11.2 Right of reply
(a) Cr Delahunty.
“I feel that my decision making has been misrepresented by comments made by the friends of Caulfield Park president David Wilde and reported in today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader on-line and I seek to restore the balance to the public debate. In other mediums by the same person purporting to represent the entire group I and one of my colleagues was described as grossly incompetent and treacherous. In a further public flyer it was intimated that I said the conservatory was an icon and that I was hypocritical and deceptive. In yet another piece of correspondence I along with other Councillors were described as arrogant and deceptive. About these comments I would like to say that I will always defend the rights of people to disagree with me but I will not stand by and allow unprofessional and seemingly contradictory insults to be used. I condemn those comments as I have done in the past.
So onto the misrepresentation of my decision making in the comments today. The comments today suggest that we have snubbed our nose at the community. So to address the survey results. The report showed that the structural issues were so great that retention as the community called for was not really an option. Instead, as I spoke about at the Council Meeting
at the time the conservatory would have been a substantially new one if we were to go ahead with it. I therefore felt that the community consultation was based on a now unrealistic premise that there was an option to actually retain the conservatory in the first place. The advice we received also said there is no heritage value in to current structure. Instead it is largely, like my house, owed to 1970s architecture.
The cost is significant not as the comments say today merely insignificant and I take all decisions on costs very seriously regardless of how minor they might seem in the overall budget. The comments today also suggest that we should be condemned for the money we are spending on open space in other areas of the municipality areas that do not have parks let alone ones as large as Caulfield Park. Areas where residents get into a car to drive to find access to public space. It is money well spent and it is spent at the behest of the wider municipality. We could go back into consultation and check with the community and we could ask. So substantially the question would probably be; would you like to build a pretty much new conservatory using elements of an old conservatory without any historical significance in Caulfield Park for around half a million dollars at the very least. If so, please nominate which areas of Glen Eira you would like us to remove services from or which areas of open space you would like us to forego in order to provide this or please indicate if you are happy to have your rates increased to accommodate this expenditure. See, I don’t need to spend more ratepayers money to have this conversation because I already know what the answer will be. With the cost of living increases that families are facing in Glen Eira in the face of a cruel Federal Budget it seems rather elitist to insist that Council reach into the pockets of residents to deliver a conservatory to Caulfield Park and I hope this goes some way to balancing the public debate in this area.”
May 26, 2014 at 12:38 PM
I am not a member of the Friends and neither am I that fussed about the conservatory building. Delahunty’s response is very slick and neatly sidesteps the main issues -(1) why the building has been allowed to fall into such disrepair (2) why large amounts of public money was needlessly spent on consultation after consultation when the desired outcomes weren’t achieved the first time around (3) it would be nice if the community was asked how their rates be spent and even nicer if they were listened to.
May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM
What Delahunty is highlighting is the sheer incompetence of Newton and Burke. Time and time again, they waste ratepayers money on consultation and then realise they have no money left to spend on the project! Time for the public bureaucrats to go. An independent Audit Committee would initiate a review but alas Newton wouldn’t want one of those.
May 26, 2014 at 1:30 PM
Lipshutz would not like it either. I cannot understand why more Councillors do not attend the Audit Committee to keep the bastards honest.
May 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM
Cr Lobo is an Auditor. Why is he not on the Audit Committee? He has the background having work in many banks around the world.
May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM
That is precisely my point. Why does Lobo (and any other Councillor) not attend. He does not have to be a member of the Audit Committee. Penhalluriack used to attend even though he was not a member.
May 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Lobo lasted about 7 months on the audit committee. Any councillor with financial nous would not be welcome. More to the point, Lipshutz would not like his (Lipshutz’s) ignorance being shown up and by someone who doesn’t belong to the Lipshutz fan club.
May 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Councillors are not informed where and when the Audit Committee meetings take place. It is a secret club run by Newton and Lipshutz.
May 28, 2014 at 10:57 AM
For those interested in Audit Committees and how other councils go about ensuring transparency and accountability, we direct readers to the Monash Council’s report on how they appointed their latest independent Chair of their Audit Committee. The contrast with Glen Eira’s secrecy is obvious –
Click to access 6.1.pdf
On another unrelated item from Monash concerning Ministerial Intervention and removal of third party objection rights (c/w C60) we highlight the following report –
Click to access 7.4.pdf
May 28, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Cr Lobo you are not an auditor. Nice try though.
