CAULFIELD PARK CONCERTS
Sounness moved motion that Friends of Caulfield Park receive $1000 for promotion, performers, etc. and that receipts be provided and that this is only a ‘once off grant’. Lipshutz seconded.
SOUNNESS: went over history that FOCP had applied for a grant but not all of their application was in line with grant guidelines. Felt that the group’s objectives were directed to the ‘wider community’. Also said that the motion ‘is exceptional’ and that the FOCP have to become ‘sustainable’ and ‘it should not be a continuation of funds’ for them to continue holding these concerts. They should ‘actively’ look for other means of support such as through ‘advertising’.
LIPSHUTZ: said that Caulfield Park was our ‘premier park’ and that last year’s concert was ‘very successful’. He ‘liked the idea’ of using the bandstand but council shouldn’t just give community groups this money since ‘if they want to do’ these things then they ‘should raise the money themselves’ and ‘become sustainable’. Thought the project ‘was good’ in that it’s ‘community based and will be good for the community’. Stated that council was using ‘ward funds to do this’ and that this has ’caused some concern’ in other councils since ward funds are ‘discretionary’ and therefore they can be used in ways that are ‘not so transparent’. Glen Eira in contrast is ‘putting it to the whole council’ so that it is fully transparent and ‘all above board’. He therefore supports the motion but it’s impoortant to ‘recognise quite clearly that this is a one off’ and won’t happen again ‘next year’.
ESAKOFF: stated that she ‘continued to hold the view’ that the Community grants process got it right that the FOCP were funded for the bandstand itself but not the rest. Went on to talk about the Arts and Culture program and how Glen Eira holds a broad range of events ‘which includes entertainment in our parks’. Thought that this bandstand series organised by FOCP ‘duplicates what council does’ and for her wherever the money comes from ‘it is still ratepayer money’ and shouldn’t be used for a ‘duplication of what we do’. She didn’t ‘want to be a killjoy’ but she needs to be convinced that ‘this is not a duplication’.
DELAHUNTY: said that Esakoff raised important governance issues about the use of discretionary ward funds. Didn’t think that this was ‘duplication’ since the bandstand has been ‘underused’ in the past. Said that the concerts achieved what ‘council hasn’t managed to be able to do’ since council does things ‘on a very large scale’ and this is different. Said that it’s ‘fantastic’ that a community group is willing to run with this and ‘do something positive’. She was confident that this would ‘become a self-sustaining event’ and councillors can help with advice and support.
PILLING: said that concerns had been raised but it’s transparent since they’re deciding this ‘tonight’ in open council.
LOBO: ‘I have the floor’. Said that it’s important to encourage people but ‘at the same time we should not eat the flesh on the bone and throw the bone’ to ‘wolves’ or being ‘licked by dogs’. Said that definition of professional is ‘to behave as one should and not as one feels’ so those who make decisions have to make these decisions ‘with their mind’ and not ‘their heart’. Stated that he ‘wasn’t very happy with this small piece of bone’ and it’s like being a deputy mayor where ‘nothing is given’ but just ‘a bone is thrown’.
HYAMS: defended Esakoff by saying he didn’t think that anyone ‘should be called a killjoy because’ they’re trying to ensure that ‘council funds’ are used properly. He also thought that Esakoff wasn’t referring to the concerts in the park but to the smaller events like spring music series’ and this could be what she was referring to when saying ‘duplication’. Esakoff agreed with his interpretation. Agreed with the motion and stated that last year an individual artist was granted funding to a mosaic and that wasn’t within the guidelines but they still granted her the money. This ‘is similar’ because it ‘does provide benefit to the community’. Asked that the motion be amended to include the wording ‘ward funds’ and this was accepted by mover and seconder.
SOUNNESS: saw this as 2 issues – ward funds and supporting community groups. This is transparent and making good use of the bandstand for the community. Wanted resources to be used better and this was one way of doing it. Went through what the program would be and said he was ‘proud’ to support Friends of Caulfield Park.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. ESAKOFF VOTED AGAINST.
++++++++++++++++++++++
URGENT BUSINESS
Lipshutz moved the motion that the Local Law committee make some recommendations regarding the ‘operation’ of Urgent Business. Okotel seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: reminded everyone that the Notice of Motion had been rejected recently because with Urgent Business the ‘system worked very well’. It works now that if something crops up between the issuing of the agenda and council meeting it can have the status of ‘urgent business’. The committee will look at the issue and make recommendations on ‘how best to deal with that’ and then report back to council.
