The last council meeting was fascinating in what it revealed about the (hidden) agendas for control within council. On one side we have officers and their councillor disciples, and opposed, on one particular issue, the old gang plus Okotel. The trigger for this ‘battle’ is the McKinnon Bowls Club and their attempt to survive by turning one of their bowling greens into a small soccer pitch that will be run by the same people who run the Caulfield Park small soccer pitch and who pay the bowls clubs for the privilege.
We wish to state at the outset:
- We lament the demise of any community group or sporting club
- We believe that Council should do everything in its power to ensure the viability of such clubs
- We do not pass judgement however, on the merits of the McKinnon Bowls club position or objectives. All we are concerned with is the manner in which this issue is playing out and why it is the focus of so much time, cost, and effort by all concerned.
What we unconditionally denounce is the following:
- That the issue should have taken up so much time when we believe that council has far greater priorities to attend to and that these have been given short shrift by all concerned. For example: last council meeting the ‘discussion’ on this item went for approximately 40 minutes. ‘Discussions’ on major planning applications were lucky to get 5 to 10 minutes each.
- The continued hypocrisy and half baked information that is provided in officer reports and the overall inconsistency between arguments presented in various agenda items. We will comment on this in greater detail below.
- Once again the report outstrips in length anything that would go into an officer’s planning report for council. We also get copies of correspondence, company records, etc. – all there to bolster up a very one sided argument.
Our take on the entire issue is:
- Newton and Burke’s attempt to assert and maintain their control. This is revisiting the Ajax Senior Football club’s attempt to gain access to Princes Park. It would be anathema for Newton and Burke to allow clubs themselves to ensure their future, and god forbid, enter into any agreement which might benefit themselves and the local community. Allowing such events to happen is to diminish and erode the autocratic power, and continued ‘influence’ of officers. It also gives unprecedented power to the community whilst sidelining officers – another ‘no-no’ in Glen Eira
- It is striking that at the last meeting this was the first time we can recall any member of the gang actually criticising an officer’s report. Esakoff really went to town. The pity is that such concern for community is not carried through on all sub-standard officer reports, or on issues of importance to the community by this enclave.
- We can only speculate on the motives for this rear guard action against Newton and Burke by Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Okotel.
That is the background to this battle – or at least how we perceive it. For this council meeting we have another officer report (unnamed of course) but readers are directed to make ‘enquiries’ of the CEO.
The report is a wonderful piece of sleight of hand but entirely manipulative. Why? Because once again councillors are meant to make a decision when all of the information is not presented to them. The most important document that would compare the arrangements at Caulfield Park will NOT BE PRESENTED UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING NEXT YEAR! But it is expected that councillors decide on Tuesday night! As we’ve stated, since Caulfield Park Bowls Club has what the McKinnon Bowls Club wishes to introduce, surely such a document would be vital to any informed decision making? But no – it is held back.
We also have to comment on the utter inconsistency and hypocrisy of this report. Here are some quotes:
There has been no public consultation to date on the proposed change of use of Council land from bowls to a licence between the tenant and Powerleague Pty Ltd to provide small sided soccer on a commercial basis.
As noted above, the most recent consultation in 2002 resulted in community opposition. Council has a Community Consultation Policy. If Council contemplates any changes at Joyce Park at some point in the future, the Policy should be followed.
Suddenly, community consultation becomes essential to any decision making it would seem. Strange then, that in item 9.13 on Community Consultation For Pedestrian Crossing Locations, we get the following nonsense:
In Glen Eira’s case the community has had an opportunity to nominate locations when the walking strategy was being developed. Asking the community again to nominate locations would likely either cause confusion or unfairly raise community expectations that Council has the funds and will treat all nominated locations.
Additional community consultation now may also undermine the Walking Strategy as the community would have expectations that locations they raise would be treated above those indicated in the strategy. If locations in the strategy are put aside to address the new community nominated locations the strategy action to treat at least two locations each year may not be achieved and the identified priority walking routes would simply be delayed or not occur
The Strategy is a live document which will be reviewed in 2017. It is considered that it would be preferable to re-consult the community along the lines suggested in the request for this report as a prelude to the next revised Walking Strategy.
