Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.8 featured Xmas/Chanukah decorations. We note at the outset this item probably involved the longest ‘discussion’ of the evening going on for about 20 minutes. Far more than delegations, planning applications, financial reports, Amendments, etc. Good to see that councillors know what deserves top billing! We also remind readers that the razing of the conservatory was voted in on the basis that ‘restoration’ was too expensive and that council had to be frugal with its limited finances!

Lipshutz ‘expanded’ the recommendation to include lighting, Xmas trees and Chanukias in all four libraries, at the town hall and at Gesac. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: said there was some ‘vexed issues’ about installing both Xmas trees and Chanukias. Stated that this is a ‘largely Christian’ society where ‘Christmas is celebrated’ so it’s ‘appropriate’ to have ‘festive lights’ and a tree. Even people who aren’t religious still ‘celebrate Christmas’. Glen Eira has the largest Jewish population of ‘anywhere in Australia’ and since Chanukah ‘falls around the same time’ as Christmas it’s appropriate that ‘we also recognise that’. Council shouldn’t be just looking at ‘bricks and mortar’ but also how ‘people feel’ and that Council should recognise that there are people who want to ‘celebrate Christmas, celebrate Chanukah’.

OKOTEL: delighted with the motion because she has been ‘envious’ of what other councils such as Stonnington do in comparison to the ‘bare town hall’ that is in Glen Eira and thought that it was ’embarrassing’ that there’s nothing at the town hall here. Even though some people might think of such decorations as ‘trivial’ she doesn’t think so. Having decorations brings ‘hope’ and a feeling of ‘celebration’. Council should ‘help’ and ‘facilitate’ people entering into ‘that festive season’. Decorations are ‘simple’ but it helps people enter ‘into that spirit’.

SOUNNESS: said he was sorry because he thought that they should be ‘doing councillor’ things and not so much about religion which ‘isn’t to my comfort’. Foreshadowed that he would abstain from the vote.

DELAHUNTY: asked anyone that since Lipshutz’s motion covered all the recommendations plus the extra one about Gesac, she wanted to know what this added to the $40,000 cost.

JONES: said he assumed that ‘we would be adding an additional’ Christmas tree and Chanukiah but ‘wasn’t quite sure’ what the answer was.

After some confusion it was decided that this would be an extra $2000 – making it $42,000

DELAHUNTY: said she was in ‘two minds’ on the issue. Was happy with lighting but not with ‘religious icons on state buildings’. Said that what needed to be ‘weighed up’ wasn’t just the money but ‘the value’. Claimed that $42,000 wasn’t a ‘relatively small amount of money’ and what was important was the ‘value that the community could get from that’ and she wasn’t sure that the value was there. Didn’t think that one the one hand councillors could argue about being treated like adults (ie the previous item on the agenda about rate capping) and then turn around and argue that $42,000 was a small amount of money. Can’t support anything but Option A because she thought that’s what would best suit the community. Nothing wrong with having the town hall lit as ‘opposed to religious events’.

MAGEE: started by saying that of the 140,000 residents that each experiences Christmas differently. For some it’s ‘spiritual’, and for others just a holiday. Didn’t see any of the options as ‘particularly religious for myself’. Said he saw this as a ‘multicultural item’ and not a ‘spiritual’ item. Just like Chinese new year and the dragon, it was good to watch but that ‘doesnt mean that I would build one’. Didn’t see the Christmas tree as a ‘religious symbol’ but just a ‘symbol of Christmas’. Even with 20% of the community being Jewish he thought that ‘every single one of them’ would have a different view and for some it would be ‘spiritual’ and for others it ‘would be just a symbol’. Saw this as an opportunity to ‘stop being politically correct’ and ‘just be ourselves’. Saw this as an ‘acknowledgement of the time of year’. Nothing wrong with that.