May 28, 2014 at 8:37 PM
Amazingly no-one on Council has finance experience, therefore you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and you get Lipshutz and Sounness. This is fine if you have Independent members with financial experience on the Committee which unfortunately Glen Eira does not have. This Council was sacked (which I assume included Gibbs and McLean) but Newton got em back. This has to change but won’t for at least the next 5 years thanks to the Jellyback Councillors.
May 28, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Cr Lobo has a finance degree and well qualified for the Audit Committee. He was kicked off the Audit Committee. He deserves to be on the Committee, not Cr Lipshutz.
May 29, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Cr Lobo is Mayor Quality you can’t say that about Lipshutz. Cr Lobo can speck in seven different languages and has lived and worked in five countries. He is the right man for the Audit Committee.
May 29, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Cr Lobo you do not have a finance degree. Nice try though.
May 26, 2014 at 1:43 PM
Cr Delahunty’s Statement is an odd piece of rhetoric. I’m struggling to work out which statements she considers to be misrepresentations of what she has said. As for calling people “unprofessional”, that is itself sounding elitist. The original report made a number of assertions without evidence, and I notice Cr Delahunty is doing the same in her statement. I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the heritage values myself, not without a more detailed report identifying the contributing elements and their origin. Without the detail I’m suspicious.
I resent her crude use of rhetorical devices to manipulate people into accepting the decision was soundly based. We don’t get consulted about most of Council’s expenditure concerning open space, whether it be new pavillions, paving over open space, concrete plinthing, relocation of council depot into Caulfield Park, or removal of trees. Council grossly under-spends on expanding open space and hasn’t made a serious attempt to improve its distribution.
The costs might mean it is not “worth it”, depending on how worth is assessed, but Cr Delahunty has engaged in hyperbole in costing things at “half a million dollars”. An average tender figure at $297K was inflated to “more than $350K” to cover original project goals, against which has to be offset the $140K or more quoted for demolition and rehabilitation works.
I am not a member of FoCP. I just periodically visit the park and walk through the conservatory. Council doesn’t provide public open space where I live.
May 26, 2014 at 10:47 PM
It’s very strange that something which is repeatedly stated to have some “heritage value” years ago, suddenly has NO heritage value in the latest officer’s report and which Delahunty is so very quick to repeat. We’ve gone back over the minutes and found the following:
the heritage preservation of the conservatory building (in particular
the roof trusses); (13th December 2006)
the building has some heritage value, in particular the roof trusses. These
would need to be retained or relocated. (14th December 2010)
Little has been done to the building in recent years pending a Council decision about its future use. (14th December 2010)
Crs Pilling/Penhalluriack
(a) That Council recognises the heritage value of the Caulfield Park
Conservatory.
(b) That Council determines not to proceed with an Expression of Interest
campaign for the Caulfield Park Conservatory.
(c) That Council considers funding in the 2012/13 budget for the repair and
full restoration of the Caulfield Park Conservatory.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED. (11th October 2011)
Another issue that we came across from the archives is the fate of the Bentleigh Rotunda. “Consultation” at undoubted expense took place eons ago and is first mentioned in the minutes of 2nd February 2010. So for over 4 years nothing has been done. Residents should not be surprised therefore when in the very near future they learn that this area will be sold off to commercial interests and the old argument will be that it is either inappropriate as “open space”, too expensive to maintain, and that commercial interests fit well into a commercial centre! The problem is that after 4 years of doing bugger all the pigeon toilet still remains!
May 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM
Mary would you please apply you reasoning to all your decision making, except the bit were you say “I already know what the answer will be” that was a very dumb statement, you have to do better than that. Do you really know what the answer would be after all it been back a forth a good few times always with the same result to keep the building. How about turning that brain power into looking at the methods the administration uses to get its way with the councillors, and then questioning these methods, because they come with a large price tag as well.
May 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM
Mary, Mary quite contrary.
A million bucks for Elsternwick sure looks good on election campaigns and personal glory even though it sells out other locals in Camden. Congratulations to Andrew Newton for getting contrary Mary on side.
May 26, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Good on Mary. The so-called friends of Caulfield Park are a relatively small group of backward thinking folk who have nothing to do and all day to do it in. They get a disproportionate amount of publicity thereby occupying column inches that other way more important matters could use.
Let’s direct our attention to the profligacy within the Council. Equipment not much used replaced. Money thrown at unnecessary road works. Katandra Street is a current example – wasteful in the extreme.
