The agenda for next Wednesday night is out and surprise, surprise, there is no mention of the CEO appointment. According to the legislation, public notification of the intent to reappoint must occur at least 14 days prior to the resolution being passed. On Wednesday it will be 15 days since the announcement was buried away in both the Age and on council’s website. So why the silence? If this is to be done in camera, then the only possible item that might be applicable is the lovely catch-all phrase “under section 89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter”. Tautologies reign supreme in Glen Eira!
Other items set down for in camera are also intriguing. For example the regrassing of 2 Caulfield Park ovals. Readers might remember that this was put off for one year in order to save money. Yet it does not explain why on November 3rd 2012 the Age featured this tender advertisement – “Redevelopment of Caulfield Park No 3 & 4 Sports Ovals Requirement: Sportsground drainage, irrigation, surface reshaping & resurfacing.” Applications closed on November 17th. Then low and behold, on July 27th 2013 we get the identical advertisement again. This time closing date is 16th August 2013. That raises many interesting questions:
- Why was this advertised last year when the budget had decreed to delay regrassing?
- Why does the 2013/14 budget state that the cost of regrassing is $650,000 and the figure in the incamera section states $450,000? Surely with all the millions already spent on ovals council would have a pretty good idea what this would cost? Or is this just another example of creative accounting?
There are plenty of other fascinating items up for decision as well, but we will conclude this post with a comment on the financial report. Seems like GESAC is continuing to rack up the bills with another $33,000 for landscaping and the ‘release of retention money for waterslides’. More squabbles perhaps with this particular contractor? Then there’s another $19,000 for the purchase of ‘additional strength equipment’. But the really, really big one is the incamera tender for $610,000 for ‘air handling and ducting’. Of course council does not reveal that this is for GESAC to rectify what is obviously a huge problem. But this was again advertised in the Age on September 7th, 2013! Hopefully this figure will appear somewhere in future financial reports!
More disturbing is that so many projects have not had a penny spent on them in 3 months, or a piddling proportion of their allotted funds. Duncan McKinnon pavilion is the perfect example. The same goes for Local Area traffic management improvements. Taking into account the carryovers of money from the previous year’s budget, and granted that ‘progress’ in Glen Eira is invariably at a snail’s pace, we still have to wonder whether or not these interminable delays are the results of a continuing cash shortage?
Finally, it is worth pointing out again that:
- The non-appearance of the Local Law – promised for March 2013 by Lipshutz
- The non-appearance of a sporting ground allocation policy
With a bit of luck these may appear just before Xmas when it’s hoped that not too many people will notice!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM
I’ve looked at the agenda and there’s nothing in the confidential items to give anyone the faintest idea that the $600000+ tender is about Gesac. So it’s a cover up and that’s the preferred way of communicating with residents by this council. Gesac is barely a year old and falling to bits already. As a ratepayer I want to know why, and why I should now be paying all this extra money to fix up the problem. Very little about Gesac has been transparent and this confirms the deception that is happening all the time. How about some honesty and fair dinkum reporting for a change Mr Newton?
November 1, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Newton Can’t even report his own employment contract correctly. Where is the “independent” audit committee members, Gibson and McLean? Oh yeah, they have been mates of Newton for over 20 years. Time for a sacking of Councillors I ( and a few others who gave real power) reckon.
November 1, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Take it further and sack Newton. Cheaper in the long run. How the hell could these morons give him another contract. Pay him out now. Cheaper much cheaper.
November 1, 2013 at 9:32 PM
Read an interesting article today – it raised the idea that local Councils should be scrapped. The article, although accepting the claim that local Council’s are the form of government closest to the people and therefore the most relevant to the people, alleged that people’s attitude to Councils had changed. The change being attributable to Councils (both Administrators and Councillors) confusing self interest and self protection with residents interests. The end result being the alienation of the community via limiting community participation (ie. we know better) or ignoring the results of community consultation if those results don’t co-incide with the Councils views. Views which are never clearly defined or discussed openly – accountability, transparency or openness being treated as buzz words rather than goals to be strived for.
