Council is required by law to report back to its residents on its performance throughout the year. This comes under the umbrella of Best Value, and the objective is to provide quantifiable measures which would indicate whether council is actually improving in its performance in all service areas. The legislation basically requires a council to ensure that:
(c) each service provided by a Council must be accessible to those members of the community for whom the service is intended;
(d) a Council must achieve continuous improvement in the provision of services for its community;
(e) a Council must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides;
(f) a Council must report regularly to its community on its achievements in relation to the principles set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)
Given this, we have to ask:
- Why does council remove the previous Best Value reports from its website, so comparisons from year to year become impossible?
- How well do any of the stated Quality & Cost Standards actually provide real evidence of continued service improvement?
- How can the quoted CPI figures be so different throughout one single document when the Best Value Report is supposed to be an analysis for the entire year? For example: on page 47 we are told it is 3%; on page 13 it becomes 2.8% and on page 15 it is 2%. Since increased costs are ‘justified’ via applying CPI increases, we have to wonder whether higher CPI rates are used to camouflage what’s really been going on!
We’ve uploaded the full document HERE, and ask residents not to laugh, especially at the following – the Town Planning ‘evaluation’. Please note:
- That of a 3 page report, 2 pages are devoted to self congratulations!
- And, whether the ‘standards’ are really revealing what they should reveal. For example: ‘Acceptance of policy by community’ is ‘measured’ by the number of alleged resident objections. Of course, in Glen Eira speak, VCAT hike rises has nothing to do with residents thinking twice about objecting. Nor does the prospect of facing a panel of developer ‘experts’ and barristers, etc. etc. etc.
- We also have serious doubts about any of the figures cited, especially when the last three Service reports stated that only 56%, 67% and 70% of new dwellings were sited in Housing Diversity. Of course this new figure of 86% is nothing but an aberration due to the 442 apartments that will constitute the first part of the Caulfield Village – a Priority Development zone!
We finally remind readers that year after year the 400 survey results that constitute the Community Satisfaction Report, have highlighted planning, traffic and consultation as the major failures of this council. Nothing in the Best Value report changes anything, nor even indicates ‘progress’ and ‘continuous service improvement’.
Again, we ask that readers refrain from laughter when perusing the following:
Glen Eira Debates 
August 6, 2014 at 3:19 PM
I’m assuming that the quoted sections in the post come from the local government act. The outcomes that a council “must” reach have not been reached. No one has ever “consulted” with me in any real way for my views on the planning scheme. I had to find out about the new zones from the Minister and not from my elected representatives. I was denied the opportunity to have any say.
Using the fast track data as an example of “excellence” is pretty much insulting when council can’t even hit its target figure for processing applications. Fast tracking isn’t there to assist residents. It’s designed to make things a lot easier for developers in the main and the result is not to give enough time to people to object – even if they have the legal right to object.
Delegated planning meetings and planning conferences invariably favour developers and that’s if they even bother to show up. Consensus and resolution is a rarity. I”d be far more inclined to believe this council if they conducted and published the results of surveys from both sides – applicants and objectors and asked each the basic question of “was it worth your while to show up to these meetings, or was it simply a waste of your precious time?” I think that the answers to a question like this would provide a far clearer picture of how effective and beneficial this process was to residents.
August 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM
This mob don’t even get to the low low low low benchmark of 60%. Talk about lowering the bar to nuthin’
August 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM
It is pretty clear Council doesn’t take the Best Value Principles seriously. If you were to go out to tender for the provision of these services you’d need far far more focused quality and cost metrics. For most of the services listed in the BVP report there simply are no costs listed. In the case of Town Planning, the chosen “quality” metrics have very little relationship with the goals and outcomes listed in the Planning Scheme. A fundamental question is whether planning decisions are being made in accordance with the decision criteria and amenity standards listed in the Scheme.
It is idiocy to think you’re doing a good job if the standards aren’t being met, if local employment isn’t being provided to support the increase in residents, if infrastructure is being overloaded from population expansion without the revenue streams to fund expansion, if Council is unwilling to enforce compliance with permits, if there is a lack of transparency and accountability for decisions being made under delegation, if VCAT repeatedly overturns Council’s decisions re multiunit development.
I don’t think current councillors are up to the challenge, but if they disagree, then they should be prepared to explain why there are so few cost and quality criteria contained in the BVP report.
August 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM
“I don’t think current councillors are up to the challenge”. I agree totally. You then have to start asking why they are not up to the challenge. Not too many are imbeciles so there are a few brain cells left amongst them. They are not up to the challenge because (1) they are too intimidated to demand proper reporting; (2) they don’t read what’s put before them (3) they don’t know what to ask (4) even if they ask they don’t get the right answers or the relevant information (5) they are continually told that “division” is counterproductive and that they have to perform like good robots supporting officers (6) they are drip fed information that suits the administration only. (7) asking and getting the right information would only show up what a lousy oversight job they have been doing. That’s why they are not up to anything that will serve residents.