Below we feature the incredible ‘discussion’ on the Sporting Ground Allocation Policy. We urge readers to carefully note:
- Delahunty’s turncoat performance
- Okotel’s remarks
- Lipshutz’s inanities and little games of semantics
- Both Hyams and Lipshutz’s attempts to win favour with Ajax – quite frankly we do not believe a word of it!
- Control vested 100% in the hands of Burke and his cohorts, especially in regards to Expressions of Interest since the policy gives these bureaucrats the authority to ‘invite’ submissions!
- Not one councillor commented or provided any reasons as to why ‘indoor recreation facilities’ (ie GESAC BASKETBALL ALLOCATIONS) are EXEMPT from this policy! To our mind the reason is obvious – so that the Warriors can continue unimpeded and no one will ever know whether or not they are fulfilling to the cent the obligations of their allocations!
ITEM 9.12 – SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATION POLICY
Delahunty moved motion with some changes – ie. putting policy up on website; to help public understand role of local government in sport; the policy would apply to Expressions of Interest by ‘inviting applications from any party’ and ‘Eoi’s will only be called if there is a permanent vacancy’. Hyams seconded.
DELAHUNTY: said this was a ‘long time coming’ but it doesn’t mean that the ‘operational’ processes ‘haven’t been applied’. Said that she’s always believed that if ‘we are applying something operationally’ then there should be a policy that is clearly ‘understood’ and ‘available’ to the public. This ‘helps the public understand’ council’s ‘role and commitment’ to local sport which is the ‘fabric of our society’ and helps people participate. Council is the ‘guardian of the places’ where this happens but council shouldn’t be ‘managing that in a different way to other people in Victoria’. Said that her objectives with the amendments were to ‘make it clearer what sort of’ principles are involved, but not ‘to differ terribly much from our municipal neighbours’. Went on to say that if Glen Eira did ‘differ’ then it would cause ‘operational chaos’. Also stated that by putting in ‘subjective’ criteria this would help people understand how council sees its ‘role’ BUT there may be times when ‘we may not be able to apply those principles’. This is something that officers have always ‘grappled with’ and the policy won’t cause a major ‘upheaval’ in regards to this since it’s important to have a ‘transparent policy’. She ‘recommends’ the amendments since they don’t basically change the ‘operational’ nature of what has already been happening. The amendments just ‘make it clearer’. The changes to ‘purpose’ explain ‘why we have written the document’. Second amendment was to ‘better explain the scope and not to change it’. Said she found that the McKinnon Basketball Association and some of its members use the terms ‘allocation’ and ‘expression of interest’ as ‘interchangeable’ and this has been ‘widely misunderstood’. The third change was in regards to the table and this sought to ‘clarify how many points were available’. On the expressions of interest she wanted it better understood so ‘that’s why I put in some subjective points’ that extend parts of the community plan, health plan into this policy. Importance of community sport ‘can’t be underestimated’ but ‘operationally’ it’s important that council doesn’t ‘differ that much’ from other councils.
HYAMS: said the policy sets out in a ‘straight forward and transparent way’ how grounds are allocated. The policy isn’t ‘being done for a particular football club’ but that’s ‘not so’. Said that they ‘brought to their attention’ the ‘need for policy’ and that ‘one incident brings shortcomings to our attention’ and this is an example of that. Claimed that council even decided to have a policy before all the public questions started flooding in from Ajax. Said that the policy shows that ‘we don’t throw’ out existing clubs if they are meeting their ‘obligations’. Some people might be suggesting this but he plays for a club that isn’t in Glen Eira and wouldn’t want that to happen so he could play in Glen Eira. Some ‘suggestions’ have been that council should consider the ‘number of residents in each club’ but ‘doing that may be difficult if not impossible’ but ‘we do it for community grants in a slightly different way’. The EOI ‘supposes a community connection’ and that’s ‘important’. ‘Personally’ he would like to have junior and seniors of the same club ‘playing together’ but he ‘understands’ that ‘that was not the will of the group’. Thought that Delahunty’s changes ‘improve’ the policy ‘especially’ on the tables and explaining that these also apply to EOI’s. The real solution is more open space and the policy sets out the plan for the racecourse and will be reviewed then or other times deemed necesary.