OKOTEL: did not say anything.
SOUNNESS: wanted to ‘clarify’ the ‘nature of urgent business’. Read out the relevant clause from the Local Law and said that there was not ‘great clarity’ as to what could be considered as urgent. Went on to question whether ‘sunshine’ is urgent and wanted more ‘clarity’.
DELAHUNTY: was happy for the committee to ‘have a look at it’ as this might address ‘some of the gaps that were found without having a notice of motion’ but then the logic says if gaps were found then why not have a notice of motion? ‘It doesn’t seem to be necessary to me’ and would involve ‘a lot of work for really no gain’. ‘But then, here we are’ and ‘onward’!
COMMENT: how informative! and what happened to the usual Lipshutz slogan – ‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT’?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY
Pilling moved motion and included that public be ‘involved’ in restoration options. Magee seconded.
PILLING: Went over the ‘consultation process’ and how this was ‘thoroughly done’. Hoped that councillors would support his motion.
MAGEE: said that this had come up 5 years ago and that there had been at least 3 decisions on the conservatory in the recent past. Said that it was now ‘very, very clear’ what people wanted. They wanted it maintained, restored and ‘they want to use it’ and that was ‘talked about 5 years ago’. ‘And here we are in 2013’ and he hoped that they were going to vote to ‘restore it’.
DELAHUNTY: ‘that’s the process, that’s how it should happen’ that people are asked. ‘I really want to see the community involved in this’ so that in ‘ten years time’ if it comes up again. Wanted community groups to put forward their ‘great ideas’ and that it ‘encourages interaction’. ‘It’s a very clear outcome now’.
LOBO: ‘yes this is democracy, although we ask again and again and again’. To keep asking again and again is an ‘unnecessary process’. The $600,000 from Centenary Park ‘could be used here’. Referred to a letter he had received which criticised his statement that Australia was not democratic. ‘I disagree with him. Yes there is democracy’ but he’s concerned about the ‘processes’ and ‘they are wrong’. Decmocracy should not ‘be made up as you go’.
SOUNNESS: conservatory is a ‘scrappy piece of plastic’ but it will be nice to see it restored. They’ve now got the results of the survey and ‘I’ve got nothing further to say’.
HYAMS: was pleased that ‘we went through this process’ because previously the results were either ‘in favour of the coffee house or inconclusive’. Also ‘last council did change its mind a bit’ but ‘now we have this survey. It is conclusive’ even though ‘it is not what I thought was best for the community’ but was ‘more than happy top go along’ with these results.
PILLING: acknowledged that there were divergent views from councillors but they were motivated by the desire to use ‘the conservatory better’ and ‘this has been justified by the consultation’. Ultimately ‘this is a win for everyone’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMENT: Many things remain unclear. The current budget allocated $105,000 for ‘restoration’. Exactly what does ‘restoration’ mean? Is this enough to cover the replacement of rotting timbers, paintwork, plantings? Is an extra sum of money even budgeted for? If not, where will this money come from? And the most vital question – when will this ‘restoration’ start and when will it be finished? We remind readers that many ‘capital projects’ undertaken by this council magically seem to fall behind schedule not by months, but by years! We won’t be holding our breath to see work start on this!
Last but not least, a word on ‘transparency’. When one counts up the number of items which are NEVER TABLED at council then it is fair to say that Glen Eira is far from ‘transparent’. According to the above discussions, ‘transparency’ involved information being laid on the table and discussed openly – as suggested in the ‘ward funds’, and ‘consultation’ results. It’s just a pity that this maxim receives so little coverage from both administrators and their all too complaint councillors on far too many occasions.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM
No one has really confronted the heart of the matter which is to answer why these councillors voted to allow another consultation on the conservatory and the waste of public money. A resolution was already on the books. If a “conclusive” result was desired, then this argument should apply to every single consultation. It doesn’t. Major community support for something is meaningless if those in control decide otherwise. That makes such words as “transparency” and “conclusive” irrelevant in Glen Eira. The only saving grace about this entire episode is that Lipshutz at least had the brains to keep his mouth shut on the conservatory. Otherwise there would have had to be some major eating of humble pie which I would think is beyond him and his select group of friends.