We simply love the ‘live document’ bit when history tells us that so few ‘policies’ ever see the light of day again and are allowed to gather dust (ie Road Safety Strategy, Review of Heritage, etc. etc.) In Glen Eira, ‘consultation’ is like a game of ping-pong. When it suits, this administration calls for its mock consultation and when it doesn’t suit, the claims are as above. Surely, with all the developments going on everywhere, with traffic increasing dramatically, there just might be some merit in receiving community input well before 2017. Plus, even with consultation in 2017, it could still take our wonderful council another couple of years to do anything about it!
Finally, it will be interesting to see the outcomes in this battle. Will the gang cave in and revert to their usual support of Newton? Will any councillor have the brains to defer the item again until ALL relevant information is provided? Will Newton bluff his way through and will his current disciples of Delahunty and co, support him to the hilt? It should be a fascinating evening. We only hope that it doesn’t go for 40 minutes and that all the applications due for decision get more than 5 minutes each in the limelight!
December 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM
Great summary. I would add these few points.
1. Consultation in 2002 isn’t seen as relevant and up-to-date enough to decide here. The new zones consultation in 2001/2 was good enough to pass muster and not require further consultation.
2. Lease policy stems from 2006. Ironic that this policy hasn’t been updated itself. The policy hasn’t got a single word in it about uses of land. It’s focus is on lease of land. There goes Newton’s argument full stop.
3. Condescension is to the fore again. Us poor residents are in danger of being confused if we are allowed to make suggestions which will never be accepted anyway. Maybe if information was provided and it was truthful such dubious confusion might be averted?
December 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM
This stupid doomed effort appears to be a attempt to privatise an area our public open space, by a Limited Share Company, with one share holder, that being a Clive Ian Mazin, of Caulfield.
The the value of the Limited Company is stated as being one dollar.
All this is in the Agenda and is in the public domain
If I concluded from the agenda correctly the bowling club has signed a thing called heads of agreement document with this one dollar company. What ever this will mean.
Town Hall is sticking to its guns and has called all this back-door swindle as being illegal by the terms of its lease with the bowling club, which is most likely correct.
What your blog didn’t untangle in this dubious back-door privatisation deal, must have been be a fairly organised effort among among some councillors and this shadowy one dollar company.
None of these behavoirs has happened by accident.
This has to be a organised attempted to privatise a portion of our public open space and place the land fairly and squarely into the hands of a private company by a questionable illegal method. “Cui bono” To whose benifit
Unlike the blog entry, I think on this evidence the bowling shouldn’t have its leash extended in 2015, and the bowling club land be converted back for use as public open space.
This whole episode could be seen a tantamount to land theft via a illegal back door scam, and this should be investigated to the utmost to flush out the would be dealers
As for the councillors supporting this illegal arrangement, their commitment to public values must be questioned, leaving the question on who are they representing?
December 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM
“What your blog didn’t untangle in this dubious back-door privatisation deal, must have been be a fairly organised effort among among some councillors and this shadowy one dollar company.”
You could be right on this. Who knows. Back-door privatisation isn’t new in Glen Eira. How many tennis courts are there for paying members and one out of eight might be for the rest of us. That’s privatisation too I’d say.
I wouldn’t be preaching open space and council in the same breath here. Newton doesn’t give a stuff about open space and even tried to sell off the Packer Park bowling green for residential development. It’s now a convenient catch cry like all the motherhood statements that come out on cue from the offices. Sure to pull at the heartstrings and pull the wool over people’s eyes.
I don’t care if some little two bit company makes some money if it serves the greater population and keeps a club alive. That’s not on the same level as the mrc which was stated in the last agenda. Red herrings and more red herrings. It’s a battle between two sets of vested interests pure and simple. The prize is who runs council – the gang or newton.
December 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM
What about two bit individuals stashing money into their bank accounts from shonky subleasing deals on our public open space, is this what
your advocating. Land deals have to be transparant and legal
December 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM
What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander don’t you think? The same rules, policies and companies were in place when the Caulfield Park got their soccer pitch. How come this got through with no outcry like the one for McKinnon? I’m all for transparency. This is not about transparency as such. It’s all about giving permission so that a club can survive and if one group has been given permission then I can’t see why another one shouldn’t be as well. We’re not talking mega bucks here like with the racecourse. What will happen is that over 100 members will lose their club because of a measly $12000 pa if they don’t get permission.