OKOTEL: appreciated the ‘work of officers’ and councillors for the policy but ‘I have been highly disappointed with the process that council has undertaken’. Said that she had ‘asked for a process of consultation’ with sporting groups and community ‘before we put this policy to the vote’ because this is a ‘new policy’. Previously council had been merely operating ‘on tradition’ and there was ‘no written documents before us’. Because this is new and ‘none of us are experts’ it ‘would have been appropriate’ for council to ‘engage in some form of’ consultation. Therefore she ‘doesn’t feel comfortable voting on a motion’ that she’s ‘unfamiliar with’ and therefore making a decision on behalf of people was ‘inappropriate without some level of feedback from the community’. As a result she contacted some sports clubs herself and asked them if they had any comments. Said that the feedback ‘wasn’t that much’. When she raised the need previously she was told that inviting comments would only invite feedback that ‘might polarise the community, cause division’ therefore ‘it is best not to engage in consultation’. ‘I think that was entirely inappropriate and misconceived’ and that ‘we should never shy away from consultation with the community’. Quoted Delahunty saying that council is ‘guardian’ of sport. She thought that ‘partners’ is better so ‘it’s important that we do have feedback from our community’ on ‘such policies’. Said that the feedback from clubs was that there ‘was a lack of clarity in our policy’ as to clubs losing their allocations, and ‘what the deduction of penalty points would mean’ and she also ‘felt that there was uncertainty in that respect’. She’s ‘disappointed that such recommendations haven’t been taken into consideration’. She hoped that councillors vote against the policy but if not that any future review looks at these issues.
MAGEE: said he ‘disagreed with all speakers so far’. There is not ‘need to consult’ on sporting policy since ‘all that matters is longevity’. Said that clubs ‘don’t look at it as a seasonal allocation’. Said he can accept the policy ‘because it’s simple’. Said that they’re trying to do a ‘policy by committee’ and that’s not working. ‘This is a policy looking for a purpose’ and the purpose is that people who have a ground ‘are used to it’. Said that the argument that people who live around a ground have got a ‘greater connectivity’ to that ground and therefore ‘should score higher’ is not right. Didn’t think that any clubs would ever ‘fold up and move out from Glen Eira’ or that there would ever be enough grounds. Even if the racecourse is opened up he would bet that ‘Glen Eira would not be the committee of management’ and therefore allocations ‘would not be up to us’, so ‘this policy won’t matter’. He can’t see anything that would mean that ‘this policy is actually needed’. ‘The policy needs to be kept simply because the clubs don’t care’. All clubs worry about is ‘tenure’ and that’s ‘all this is about’. ‘You don’t need to go ask them that’. Said he was ‘disappointed’ that ‘we’re trying to make something that is relatively simple’ and ‘complicate’ it.
LIPSHUTZ: brought up a point about ‘incorporated’ bodies and ‘incorporated associations’. After some confusion, Delahunty didn’t accept. Lipshutz then said Magee is right in that ‘not much is going to change’. However, pavilions and grounds are important to council and clubs don’t have ‘adverse possession’ claims. So council does have an ‘obligation’ to act in accordance with policy. Said that if there is no policy then it’s ‘open slather and let the officers do as they wish’. A policy ‘gives a framework’ on how ‘things should be done’. Referred to Okotel saying that council should consult but ‘council does not consult on policies. Council consults on strategies’. Said that like Hyams he would like to see seniors and juniors together but that ‘the group’ didn’t agree on ‘this one’. Referred to sport and the ‘corruption’ that went on in Brimbank council where ‘clubs’ took ‘allocations for clubs or money or whatever’ but this ‘can’t happen here’ because there’s a ‘policy that doesn’t allow that’. In Glen Eira ‘council doesn’t get involved, council doesn’t have a say in who gets allocation’ because ‘the officers make that decision’. But ‘we set the framework’. Said that every corporate body has a ‘group’ that sets policy but then ‘officers implement that policy’. At this point LOBO VOTED AGAINST GIVING LIPSHUTZ A TIME EXTENSION. Lipshutz went on with ‘we have to have a franmework that is clear and unambiguous’. Said that the issue ‘didn’t come to council today out of the blue’ and that ‘every councillor’ has discussed it.