The item on urgent business is mystifying in the extreme. Since it comes from Lipshutz I’m expecting some major tinkering with the local law that will narrow and refine this element so that it works as another impediment to free speech and getting items onto the agenda. Lipshutz has an unparalleled history in this area.
September 26, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Well done that the Friends of Caulfield Park got their extra money. The hullaballoo that’s gone on about this is unbelievable. Ward funds in the past have been given to many groups. All they had to do was ask.
September 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Ward funds in Glen Eira used to be about $45,000 split between the three wards. I seem to remember something about this being reduced to $5000 per ward a few years back – total chicken feed. There was also full accounting of this amount in the monthly reports and budgets. Now the $15,000 for these funds has disappeared off the accounting sheets completely. If we’re on about transparency then it might be a good start to include these amounts in the black hole which is this council’s accounting protocols. Where does all this money go?
September 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Lipshutz wants FoCP to be sustainable, does he even know the meaning of the word. I suggest he puts his own house in order before he starts lecturing other on sustainability. Meanwhile he helps lock in rates payers to 600,000 dollars worth of carpark at Centenary Park, when there is already two perfectly good carparks there already. What a completely absolute windbag of a man.
September 26, 2013 at 4:27 PM
The council is really an expensive joke for residents. The time taken arguinng over such a petty amount was unbelievable when one considers most of the officers earn over $200,000 and one $300,000 at time and a half plus the cost off councillors when they could have put more thought into wasting $600,00 is just astounding. Then there were nine others who were all worth something on an hourly rate to come up with such an ungracious petty offering. More than half a million for perhaps 12 new car parks. Cr Esakoff opposed this imotion in an outstandiong manner… she was probably tryoing to sav e council monies on the thousands wasted when her development company attempted unsuccessfully to destry the heritage building in Hawthorn Road.
Glen Eira is the capital of the concrete and park car world. Oh yes I suppose all the officials drove to meeting in “our company cars” and parked at our expense. Have we sspent a thousand yet coming to the decision? It would be correct to assume that itr will cost another reasonable sum for the officers to actually provide the cheque to our friends.
Now on the other side of the balance a group call the Friends of Caulfield Park have graciously offered to give organise these concerts and other events for ratepayers in their own time with a very unpleasant warning as if they had been begging that the funds are probably not going to be “given’ again even their own ward councillors painted this unpleasnat attitude.,
September 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Off topic, but just another reminder of what a ‘can do’ council will achieve as opposed to a ‘no action’ council like Glen Eira. There’s been enough publicity on the CCTV sage, now Kingston shows up Glen Eira once more with its willingness to add another area to its alcohol free zone. Glen Eira refuses of course, except for the Caulfield Racecourse area. Below is the Kingston Media Release –
Alcohol free zone for Carrum Foreshore
25 September 2013
Kingston Council will introduce a 24 hour alcohol free zone in Carrum to help police crackdown on anti-social behaviour.
At the 23 September Ordinary Council Meeting, Councillors voted to restrict the alcohol free zone to the Carrum Foreshore and the Carrum shopping centre and railway station.
Kingston Mayor Cr Ron Brownlees OAM said police requested the initiative after noticing a rise in both alcohol related anti-social behaviour and assaults on the Carrum foreshore area and complaints about excessive drinking at the railway station.
Preventing and responding to crime was one of the four priority areas in Kingston’s updated Community Safety Strategy 2013-17, which was also adopted at that Council meeting, Cr Brownlees said.
While police had increased patrols in Carrum, they believed an alcohol free zone would be a valuable additional tool in reducing anti-social behaviour.
Cr Brownlees said while Kingston was already a generally safe community, implementing an alcohol free zone in Carrum was a way of making the City even safer.
The Carrum alcohol free zone will start at the mouth of the Patterson River and extend inland from the northern boundary of the river up to 50 metres beyond the Nepean Highway road bridge, back along the southern boundary of the Patterson River and south along Station Street to Walkers Road. The zone then goes west across the railway line to number 665 on the western side of the Nepean Highway and west to the foreshore, including the vegetated and sand areas.
The new zone is expected to take effect later this year after the change is advertised and signage is placed. Police, not Council Officers, are responsible for enforcing alcohol restrictions in Kingston.