There is an urgent need for an external management consultancy to thoroughly investigate management and expenditure practices. Won’t happen under this weak Council I’m afraid, And judging by the apathy of voters we’re unlikely to get a Council that will bite the bullet.
May 26, 2014 at 9:56 PM
If we had an independent audit committee like every other Council in Victoria, they could get the internal auditors to undertake the management review.
May 26, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Audit committees and their independence is the tip of the iceberg in Glen Eira. The single and most important impediment to a responsive and transparent council is the continued reappointment of Newton and the election of cowardly – and dare I say it – treacherous councillors.
May 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM
I have no problem with Delahunty responding to some of the expressions and inferences purported to have come from the Friends of Caulfield Park. However, while such a discussions can and should occur, they do have a habit of becoming distractions and deflecting attention away for the major issue. Something which is happening here.
In this case, the major issue is the “significant extra costs” with these costs being defined as the difference between Council’s estimate of $120K (to restore the building and replant the interior) and the average of tenders received for building restoration $297K. So why the difference?
Since the tendered restoration works, as per Delahunty’s reply, are supported by a report on the conservatory’s structural issues attention shifts to the Council’s cost estimate – an estimate made within the last 12 months and after numerous community consultations in the past 5 years all recorded a preference to restore and replant the Conservatory.
Although it is reasonable to expect structural report was requested and presented prior to Council determining its cost estimate, no such documentation has been presented or even referred to. Yet this $120K is key in determining the “significant extra costs”. Council therefore needs to provide the basis for its cost estimates – structural issues do not occur overnight and Council has had ample opportunity to assess the structure.
As unpalatable as it seems, this probably won’t happen. Council’s unexplained low-ball estimate will remain unquestioned by Councillors and residents requests for substantiation will be stonewalled. The landmark conservatory will disappear into the history books, another victim of Council’s pursuit of its own agenda regardless of community views and community opposition.
May 27, 2014 at 6:39 PM
Extra millions have been found for the pool in the south east corner of the municipality and now we seem to be supporting an empty basketball complex there, when extra air conditioning was required for GESAC then the maternal health budget was robbed for that small sum of $120,000, then the Duncan McKinnon pav. ran over-budget, but the coin was found. Then there have need hundreds of kilometres of yellow concrete pagthways and concrete plinths built without our approval… THE MONEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE… WE MAY HAVE FRIENDS THE CONCRETERS THOUGH! THEN THERE WAS THE TOILET IN HAWTHORN ROAD AT A COST OF MORE THAN A LARGE HOME AND LAND WITH TWO TOILETS AND GARAGE FOR ABOUT THE Same COST.
Yes,I am a member of F of CP and I note how much council appears to dislike this group’s interest in Parks… an attitude which I find quite puzzling. It seems to me that anyone who dares to express an independant view in this municipality no matter what about, is treated with disdain just as Cr Penhalluriak regarding Legionnaires disease in the mulch heap which council used in a very manipulative manner in order to turn the public as voters against this man and now sneakily they have erected a sign there warning members of the public re the dangers of mulch concerning the respiratory system. Some of these diseases are lifelong once contracted.
WHY NOT SPEND THE MONEY ON RENOVATION THIS YEAR… AS IT HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR AND AS IN THE CASE OF DOMESTIC LIVING -PROGRAMS HAVE THE LANDSCAPING CARRIED OUT IN THE NEXT YEAR.
Maybe Friends of Caulfied Park and a commercial company could carry out the re-planting at a great saving.
I really wonder if there are plans for a restaurant afoot though! Tom Waterhouse may run a book on this if any punters are interested!
May 28, 2014 at 11:36 PM
I am disgusted at the Council’s mismanagement of this whole saga spanning some years. Money spent on glossy brochures, surveys, man hours spent by Councillors in meetings and by administrative staff over time, all add up to what can only be described as a complete stuff up. All probably costing more than the original repair estimate.
Council should admit that if proper basic, scheduled maintenance had been carried out over its lifetime, particularly recent years, the conservatory would not be in its present state of disrepair and there would be no need for all this argy bargy. Will be interested to see the cost of demolition.
May 29, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Cost of demolition will be offset by the new cafe that will be built on the site.
May 29, 2014 at 6:22 PM
The motion moved/seconded by Crs Lipshutz and Delahunty includes an estimate of $140K for demolition and rehabilitiation. I expect the costs will eventually be defrayed through a lease to Grill’d. To quote their corporate spin, “there should be a Grill’d restaurant just about everywhere”.