Council minutes are meant to provide an accurate record of what occurs at council meetings. That is both a legal and an ethical obligation. In Glen Eira it often is not! Council’s past responses to questions about accuracy has been that:
- Minutes are not Hansard
- They are required to only record resolutions and votes
- Sorry, another ‘clerical error’ perhaps
All of the above may be true, BUT NOT when council uses quotation marks as an indication of a verbatim, word by word account of what took place. This has been the practice for years when it comes to Rights of Reply and Councillor Questions. To then fiddle with the occasional wording (and this is not to correct grammar it should be said!) or omit huge chunks from the official record because it is ‘embarrassing’ for council is nothing short of deceitful, devious, and unconscionable. No wonder the audio/visual recording of council meetings has been opposed so often and for so long!
On this occasion we are referring to Councillor Questions on the Caulfield Park tree removal. Following the Dorothy Dixer’s asked by Magee and Lipshutz we suspect that the two questions asked by Sounness were not pre-prepared and rehearsed. These and Burke’s answers are absent from the minutes. THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. PILLING HIMSELF REFERRED TO SOUNNESS’ QUESTIONS AS ‘COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS’. HENCE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR ENTIRETY IN THESE MINUTES AS WELL AS BURKE’S RESPONSES. THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CENSORED IS THE DELIBERATE DOCTORING OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD!
Here’s what occurred –
Pilling asked ‘any other councillor questions?’
SOUNNESS: directed his question to Burke and wanted ‘clarification’ about the 2001 Master Plan. Said that the ovals were reduced from 7 to 6 and he wanted this made clear as well as what could be put up on the website as information for people about the numbers of trees affected and the impacts on ‘birdlife’ and other issues of ‘biodiversity’.
BURKE: said that the Master Plan does ‘talk of a reduction’ of ovals to 6 and that ‘there’s already been a wicket taken out’ so that the ‘reduction has already happened’. Went on to say that the “master plan is a representation of how the park should look’ when all the work ‘has been completed’. As far as the plan’s ‘vision for trees’ he thought that ‘it is fair to say we are achieving that’. The 2 trees that they’ve agreed to preserve are ‘actually contrary to the master plan’ but they’ll be kept. As far as bird life is concerned rangers tell council that with the planting of indigenous trees the number of birds visiting the park has increased and that this was ‘expected’ with all the plantings of native trees.
Pilling then asked again if there were ‘further councillor questions’
SOUNNESS: asked about the junior ovals and how come ‘the trees were planted’ basically on these sites in the first place. He then asked whether the ‘plantings’ had ‘been in the wrong place’ to begin with.
BURKE: said that ‘some of the trees to be removed predate the master plan’. He then ‘agreed’ that some of the plantings of these trees were post master plan development and could only explain why they were planted there because of ‘people’s over-exuberance’.
COMMENT
What this tells residents is:
- Incompetence all round! The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing!
- Masterplans are useless pieces of paper that are changed on mere whim
Please note: the issue of trees, master plans is not our focus here. What we and all residents should object to in the strongest possible terms is the rewriting of history and what can only be a conscious and deliberate decision to present minutes that falsify the series of events. These are not ‘minutes’ therefore – they are the political doctoring by this administration. Again, the question falls back onto councillors. Will they demand that the minutes be corrected? Or will this be another distortion of reality and allowed to pass through to the keeper unchallenged. We remind readers that those who control history control the future (apologies to Orwell!)
PS: We see that the Friends of Caulfield Park have published their latest newsletter where they respond to the latest council pronouncements. See: http://www.caulfieldpark.com/latest-news.html
Glen Eira Debates 
November 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM
I have read and re read this blog and I cannot work out what you are on about. PLEASE EXPLAIN?
November 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Reckon ya dont wanna follow cos Burkey’s been caught redhanded
November 29, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Is the letter to the editor in the Leader really by Maggee?. Does anyone know?
November 29, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Who is Adam Southwick? Magee acts like a fool and sees himself being elected to Parliament. He has Buckleys.
November 29, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Smart Aleck what about tempering your delight at the heading of the blog and explain what this blog is about?
November 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Under our current crappy Local Law, there isn’t any provision for councillors to ask council staff questions in council meetings. As a result, there is also no requirement to minute the responses. This is quite different to the handling of public questions or the exercise of the right to make a statement. S231 says “A Councillor may ask a question of another Councillor or Councillors provided that it is in accordance with the Councillor Questions Policy as adopted from time to time.” And the Policy states that councillor questions are “strictly subject” to conditions that include “The question must be on notice and be received by the Chief Executive Officer by no later than 4:00pm on the Friday immediately prior to the Council Meeting”. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring the Local Law is adhered to during the conduct of a meeting, and the CEO is responsible for ensuring the meeting Minutes are in accordance with Local Law and statutory requirements. Hard to work out which is worse: disinformation or no information.
