised, yet ignored, the issue of inadequate parking. During the construction phase, despite a $41+ m price tag, the Pools Steering Committee provided little oversight (meetings once a month if required) and only provided meaningless (headings only) untimely reporting – no detailed facts or figures or critical path analysis was ever presented. Yet the unsubstantiated verbage that went with the reports constantly praised Council’s management abilities and contained “on time and under budget” statements.
When the “rubber hit the road”
. a 6 month opening date delay, the delay only being leaked one month prior to the scheduled opening date. Council’s handling of the delay was silence to both GESAC members and ratepayers. The little information leaked was of a “blame the builder’s shortcuts, aren’t we good we caught it” nature rather anything informative on the problems or an expected opening date. “On time” was dropped, “under budget” remained and was enhanced by the liquified damages claim – a claim which incredibly Council didn’t expect the builders to contest.
. two very expensive, ad hoc car park expansions were undertaken to address the previously ignored parking issues without any analysis of those issues being presented.
While the above obviously shows that I have always viewed GESAC progress with scepticism, I always hoped the GESAC would be successful. Indeed, once it finally opened, all reporting (membership numbers, budgets etc.) claims it’s success is beyond expectations.
Although it is reasonable for a project of this magnitude to have some teething problems and there will be argey bargey with claims and counterclaims, what I find totally disconcerting is that, once again Council is not being upfront. Nothing has been mentioned in a Council Meeting, the information is being leaked. The damages claim has more than doubled, legal costs incurred are not mentioned but will have increased significantly.
Needless to say my scepticism is also on the increase.
September 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM
I agree with your comments Bruce. Council has always shrouded GESAC in secrecy. Personally, I hope the case fully reveals both Council’s and the Builders shortcomings (and there will be both) as it will be the first shred of light shined on the whole thing.
September 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM
How much of $3 million left at the end of this Farce I wonder? Transparency and honesty seems too be such a difficult concept for this council to grasp.
A full investigation needs to be held on the processes of GESAC. I contacted Council and not surprisingly got the FOI rebuttal.
Can someone remind me why we have this level of government anyway?
September 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Transparency has never been evident in this council. Instead we’ve got the cone of silence that has been dropped onto all and sundry by Newton and Burke. Heaven help the councillor with enough courage to speak out.
I urge all those councillors with a shred of integrity and honesty to speak up now and reveal the true costs of this venture. I would bet that they have no inkling as to the bottom line. Which raises the very good question about the audit committee and what they have been doing for the last 3 years. Oh, I forget. Gibbs and McLean and Lipshutz are permanent members!
September 17, 2013 at 8:59 PM
The joke that is Gibbs and McLean have got to go. Mind you, Newton gave both his mates until 2014 and however long they both like. Remove Newton and restore proper governance in Glen Eira.
September 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM
How’s this for “coincidence” and no tendering perhaps. Mantric Architecture got the jobs for Caulfield Pavilion, Duncan Mackinnon pavilion and gesac. A coupla million bucks for these 3 jobs alone I’d bet. Reminds me of the ceo’s job – no tendering just contract after contract and this is the mess he gets us into.
September 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Anyone know if the additional car parks were tendered? Don’t think so.
September 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Glen Eira is the laughing stock of all Councils courtesy of Newtons gang. And let’s name Newtons gang, shall we. Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Okatel are the montys, but Southness and Pilling are as well. The Greens need to restore some credibility rather than be Liberal stooges.
September 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM
Its much easier to go to court when someone else is paying. The town hall staff still get paid no matter what the outcome. They wouldn’t care too much about the outcome.
September 17, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Reading through this council’s monthly financial reports is like playing a game of hide and seek. Categories are invariably lumped together so it’s impossible to determine what is included or not included, nor how much each department’s budget actually is and how much has been spent on specific areas. Definitions are non existent. Another major problem.
I’m fascinated by the legal expenses that this law suit has cost so far and how much it will ultimately cost ratepayers. In terms of transparency and trying to determine where this money is coming from is impossible nor whether it’s budgeted for. Is this bevy of barristers, and undoubtedly QCs, being paid as “consultants” or is this coming out of “corporate counsel’s” huge expenses? Or has Newton quietly inserted this into “other expenses”? I’d be willing to wager that councillors have no idea of the money that has gone and that they never were even consulted. At best, they were simply told that this is happening. That’s not what officers are there for and definitely not what councillors should allow to happen.
It’s time for some straight talking and honesty. Concepts that are completely unknown in Glen Eira.