HYAMS: said that all they’re doing is ‘acknowledging the two largest cultures’ in the community and it’s not only about ‘recognising minorities’ but recognising ‘all cultures’ and most people would be ‘Christian or Jewish’. He knows plenty of people who aren’t religious but still have Christmas trees or Chanukiah at home at this time of year. This would ‘add a lot to the festive feel of the city’. It’s like saying that the City of Melbourne shouldn’t be spending a lot on fireworks but people do ‘get a lot out of it’ and ‘enjoy it’. Same goes for mixing state and religion because that would mean not having Carols in the Park. He goes and doesn’t feel offended by carols that have ‘got a lot to do with a religion that I don’t believe’. It’s ‘all part of being in a multicultural society’. Melbourne city council puts up a chanukiah in Fed Square and so does New York but they have a huge Jewish population. Saw it as ‘acknowledging a multicultural society’.

ESAKOFF: was ‘sitting on the fence’ and she really wanted only lighting and what the motion is, is even more than what Stonnington has got. Said she was ‘hesitating’ to go for all the options. ‘At this stage’ she was more in favour of Option B.

DELAHUNTY then asked about acknowledging the ‘traditional owners of the land’ and the past issue of putting up the aboriginal flag at the town hall.

PILLING: said that council doesn’t have a ‘continual presence’ but only during Reconciliation Week.

DELAHUNTY said that it was before her time, but she was wondering about a request for a report on putting up a flagpole for the aboriginal flag ‘in line with many other councils including Stonnington’. Wanted to know what the ‘cost of that was’.

Again, confusion and Burke said that ‘off the top my head’ he didn’t remember the cost.

Delahunty then asked if this was going to be a yearly cost. Jones said that it would be a once off cost apart from maintenance.

HYAMS then said that according to his memory cost wasn’t the only reason against the aboriginal flag but the question was about flagpoles of the same height as the Australian flag. Burke confirmed this.

PILLING: was in favour of Option A because it ‘wasn’t too costly’

LOBO: said that the Christmas tree ‘has a significance’. Asked ‘why don’t we give the same money to the charities?’ The season is meant to ‘give out things to the poor’ so it should go to charity.

LI8PSHUTZ: said this isn’t only about ‘dollars’ but ‘human capitol’. Council does have parties in the park but it’s not like Christmas and that’s the time when it’s a ‘festive season’ for everyone. Thousands show up for Chanukah in the park and they aren’t all Jewish. ‘It’s summer, it’s warm, it’s Christmas’ and ‘people feel good about it’. So it’s an ‘opportunity’ for council to ‘do something about it’. If it was a continual cost of $42,000 then he wouldn’t be in favour of it, but it’s only a start up cost and then a ‘very small’ maintenance cost and it will ‘go on for years and years’. In Australia there isn’t the ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘we’re not scared of offending’ by ‘having a Christmas tree’ and not scared of offending Muslims by having a Chanukiah, or offending Christians.’We are a multicultural society’ and when people see the Christmas trees, Chanukiah and lights they will ‘recognise it’. It’s important and council spends money on infrastructure and ‘improving our libraries’, streets, but a criticism is given about what council doesn’t do in ‘bringing people together’. It will ‘make people feel good’

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: VOTING FOR – LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST: DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

This paragraph featured in our post of March 23^rd, 2011 –

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

Item 9.11 in the current agenda is another case where secrecy rules the roost – the Municipal Emergency Management Plan. For a council which has one of the highest flood risks in the metropolitan area and where hundreds of homes and businesses were inundated by the floods of February 2011 it is frankly unconscionable that the following statement is made by Waite –

A copy of the current version of the Plan is available in the Councillors’ Room for Councillors to view. As it contains personal information, it is not a public document.

There can be no excuse as to why this document is kept under wraps, especially not when it has the potential to impact on countless lives. Residents have every right to know exactly what the ‘changes’ are and how well positioned this council is in order to respond to any kind of large-scale emergency. Resorting to claims of ‘personal information’ simply will not do – and especially not when all of the following councils (to name but a few!) see no problem in publishing their Emergency Plans on their websites!