December 15, 2014 at 11:05 AM
if this is how they operate, they deserve to lose there club, it no loss to the community, we need honest clubs, not back door movers
December 13, 2014 at 8:57 PM
My, my!!!!!!
Here we have two community focused, cash strapped clubs looking to work together for the benefit of both, which needs to be stomped on lickety split before “this dubious back-door privatisation deal” somehow gathers the resources to take over all the open space in Glen Eira.
Council loves active sport and, provided you are not a tree, this is a good thing. Yet here we have an opportunity to ensure continued provision of active sport for our seniors while at the same time increasing the opportunities for our juniors. Not only does this maximise/diversify the use of public land, it is also provides a community building, generation gap bridging opportunity.
Rather than rigidly adhering to legal principles based on a now outdated form of incorporation, it is more appropriate to look at the concept and focus how to make it work not only for these clubs but also other clubs in the similar situations.
December 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM
What self serving rubbish, you sound like club member of the Powerleague trying to help themselves to public land, if private clubs want to run a business providing a sporting service or anything else, let them buy, rent, or leash non public land for the purpose, back door deals have no transparency, cash could be passed under the table into private bank accounts. Who would ever know.
I would be interested in your responce
December 14, 2014 at 7:41 PM
My response is to repeat what I said above. It is more appropriate to look at the concept and focus how to make it work. It’s a better use of parkland and it’s better for the community.
December 14, 2014 at 9:22 PM
“better” and “community” all to subjective in this instance, “focusing on how to make it work” looks like the tail wagging the dog
December 13, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Gotta be gobsmackingly astounded by the comment re the Pedestrian Safety Strategy of
“In Glen Eira’s case the community has had an opportunity to nominate locations when the walking strategy was being developed. Asking the community again to nominate locations would likely either cause confusion or unfairly raise community expectations that Council has the funds and will treat all nominated locations.”
Jeez, I mistakenly thought the ratepayers were “big kids” and given appropriate and accurate information could form an informed opinion. Instead I find that I am likely so confused by the convoluted document that Council will produce to support its do nothing policy that I will ignore the evidence of my own eyes (I have children who I encourage to walk and I have elderly parents who walk to shops).
Pedestrian safety in Glen Eira receives more verbage than action and this needs to be reversed big time. Increasing population (housing density) and a failure to manage traffic flows (generated both within Glen Eira and through traffic generated from other Municipalities) should result in increased protection for our most vulnerable street users who are doing their bit for sustainability and well being.
instead what do I get as a “big kid” – the crap above statement and a total onus on me to respond to it by lobbying Councillors in less than 4 days before the decision is made. Under Councillor approved delegations, the CEO sets the Agenda, made available to the residents at noon on the Friday before Tuesday evenings Council meeting at which decisions are MADE.
The Councillors who put this system in place and accept the Administrations view that they can only decide on the information presented to them (information prepared by the Administration without any attempt to involve the residents) are not representing me (or anyone other than the Administration)
December 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM
You are a pathetic lot all of you on this blog,. If you really want to do something about Glen Eira Administration or Councillors you are criticizing all the time, then ensure you remove those Councillors from their jobs and get an Administration more in tune with ratepayer and residents wishes. Until that happens you are just ‘whistling in the wind’.
December 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Have a look at the no. of hits – the blog does a pretty good job of reaching out to residents doesn’t it!!!!!
Since Council does a sh*t job of communicating, this blog (which unlike Council doesn’t twist or distort or censor) is the one thing that allows residents to express their views knowing someone will read it. Mind you, Council’s actions re the zone implementation is pretty much akin to signing their own death warrant.