September 17, 2013 at 10:48 PM
In order to refresh people’s memories as to the promises made about GESAC we thought we would go straight to the horse’s mouth and provide a snapshot of comments. All come from either Audit Committee minutes, or council meeting minutes. They are not in chronological order, but should give a clear idea of the continued denial of problems until the 11th hour (late 2011). We also draw reader’s attention to the unbelievable admission that councillors generally received only VERBAL reports back on GESAC progress. Questions do indeed have to be asked as to:
1. overall management and oversight
2. governance and role of councillors
Here are the extracts –
4th September 2006 – Newton wrote –
The first step in redeveloping either of the sites is detailed design. Council would engage a firm of architects. They would engage sub-consultants which could involve engineering, geo-technical surveys, traffic engineering, town planning, landscaping, air conditioning and other specialties and so on. The site would need to be designed in an integrated way. For example, the traffic engineering would depend on how many visits were expected and at what times of the day? That would depend on the mix of facilities to be provided.
Design would aim to achieve economies of scale and environmentally responsible elements. For example, the Boroondara aquatic and indoor sports complex referred to earlier has a single set of changing rooms, single set of showers and toilets, a café shared between the pools and the indoor courts, a single entry point to minimise staff costs and parking for all elements of the facility. All aspects need to be designed together. Any attempt to design part of a site in isolation from the remainder of the
site would fail to capture economies of scale, lead to higher costs overall and carries a risk that a later stage is compromised by what has or has not gone before.
27th april 2010
Council’s electrical engineering consultants have calculated that the GESAC facility will need a 710kVA electrical supply.
The electrical supply distributor for the area, Jemena (through United Energy Distribution Pty Ltd) has determined that to achieve that supply, a 1000kVA substation will be required and this will be located along East Boundary Road, see plan in Attachment 1.
The substation is a self contained room measuring 6.42m x 4.2 m. Construction will be carried out at Council’s cost by Council’s contractors Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd. (cost:
Audit committee meeting (20th August 2010)
The CEO stated that GESAC’s construction was proceeding on time and on
budget. The CEO also reported that a notifiable incident had occurred at the construction site in August. In response to the Chairman’s question regarding the status of finances regarding the pool, the CFO indicated that Council should commence borrowing funds around March/April 2011. The CFO stated that TCV are assisting with the tender process for appointing a lender
20th July 2010
The project is currently one week behind the builder’s schedule due to inclement weather conditions. The builder has taken steps to rectify this situation by increasing the working week from five to six days. The builder is likely to retain the 6 day working week for the remainder of the project.
Issues that have been resolved include:
• Removal of asbestos encountered at various locations throughout the site.
• Addressing changing EPA requirements by amending the design of water
harvesting and reuse facilities.
28th May 2010
17th May 2010
Council’s timeline is for GESAC to be open by summer 2011-12. The project is on schedule to meet that objective.
23rd May 2008 – In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Waite stated that a project team identified the potential risks involved and had ownership of the risks. Mr. Newton stated that although not contained in one document, the potential risks of undertaking such a project have been identified at every stage of the project
22nd July 2008 – Cr Staikos asked; “What reporting mechanisms are in place for the pools steering committee?
The CEO responded. He said: “I can’t recall off the top of my head the terms of reference for the pools steering committee. It tends to function as a clearing house after which important issues are taken to a meeting of all Councillors and usually the only reporting is verbally. To the best of my knowledge minutes of the pools steering committee are not reported to any particular body. It is not a decision making forum.”
September 18, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Unbelievable 22/7/2008 comment from the CEO – that largest single capital works project ever undertaken in the history of Glen Eira and while still in the early phases the CEO can’t remember it’s terms of reference (despite the “no surprises” policy – i.e. Councillor’s can’t raise anything in an open meeting that hasn’t been raised previously behind closed doors).
The broad outline given is the most graphic illustration of Council’s lack of oversight imaginable – its a clearing house which decides which issues need to go to Council ( the pools committee comprised the council officers, with no expertise in managing a project of this magnitude or nature, supervising the project and Councillor’s with absolutely no construction expertise), its reporting is only verbal and reports to no particular body.
Residents better get out their cheque books because they are going to need them. Believe me, my experience tells me what’s being disclosed now is the tip of the iceberg and there is much much more to come.
September 17, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Ignorance is no excuse. The Audit Members are appointed by the Council and report to the Council. The CEO is not a member of the Audit Committee.Smart F–t or whatever you call yourself, there was a Tender for the design of all buildings mentioned, not perhaps but actual.You obviously believe you can be a little bit pregnant. As for the Legalities wouldn’t it be funny if Council was awarded decision and costs. Maybe we should wait.
September 18, 2013 at 7:18 AM
If the liquidated damages claim was used to reduce the total costs of building GESAC, once the issue is resolved (decided and appeals process completed) with the final outcome, ie. damages and costs awared to/against Council, be likewise added to the project costs.
September 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Wangaratta Council dismissed???