As always, the focus needs to be on councillors and whether they have the will to ensure that such practices are put to an end.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-moreland/emergency-management/municipal-emergency-management-plan.html

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Municipal-Emergency-Management-Plan.html

http://www.centralgoldfields.com.au/?id=23510100B6A0B1D9AEE15DBACA25799900168F98

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/MEMP.aspx

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/governance/documents/item/b9ccbf99.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=municipal+emergency+plan

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Services-and-Support/Emergency-Information/Emergency-Information

Apologies for this long post – but it’s important!

Item 9.2 for Tuesday night’s council meeting exemplifies in our view the continued ‘con job’ that this administration foists on residents and probably most councillors. Here are some very illuminating facts:

1. The bogus Planning Scheme Review of 2010 resolved to review all policies
2. In June 2012, Amendment C102 first reared its ugly head
3. GE DEBATES at the time provided the following commentary –

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

At the July 2012 Council meeting an unanimous resolution was passed to DEFER THE AMENDMENT. Here is the what Tang, Hyams, Esakoff, and Lobo stated at the time –

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-whiff-of-revolution/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/

So now, AFTER A 2 YEAR DELAY, Amendment C102 makes a comeback! Has it changed? Has it addressed all the concerns that were evident in 2012? Not by a long shot. Admittedly some things have changed as a result of the New Zones – but the basics, such as protecting ‘significant trees’, setbacks, drainage, and many of the other points we raised are still valid, relevant and represent a bonus to applicants and not residents!

That of course raises the very serious question of:

• Where is corporate memory, and especially the memory of councillors who (pretended?) at the time that they weren’t satisfied with the proposed changes? Since the 2012 and 2014 version are practically identical, and so is the officer’s report (word for word) why did they permit this amendment to be advertised as it stood? And the $64 question – how will they vote? Surely if it wasn’t good enough in 2012, it can’t be good enough now?
• Or was this all smoke and mirrors – with knowledge of what was to come via the new zones legislation and the 100 metre extension around activity centres for uses without permits? There can be absolutely no excuse for a delay of 2 years from Version 1 to Version 2, when there have hardly been any changes whatsoever except the removal of the car parking measures and objectives.
• Do the powers that be simply rely on poor memory so that they can ram through whatever accommodates developers rather than doing their jobs of trying their utmost to protect neighbourhood amenity? It would seem so we believe.
• The councillors ‘excuses’ this coming Tuesday should be a highlight!

Residents and readers also need to take a very, very close look at Amendment C120 (open space levy) and how this has been manipulated. We will comment in detail on this in the coming weeks.

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is quite literally a ‘doozy’! What stands out clearly is the ceding of more and more power to unelected bureaucrats and removing the ‘influence’ of councillors even further. This has been done via suggested changes to the Planning Delegations. Councillors have never had (unlike other councils) the option of ‘legalised’ ‘call ins’. That is, if one councillor decides that an application should come before council for decision, that option is open to him/her. This does not exist in Glen Eira. What is now up for decision makes the sidelining of councillors even more ‘efficient’. The proposal is that if no more than 3 objections come into an application, then officers may decide. They may also decide if an objector has received a phone call from a planning officer and thereby had the ‘opportunity’ to voice concerns! Even worse is that the power to grant an amended permit for three storeys is now also in the hands of the unelected if they have previously been involved.

Akehurst provides SOME details of other councils’ delegations and how Glen Eira fares in comparison. For example, he cites that Port Phillip requires 15 objections, Stonnington 6 objections. However, what is conveniently omitted in relation to these other councils is the option for a single councillor to insist that the application come before council – ie. even on parking dispensations the Port Phillip delegation states: Non-compliance with residential parking requirements (except that a minor dispensation can be determined by the Manager City Development or Neighbourhood Coordinators unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.

The best line however comes in the conclusion  to his report – Even with the recommended 3 objection limit our delegations would be more conservative than all the above mentioned Councils but our decision making performance would significantly improve. How effective ‘decision making’ is predicated on the number of objections is, of course, unstated and ultimately quite ridiculous.