November 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Reprobate, we beg to differ with you on this one and believe you are incorrect in your assertions. Firstly, the extracts you quote are correct. However, you have omitted the opening sentence of this section of the Councillor Questions Policy. It reads: “Councillors will be permitted to ask appropriate Councillor Questions of other Councillors strictly subject to the following conditions:” What follows are the quotes you provide. We draw readers’ attention to the fact that this policy has nothing to do with QUESTIONS TO OFFICERS. The policy is only directed to questions that councillors may ask other councillors. Questioning of officers is allowed at any point. If a councillor asks a question in relation to a specific agenda item such as a planning matter, or whatever, then this does not appear in the minutes. However, the Item listed as Councillor Questions in the Local Law Meeting Procedures, has forever and a day included verbatim copies of what was said – as we’ve already stated. This is further emphasised through the use of quotation marks. The clear impression that is intended therefore is that whatever appears in the minutes with such marks are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of what was actually said. This has not happened here and it is not the first time that such circumstances have arisen.
We also remind readers that the Councillor Questions Policy was removed from the Local Law in 2009 with the promise that it would be ‘reviewed’. Thus for 4 years this policy has lain dormant – unrevisted and allowing the continued gagging of councillors to continue. The ‘architects’ and chief promoters of this policy were of course the usual suspects – Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams.
November 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM
The abuses that are repeatedly condoned by councillors can only be remedied with the complete overhaul of the meeting procedures. The blog has revealed numerous times the current shortcomings and how democracy and transparent process has been eroded. I see this as another example. Delahunty’s question in the minutes sound like they have followed on from Sounness’. If her question can be published then I would like to know why Sounness’ was not.
Instead of dilly dallying over such nonsense as definitions of organised sport and delay after delay in publishing the draft local law, councillors should focus on the fundamental elements of what makes a good council and that goes back to the meeting procedures. Looking at what Kingston has achieved I can but lament that Glen Eira is light years away from the processes employed by so many other local governments. Unless councillors grant themselves the power to state what they truly believe and to question others, and especially officers, the community will always suffer. Allowing officers to dictate every single aspect of what happens, without even permitting or informing residents is abhorrent.
November 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Burke’s reply to Sounness apart from being a tongue in cheek admission of failure to ahdere to the master plan design, demonstrates the absence of communication between the appropriate departments and correct oversighting of projects. It also means that the purpose of a master plan is there for the fall back argument whenever the sporting department decides that it needs to change something and spend a fortune in the process.
November 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Live recordings of council would put a stop to all of this. That has to happen if residents are to have any faith in what this council says and does. At least when there is a freely available recording of what goes on they can’t then squirm their way out of things. Another positive would be that Hyams would have to keep a very tight rein on his nasty tongue.
November 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM
A news item has gone up on council’s website and they haven’t finished tinkering with the park yet. Training lights are going to be put in. I don’t think this was even mentioned in the budget.
Looking at the new maps they have up the expansion of the ovals cuts right across the recently put down concrete paths. Insane and another huge lot of money. I wouldn’t be surprised if they now rip up this new path to get it away from the ovals if risk is their real concern. The whole thing is a mess and they’re making it up as they go along.
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/News/Caulfield_Park_Ovals
November 29, 2013 at 9:53 PM
BURKE: “The Master Plan does ‘talk of a reduction’ of ovals to 6 and that ‘there’s already been a wicket taken out.’”
COMMENT: Wickets are not ovals, the proposal does not show a reduction of ovals from 7 to 6 as recommended in the master plan.
GE COUNCIL WEBSITE: “The project will rectify the sub-standard size of the cricket ovals, which currently require senior matches to have overlapping boundaries. The larger grounds will allow cricket to be played on both ovals concurrently without this risk issue.”
COMMENT: The Tree Planting Removal or Relocation Plan diagram shows that the boundaries will still be overlapping (even more so). The risk issue will NOT be alleviated by the current proposal and will still require senior matches to be played with overlapping boundaries.
November 29, 2013 at 10:04 PM
My mistakenly saw the ovals as including the 10m buffer zone around the perimeter.