LOBO: said that if ‘I don’t know how minutes are taken at an assembly’ then Lipshutz should know the difference between operations and policy. Said that the latter is established on ‘legal matters’. Here ‘smooth functioning of sports club is all that is required’. If people don’t complain then this shouldn’t be ‘a big hassle’. He will ‘stick to the officers’ recommendation’.
DELAHUNTY: started by saying that it’s not like the officers ‘have been operating without guidelines’. They’ve had strategies and ‘conversations’. Said that there’s not this policy because of the ‘commitment to transparency’ so what’s been previously done under ‘operational’ they are now done under policy and this should be ‘open to the public’. Said this should be true for ‘all operational decisions’ but particularly for decisions that ‘affect so many people’. Council is ‘guardian’ of the facilities so they have to make sure to ensure the ‘longevity’ of these facilities. Said there are ‘principles written into the policy’ because Glen Eira doesn’t have a ‘strategy’ on community sport. Said again that her changes do not alter ‘operational’ matters but that ‘they do seek to make those decisions more transparent’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness. VOTING AGAINST – Lobo, Magee, Okotel
December 20, 2013 at 4:04 PM
It is really quite incredible the number of times that the slogan “transparency and accountability” gushes forth from most of these councillors mouths. Yet, everything, and I mean everything, that this council does is devoid of transparency and accountability. The continual misrepresentation of the true facts, or the misleading, absent, incomplete, information is habitual. What I object to most of all is the ongoing games that the lawyers in Hyams and Lipshutz continue to play. Resorting to the stupid semantics of policy versus strategy is insulting and ultimately meaningless. It is the last resort defence of so many indefensible actions.
The authors of the post have I think succeeded in pinning the tail on all these donkeys – this time with the surprise exception of Okotel. Residents have every right to be involved in the setting of objectives (policy) – that after all is what the community plan is about. Strategy should also come under public scrutiny and input as the infamous mantra of ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ has shown in the past. When “operations” are secret and performed at the whim of faceless men, who don’t have to explain anything to anyone, then we are all in trouble. These councillors have made doubly sure that this continues in all areas as a result of their delegating practically everything to unelected and too well paid pen pushers and lackeys.
December 20, 2013 at 4:48 PM
I see that Council have yielded to Gibbs and McLeans demand for a $2000pa pay rise (equates to a pay rise of around $500 per hour! Nothing mentioned of Gibbs additional “consulting” fees. They will both want to stay on the Committee for another 20 years thanks to the ongoing generosity of the Glen Eira Ratepayer.
December 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Ben you pay for loyalty! Newton sets the wages for his underlings not council. A superb system to not only get loyalty but silence and 100% doing what you’re told. If your $200,000+ job relies on being friends with Newton, how would you act? For someone like Akehurst who dates from the stone age this is his last stop. I don’t think anyone else would employ him so he has got to be a good boy if he wants to please Newton and keep his job.
December 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM
Glen Eira Council is full of those only thinking of keeping their job to retirement. You really reckon Newton would get a job elsewhere? No chance. Gibbs and McLean are barely alive and long past retirement, Burke’s best (is that an oxymoron?) is in the past. A Council with some smarts would help to bring about the change that Glen Eira desperately needs but it ain’t going to come from the jelly backs there at present.
December 20, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Okotel has told all and sundry of the tactics that Newton and the gang use all the time. No consultation because this would “polarise” the community and heaven help us we can’t have “division”. Our poor little egos and brains couldn’t handle that. I would bet that this kind of rubbish comes from Newton, Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Pilling and Sounness the latest draftees into the gang.
December 20, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Macca. A conspiracy around every corner .Ben again shows lack of grey matter. Ever heard of preparation and consultation.I reckon they earn about $100.00 dollars an hour without accounting for travelling time.