But there’s even more of totally unsubstantiated and suspect logic. We quote directly from Akehurst’s report –

Attendees at DPC are dropping. Increasingly objectors and even applicants are not attending. This is likely the outcome of town planning rules which are now clearer.

Council also proposes to shorten the ‘lay off period’ over Christmas since this disadvantages the applicant and ‘benefits the objector’. During this time, phone calls may suffice! – On the last dot point, it is proposed that each objector has been spoken to either in person or telephone by a senior planning officer as delegated by the manager (the outcomes of which would be formally recorded on file). The senior officer will repeatedly attempt to contact an objector over a 48 hour period, after which a decision can be made.

This approach would still satisfy a fundamental principle of Glen Eira’s town planning process by allowing objectors an opportunity to elaborate on their objection with the decision maker. This would build on and follow the recent ‘consultation/mediation’ process adopted for applications with 1 objection.

Ironically we also have in this same agenda more evidence of how poorly council informs residents of what is going on in their direct vicinity. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the practise of minimal notification whenever many objections are anticipated, is alive and well. Item 9.1 features an application for 13 double storeys in Carnegie. Only 13 properties were notified, 16 notices sent and 44 objections received.

There is much more more that we will be commenting upon in the days ahead. However of real interest is this in camera item

12.2 which relates to the awarding of the contract for 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – New Building, Civil Works and Landscaping.

Number of tenders received Four

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against Three

Estimated contract value $8m

Surely residents deserve some public statement on what is happening at Duncan Mackinnon and why a project that originally was costed at 7 million has blown out to nearly ten million and now another 8 million possibly? And why the years and years of delay?

PS – UNRELATED, BUT WE’VE RECEIVED A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY BY A RESIDENT WHICH REVEALS THE CARNAGE ALREADY UNDERWAY FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE. Location is corner of Bond/Station Streets.

Bayside has implemented what the latest bill before parliament proposes – the setting up of a CEO employment committee. How this will ultimately impact on the ‘job for life’ approach taken in Glen Eira is open to debate. We remind readers that since Newton was appointed in 2000 his contract has NEVER BEEN ADVERTISED; the community is not privy to the Key Performance Indicators of the contract, and legal battles have raged periodically.

Below is the Bayside Media Release and a rundown of neighbouring councils and the dates of their CEO appointments.

CEO Employment Matters Committee – Chairperson

Bayside City Council invites applications from suitably qualified persons for appointment to Council’s Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee as Chairperson for an initial term of up to three years with an option to review annually.

It is proposed that the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee will meet approximately five (5) times per year.  A per meeting remuneration fee is offered with this role.

The Chief Executive Officers Employment Matters Committee will operate as an Advisory Committee to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.  The key functions and responsibilities of this Committee are:

• To make recommendations to Council on contractual matters relating to the Chief Executive Officer or the person appointed to act as the Chief Executive Officer including the following:
  • The appointment of the Chief Executive Officer;
  • Remuneration and conditions of appointment of the Chief Executive Officer
  • Any extension of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94(4)
• To conduct performance reviews of the Chief Executive Officer; and
• To perform any other prescribed functions and responsibilities.

Applications received for the role of Chairperson will be assessed against:

• Demonstrated human resource management skills, senior business experience and qualifications;
• Experience in senior management recruitment;
• Recognised ability in relation to performance management and development of Executive level staff; and
• Previous experience or facilitation experience working with Executive Governance bodies or Board Members in membership and/or facilitation roles.

Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee Charter (PDF, 902KB)

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/latest_news.htm

Bayside – Adrian Robb – 2008

Port Phillip – Tracey Slatter – 2013

Kingston – John Nevins – 2005

Stonnington – Warren Roberts – 2009

Boroondara – Philip Storer – 2012

Manningham – Joe Carbone – 2012

Monash – Andi Diamond – 2012