November 29, 2013 at 2:04 PM
By way of contrast we highlight how Kingston goes about ‘consulting’ and deliberating on major redevelopments of their parks – ie the Master Plan. All of the following is taken directly from the agenda items for Kingston’s council meeting of the 25th November 2013. Please take note of:
• The extent of the actual consultation and the ability of this council to respond to community views
• The inclusion of a traffic management plan. Totally irrelevant in most of Glen Eira’s master plans for its parks!
Consultation/Internal Review
The final Development Plan has been established following four rounds of public consultation, user group and key stakeholder submissions, relevant Council/state government sport and recreation principles, two traffic studies completed by GTA Traffic Consultants, additional traffic advice from VicRoads and a public meeting.
Professional advice from Kingston teams including Traffic and Transport Design, Parks and Depot Services, Local Laws, Engineering Design and Environmental Planning has also been sought.
Each round of public consultation included a targeted residential letterbox drop of approximately 1000 surveys and/or draft versions of the Plan to homes surrounding Dales Park, an online and hard copy survey for all interested stakeholders and an online targeted survey sent to 15 netball clubs, six school user groups, Netball Victoria, Clarinda/Oakleigh South and Highett/Moorabbin Village Committees, and Washington Drive Preschool.
The project was promoted on Council’s public website; Council’s Facebook page; Council’s Have Your Say web pages; via Council’s monthly newsletter Kingston Your City; via signage in Dales Park; and in the Kingston Leader newspapers.
In total 108 and 95 responses were received in round one and two of consultation respectively, plus a 60 signature petition in round three and a 244 signature petition in round four. 65 people attended the public meeting held on 29 August 2013.
The 60 signature petition received after the third round of consultation prompted Council to investigate alternative traffic management and car parking options for the Park. As a result, the 88 angled parking spaces proposed on Washington Drive median were replaced with 58 parallel parking spaces; this option was seen as a compromise which would allow greater retention of green space in the median whilst also providing additional formal car parking.
The second petition (244 signatures) was submitted opposing the revised Draft Plan and was received shortly before Council was scheduled to consider the Final Draft Plan (Ordinary Council meeting 24 June 2013). In response to this, Council deferred its decision regarding the Final Plan to instead take place at the Ordinary Council meeting on 22 July 2013.
Following the June Ordinary Council meeting, a project update was issued to 965 residences within the Dales Park catchment plus 135 other project stakeholders, petitioners and netball clubs. Updates have also been provided on Council’s public website throughout this time. The Project Update provided information about Council’s intention to consider the development proposals for the Park (on 22 July 2013) separate to the traffic management and parking issues outside the Park.
On the 22 July at the Ordinary Council meeting, a further postponement was made by Councillors until such time that discussions could be held with stakeholders and residents regarding their concerns about the car parking and traffic management proposals
Following the postponement of a decision regarding the endorsement of the draft Plan at the 22 July Ordinary Council meeting, a similar process as above was undertaken to invite residents and stakeholders to attend a public meeting on 29 August 2013 in order to discuss concerns or ideas relating to the draft Plan directly with North Ward Councillors. 65 people attended the Public Meeting during which residents, netball association members and Village Committee representatives shared their opinions
and feedback about the Plan with North Ward Councillors.
Key issues identified at the meeting which required additional consideration by Council include: managing traffic volume within the residential road network resulting from use of Dales Park for netball purposes; location and amount of car parking to be provided
to support use of Dales Park; and Warrigal Road access to Park. A number of other operational issues were raised including the option of introducing a permit parking system, increased monitoring of driver behavior and car parking on game days and general park maintenance including litter and graffiti management.
Traffic Management and vehicle parking on netball game days (Saturdays)
Traffic management, vehicle parking and pedestrian safety were highlighted
during the initial two rounds of consultation as the key matter which needed to be resolved. Residents and users proposed differing solutions to the ‘issue’ however they agreed that an issue exists. Residents dislike the impact that netball traffic has on their residential amenity; they don’t wish their streets to be overrun with vehicles and many believe that the volume of traffic on game days is unacceptable for a residential area. Likewise, netball users acknowledge that since parking on Warrigal Road was prohibited in 2010, the volume of traffic in residential streets has increased and as such have expressed desire for a formalised traffic management system within the park, including increased formal car parking and a focus on vehicle/pedestrian separation.
Both initial rounds of resident and stakeholder consultation highlighted a keen desire for vehicles to be removed from the ‘open grassy area’ north of the netball courts at Dales Park. Reasons given for this desire included pedestrian safety, enhancement of the grassed area for informal recreation purposes and retention year round of its function as a gazetted dog off-leash space.