The Carrum zone joins four existing alcohol free zones along Kingston’s foreshore in Mentone, Mordialloc, Aspendale/Edithvale, and Chelsea.
Councillors also agreed at the meeting to review whether there is sufficient signage alerting beachgoers to these zones. For more information on the boundaries of these existing zones go to the Pets and Local Laws section at this website and click on Local Laws.
– See more at: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Lists/News/carrum-alcohol-free-zone#sthash.C6e3kLtj.dpuf
September 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM
As per Council’s website, “community grants” are available to non profit, volunteer based groups, that among other things, offer activities that “strengthen community connections” and “develop an accessible and inclusive community” – the full list is on Council’s website – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Community/Community_partnerships/Community_grants.
Unfortunately what the website omits is the message that comes out loud and clearly from the above discussion on the Friends of Caulfield Park grant application. That message is that the grant is only available for a maximum of two years after that you better be self sustaining or you’ll get zip.
The Friends of Caulfield Park applied for a grant to conduct small scale free concerts (predominantly local musicians and singers) in the under utilised park bandstand. FoCP is a small, volunteer based, local community group looking to promote the park to the community, foster community pride and grass roots community involvement on a shoe string budget. The event and FoCP provide a seemingly good fit for the a community grants award – yet the brief 2 year history of the grant application shows otherwise
In 2012 FoCP applied for and received a grant ($1000) to hold the extremely successful series of concerts. Council patted itself on the back for its support on the event.
In 2013 FoCP, wishing to establish the concerts, again applied for a grant to “assist with the hire of bandstand and pavilion” (note its “assist with” not “pay for” the hire of Council owned facilities). Council’s granted some funds but rejected the important bits of the application as not being in compliance with application guidelines. Much behind the scenes to-ing and fro-ing later we get yet another substandard discussion on which budget to take the funds from, how transparent Council is in dealing with the application and a begrudging granting of $1000 for this year only – FoCP must seek corporate sponsorship to make the concert sustainable. After just voting in $600,000 to rearrange the Centenary Park to gain 12 additional parking spaces, not one Councillor considered the merits of the $1000 grant against the community grants guidelines
You really have to wonder at Council and the motivation for the sham discussion. Aside from the above comments, giving the grant is a win, win, win for Council. It gets a double win because, based on accounting entries (no cash transaction required), it boosts its financial support for local community activities while at the same time boosting its rental income from Council facility rental. The third win is giving itself another pat on the back.
Was this pay back for the community rejecting the Caulfield Park Café proposal – for the third time!!!!!.
September 27, 2013 at 8:50 AM
As per the report associated with the Friends of Caulfield Park concert proposal, the cost of running the concert series is $6,506. Council’s total contribution to the event is $2,531 ($1531 granted in August and the $1000 under discussion). While I have no problem with concept of FoCP seeking corporate sponsorship for the event (it is an event which lends itself to such sponsorship), I do ask myself just where Councillor’s think the $4,000 shortfall is coming from – if not already from sponsorship, grants from other bodies and donations. As all Councillors and anyone involved at the local community level know, local community groups struggle financially – $4,000 is a huge amount to them. The fact that FoCP didn’t receive the full amount necessary points to a significant unpaid effort already directed at making the concert series successful and sustainable. Hence one wonders at the reasoning that advises FoCP to do what they are already doing.
September 27, 2013 at 9:45 AM
On the Caulfield Park Conservatory issue Hyams’s comments are especially unnerving
. the results of the 2 previous community consultations were either “ïn favour of the coffee house or inconclusive” – they were a decisive no to the cafe and yes to the restoration. This is confirmed in the Council Minutes and is indisputable. Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff all backed the cafe and persisted in raising and re-raising the issue (3 times within the past 4 years). This time $17,000 was spent on consultation – that was money well spent as the response was such an overwhelming “no cafe, restore it” that even they have to listen (hopefully for longer than 2 years this time). Although why they, in the face of the two previous consultations, decided to spend that money is open to serious questioning.
. as for “it is not what I thought was best for the community” – it’s an admission that he is not the best judge of what the community wants or believes is in their best interests. Now extend his error in judgement to the Planning Zones implementation (a huge issue yet no consultation and scant information) and you really have to question his leadership.
September 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM
You can only blame one councillor for Hyams being mayor, Lobo.