December 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Not a conspiracy at all. It’s called staying in power and playing the political games.
Reckon your maths needs a lot of work. 4 meetings per year where there’s an internal and external auditor who prepare reports means maybe an hour of reading for each meeting. That makes it 8 hours per year. Pretty close to $900 per hour by my calculations. Not bad for showing up for a few hours.
December 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Cr Lipshutz’ ill-advised remarks concerning strategy vs policy deserve condemnation, or at least a wider appreciation of the significance. They go to the heart of continuing governance problems in Glen Eira. When Council delegates authority to staff, it does so with a limitation that the authority is exercised “in accordance with any guidelines or policies Council may from time to time adopt”. If a Council strategy isn’t the same as a policy then staff are free to ignore Council strategies.
Is this ethical? There is no requirement for staff to act ethically. Councillors supposedly are obliged to, according to their Code of Conduct. If they offload something to staff, then ethics, transparency and accountability can be avoided.
It would be a remarkable councillor that could develop policy without consulting the community when their Code requires they “make these decisions in accordance with the principles set out [in the Code], in the best interests of the community as a whole”. If Cr Lipshutz is correct, then the 2009/10 “consultation” over the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme was an aberration. This may explain the later council resolution to ignore community feedback and accept uncritically the recommendations subsequently provided by Staff.
December 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Okotel is well trained what to say before the council meetings. Why did she not insist on public consultation for new residential zones? Is she independent or does she belong to labor party?
December 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM
She’s in the Liberal Party…..don’t you recall her ticket?
December 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM
More Lipshutz’s babble
He’s been a Councillor since 2004 and in December 2013 when a sports allocation policy is finally done (flaws and all) he gets up and says “if there is no policy then it’s ‘open slather and let the officers do as they wish’.”
So …. after 10 years of open slather, officers have now formalised what they have been doing and put the heading “policy” on it. It’s now set in concrete .
Am I supposed to think that this is a step in the right direction.
December 21, 2013 at 8:58 AM
The gang led by Hyams and Lipshutz doing anything for Ajax. Watch how quickly Ajax will have the keys to the city after all (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
December 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Lipshutz has said plenty of times that just because other councils do something differently then Glen Eira doesn’t have to follow. Now there’s the opposite argument that Glen Eira has to be like other councils. A real shame how selective this type of crap is and that it doesn’t apply to the very important things like notice of motion and overall governance.
December 21, 2013 at 11:57 AM
I wanna know what action we the residents& ratepayers can collectively take to force council to take us seriously.
eg a biggie- traffic diverting into out local resi streets at speeds unknown before & they don’t give sh…t! Sounness said that he thought Council was going to reduce limits to 40kph in local streets surrounding major shopping strips but alas i haven’t heard from him again!
How about some suggestions people….stop just complaining on this we & move into real action mode!
December 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Delahunty is playing it safe. She wants her role as Councillor to be a springboard to bigger political roles. Newton can break her and discredit her, just as he did with Penhalluriack. All the Councillors are in fear because the ultimate power in Glen Eira rests with Newton.
December 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Don’t disagree with this statement but is it right that a Council Public Servant(and who failed at the State and Federal levels) command such power over elected representatives? We as ratepayers did appoint Councillors and had no say at all on Newton and his cronies.
December 21, 2013 at 7:33 PM
GE City Council- http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-08-24/
December 21, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Okotel’s comments on previous discussions re community consultation confirm all that residents has been saying – despite the words appearing on Council’s website, Council sucks.
Her words are that
“When she raised the need previously she was told that inviting comments would only invite feedback that ‘might polarise the community, cause division’ therefore ‘it is best not to engage in consultation’. ‘I think that was entirely inappropriate and misconceived’ and that ‘we should never shy away from consultation with the community’.
Good on ya for highlighting it Okotel – now just what actions are required, by yourself and other Councillors and residents to reverse this travesty. Residents will whole heartedly join you in this quest, Councillors will have to be dragged kicking and screaming