December 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM
‘Stir Like Hell’ this blog is one of the very few ways the council and the administration is publicly ‘outed’ for their incompetence. The users of this blog are not ‘pathetic’ as you assert but are frustrated energised people who want the administration and councillors removed BUT we have a long time to go before that can happen so this is one way we can keep the collective pressure on… and ‘Stir Like Hell’ don’t call me pathetic, I have worked like crazy to get change but the uninformed and disinterested thousands voted the same councillors back last time
December 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM
that was a shallow stir, what’s the prob! couldn’t you find anything a bit deeper to dip your tea-spoon into, maybe whistling in the wind will cause a storm in your tea cup
December 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM
It’s not a criticism of the blog to say residents are generally not sufficiently motivated to become activists, it’s just a fact of life.
There are many on here who are but that’s not reflected in the community. Look at the last election results. Those councillors who receive the most criticism here increased their vote. The one that received the most support wasn’t re-elected.
I make it my business to ask residents at opportune times what they think of their Ward councillors. You are very lucky if they can name one of the three. Huge numbers don’t know any.
I’m not sure how to get the community to become activists. I am sure though that doing so and getting into office genuine representatives of the residents is the only way to get an administration that listens and which is solely focused on doing what is in the communities best interests. And isn’t profligate with ratepayers money.
December 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Further to our comment on the ‘manipulation’ contained in the report, we proffer the following –
The officer’s report purports to paraphrase the Recreation Needs Study of 2006. It says –
“Council’s Recreation Needs Study (2006) stated that while Glen Eira was undersupplied with AFL ovals, outdoor soccer fields, netball and indoor multi-purpose recreations facilities (before GESAC), participation in bowls and tennis had declined and Glen Eira had become relatively over-supplied with bowls greens and tennis courts. This analysis was produced by independent recreation experts using Statewide benchmarks.”
We’ve gone back to the Study itself and ask readers to compare the above paragraph with what the report actually stated. All are verbatim quotes.
The most popular activities by membership (500+ members) in 2004 were:
− Australian football (3,319).
− Cricket (2,356).
− Tennis (1,515).
− Soccer (1,332).
− Bowls (1,303).
− Netball (992).
− Basketball (880).
− Obedience Dog Training (850).
− Athletics (724).
Decline was forecast by two bowling clubs, one croquet club, one cricket
club and one tennis club.
Against facility provision benchmarks for the most popular sports, there
appears to be:
− current adequate provision of facilities for cricket, bowling and tennis.
− a less than optimum number of facilities for Australian football, indoor
court sports, netball, and soccer.
− no over supply of facilities (page 3)
There is poor availability of club and public tennis courts in the north
west precinct, but an apparent over supply in the south east precinct. (page 4)
The results of the benchmarking process identified that for a population of 118,000
people there could be:
• Current adequate supply of facilities for cricket, bowls and tennis.
• No over supply of facilities for any of the popular sports.
• Less than optimum number of facilities for Australian football, indoor court sports,
netball, and soccer. (page 33)
Thus, the officer’s version is ‘over supply’ and the Study of the time merely states ‘adequate supply’ and ‘no over supply’. Whilst membership may have dropped and the study is now outdated, that does not excuse what we see as the deliberate misrepresentation of what the 2006 study actually found and reported upon. If the recourse is to use the Recreation Study of 2006, then it is beholden on the author to ensure that the facts are accurately represented. This has not been done.
December 14, 2014 at 9:14 PM
the council definition of recreation was a very limited in the 2006 study, it was a sporting needs study, not a recreational needs study, if it had been a genuine recreational needs study, there would be whole host of recreational needs way out in front of footy, soccer, and all that other mindless ball game stuff, that is not happening anywhere in GE.
December 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM
Readers may be interested in this Notice of Motion from the Kingston Agenda papers for their council meeting on the 15th December.. Notice of Motion put up by Cr Peulich –
I move :
That Council commences an independent efficiency and effectiveness review of council spending and operations to be completed before council finalises its next budget.
December 14, 2014 at 9:27 PM
Not a great fan of Cr Peulich but this is the sort of N o M we desperately need in Glen Eira. Desperately!
Something Cr Pilling should be all over if he lived his original pre-election pledge of “openness, transparency and accountability”
Little did we know the accountability would turn out to be to the administration, And the openness and transparency would give way to political pragmatism.