While Glen Eira was not used as a case study to support the article’s observations perhaps it should have been. The above website posting provides a classic example. Council long ago acknowledged (and continues to acknowledge) that no matter what Glen Eira does to increase the available usage of active sporting grounds (eg. irrigation systems, grass plantings) demand far outweighs supply and growth in demand will expontentially continue to outstrip supply. Yet rather spending on the acquisition of new sporting grounds Glen Eira persists in spending millions on pavillion replacement and replantings – despite acknowledging evidence to the contrary, the view that it is much better to have fewer greater facilities than enough adequate facilities persists.
As for lack of community participation, lack of accountabiliity, transparency and openness look no further than GESAC, implementation of the planning zones, CEO appointment, cafe in Caulfield Park as recent examples in an apparently endless list.
Radical as the article may seem at first, it is certainly worth considering, particularly within the Glen Eira context.
November 1, 2013 at 10:05 PM
The closure of meetings to the public for matters listed in Item 12 is only a “recommendation”, but our councillors grasp with alacrity any opportunity to exclude the public. Remember that Council isn’t obliged to close a meeting, only that it has the power to do so under prescribed circumstances. I have criticised before and I will criticise again Council’s failure to publish reasons for closure in the Minutes: citing a ground under s89(2) isn’t good enough.
Council is free to consider matters publicly, and shouldn’t seek to hide from public scrutiny just because it can. It’s the discussion that is supposed to be protected, in limited circumstances, not the decision and the information relied upon by Council in reaching that decision.
November 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Reprobate, your comments are well made but I think you might have overlooked one important fact. The culture of this council and how ingrained the determination to keep secret anything that might cast a shadow over the manufactured image of a perfect council management. Instead of simply saying there is a problem and we’re on top of it, and are addressing this via option A, B, or C, and it will cost this much, this council does everything in its power to conceal the truth. If that occasions the little white lie, or even the big lie, then so be it. If it means excluding residents wherever possible, then that is also seen as an imperative. The result is not merely counter productive but an absolute abuse of power. I certainly have no respect for this administration and I doubt their competency to perform any major task or oversee any major project satisfactorily. Gesac and Duncan Mackinnon are both proof of this incompetency. For all we know, there could be countless other instances – but in Glen Eira, this is all under wraps.
Other councils may also be far from perfect, but at least from what this blog has disclosed, their approach to tenders, community consultation, and general transparency far exceeds anything Glen Eira has even attempted under this administration and its abysmal councillors.
November 2, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Your version of community consultation would be for the town hall to ring up the bloggers and get a few ideas. The vast majority of people want the council to make have all the ideas. Most public meetings attract a handful of people that can be profiled as “council watchers”. Their views are not may not be similar to those held by the remaining 130,000 residents. Many of the contributors at public meetings have a huge conflict. i.e. The people in Murray St that wanted trees planted in a very narrow street obviously to improve their property value at the ratepayers expense.
A small bus would hold most of Glen Eira’s agitators
November 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Ooohhhh, bit rough I’d say. Believe it or not, people generally would like to be asked and know that their ideas matter, particularly when they are paying. If they don’t even get asked then watch out. It could come back and bite them on the backside real hard.
November 3, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Brilliant idea to dismissively profile those who attend public meetings as “Council Watchers”. You don’t have to consider why they attended (seeking information, desire to participate, have input, express views) or consider any ideas they may have (regardless of how reasonable or beneficial those ideas may be), you can just nod and ignore.
And sheer genius to bring in Murray Street. By stating their motive was purely “ïmproving their property value at ratepayers expense”, you have successfully nipped in the bud any discussion on the value of trees (shade, beauty, lowering ambient temperatures and pollution) and hence also avoided any need to review and select an appropriate tree type (eg. small trunk with a feathery canopy).
All in all a pretty good job of dismissing every one but yourself. Out of interest, just how many people are in your mini bus?