We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Congratulations Crs. Pillingm, Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff and CEO Andrew Newton.
For some unknown reason you managed to escape getting mentioned as accomplices in this whole mess.
I support the request for an Ombudsman’s review – as long as it includes the MRC, Trustees, State Government and Council involvement. The big mistake the Auditor General made was excluding Council from his review.
Those 4 Councillors should be replaced at the next 2016 elections. Is anybody organising opposition group to them now? May be then we will also change the CEO.
Definitely need to get rid of those four and make an election issue out of re-appointment of the CEO an election issue – appointed without advertising the position in 2003 and re-appointed without advertising the position ever since.
Both the above 4 and the CEO are past their use by date and have consistently demonstrated that they are locked in the past and are unable to adapt to a dynamically changing environment.
No side of politics for the last 125 years have been prepared to do anything about the mrc. The auditor generals report is about a year old and still nothing is being done. Council shouldn’t pat themselves on the back either. They have been as complicit as anybody at the state level with giving the mrc their permits for anything they ask for.
Congratulations Glen Eira Debates for its five year anniversary just passed on the 28 Jun. Here is what the moderators said of this blogsite:
“Debate is the foundation of all democracies. Debate allows proponents not only to articulate and defend their positions, but it ensures accountability and responsible decision making. For the past decade Glen Eira has been bereft of genuine and vigorous debate. Far too often residents have no clear idea of why certain decisions are made, nor the bases for such decisions. Council meetings regularly become mutual admiration societies, rather than the forum for discussion, argument, persuasion, facts, figures, and respect for community views. Residents deserve better than this. If local councils are truly the ‘third tier of government’ as proclaimed by such peak bodies as the MAV and VLGA, then Councillors and Administrators must be prepared to voice individual opinions, and stand ready to back up such opinions with reasoned argument.
Glen Eira Debates intends to become the forum where such debate may take place. We extend an open invitation to all councillors and administrators to engage with their community in an open and transparent fashion. Let us read what you think and why you hold this view. Let us debate the issues that will see local governments become more than ‘service’ agencies and really fulfil their mandates as representatives of the people!
A couple of rules however:
1. Comments will be vetted by several moderators so that defamatory remarks are censored
2. Anonymity will be maintained – simply post your comments under aliases if you like
3. Reasoned argument and ‘fact’ will always be welcomed on any issue affecting residents and ratepayers of Glen Eira
Finally, Glen Eira Debates will seek to redress what many see as the malaise of the past decade. Both criticism and praise will be levelled where appropriate and fudged figures and facts disclosed as nothing more than spin. It’s time that Glen Eira is seen as more than a cosy ‘club’. It must become a vibrant and proactive municipality that is transparent and fully accountable for its decision making.”
I think it is time to review the blogsite, what it stands for and what it should be doing for the next 5 years. The review may be even more important for the next year or so, because of the coming Council election. In here we do know very well what is wrong with this Council. But what exactly you would like your Councillors to focus on a positive way?
For example, one of the first issues raised on this blogsite was the Bicycle Strategy and Sustainable Transport Strategy. We have them both. Isn’t that good that this blogsite has raised and perhaps contributed to those strategies. As the good song says about the dark times “accentuate the positives” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwp-IvX8VM8
Just after Cr. Pilling cast his casting vote to demolish Frogmore (for reasons that don’t bear scrutiny) he thanked the Save Frogmore campaigners for raising public awareness of this issue.
That folks pretty much sums up Glen Eira’s attitude to community input into Council decisions. An accredited heritage advisor’s recommendation, strong support from the National Trust and over 1600 documented supporters for retention of Frogmore and only 2 for it to go – it’s going and all the supporters get is a thanks for making this current walkover a little more interesting.
The article is inaccurate on several matters, such as the intended size and composition of development that Council decided is appropriate under Amendment C60. It will be much much larger.
The “land swap” itself was sanctioned by State Government with bipartisan support [as usual, when it concerns the MRC’s hegemony over the Caulfield racecourse reserve]. It did however come with “conditions”, such as exchanged land being fully landscaped at MRC expense, one parcel to have a 10-year tenure for MRC, “market rental” as determined by Valuer-General and those payments to be available to maintain “public benefit”, social benefit to be provided by C60 such as “affordable housing”.
Subsequently MRC paid some money, possibly $300K, to relieve itself of its obligations concerning the marginal land the government accepted in exchange. GECC was offered to be made CoM for the land, but declined [very sensible, considering how much it would have cost us for the “privilege”].
As far as the public can work out, no meaningful action has been taken to respond to or implement the A-G recommendations in the report “Management and Oversight of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve”. In particular there has been no clarity about the principles CRRT should be using when making decisions about the management of the land. The financial aspect is abysmal, with MRC not paying market rental, and retaining money for its own purposes that should have been available for the purposes of public park and recreation area.
I disagree that MRC members have a conflict of interest. They were appointed to represent the MRC, and they have assiduously pursued the MRC’s interests at the expense of all others. The government, by appointing people aligned with the racing industry as its own trustee representatives, has ensured the land has been managed only for the benefit of MRC. Without guidelines or an overriding purpose or a set of principles applying to CRRT, its trustees are free to pursue their own interests.
There is an obvious disconnect between the A-G and GECC. A-G believes the councillor trustees represent GECC, whereas GECC believes the councillor trustees do not represent GECC and are free to act contrary to the interests of GECC. If so, then councillor trustees should declare Conflict of Interest on any matter concerning CRRT and its major tenant MRC in Council meetings, although in the past they generally haven’t.
There is almost zero chance of the government investigating itself, and I doubt IBAC has the power to investigate. Making dodgy decisions to benefit rich and powerful interests isn’t in itself illegal.
The landswap that enabled the MRC to build the Caulfield village (aka Asian village) should have had a clause in the motion that ensured no development would start until the land in Neerim Rd was firmly and legally under the control of the Glen Eira Council via the Trustees. This was an oversight by the Councillors and the CEO.
CLICK TO ENLARGE!
July 11, 2015 at 1:07 PM
Congratulations Crs. Pillingm, Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff and CEO Andrew Newton.
For some unknown reason you managed to escape getting mentioned as accomplices in this whole mess.
I support the request for an Ombudsman’s review – as long as it includes the MRC, Trustees, State Government and Council involvement. The big mistake the Auditor General made was excluding Council from his review.
July 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM
Those 4 Councillors should be replaced at the next 2016 elections. Is anybody organising opposition group to them now? May be then we will also change the CEO.
July 11, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Definitely need to get rid of those four and make an election issue out of re-appointment of the CEO an election issue – appointed without advertising the position in 2003 and re-appointed without advertising the position ever since.
Both the above 4 and the CEO are past their use by date and have consistently demonstrated that they are locked in the past and are unable to adapt to a dynamically changing environment.
July 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM
No side of politics for the last 125 years have been prepared to do anything about the mrc. The auditor generals report is about a year old and still nothing is being done. Council shouldn’t pat themselves on the back either. They have been as complicit as anybody at the state level with giving the mrc their permits for anything they ask for.
July 12, 2015 at 12:59 PM
Congratulations Glen Eira Debates for its five year anniversary just passed on the 28 Jun. Here is what the moderators said of this blogsite:
“Debate is the foundation of all democracies. Debate allows proponents not only to articulate and defend their positions, but it ensures accountability and responsible decision making. For the past decade Glen Eira has been bereft of genuine and vigorous debate. Far too often residents have no clear idea of why certain decisions are made, nor the bases for such decisions. Council meetings regularly become mutual admiration societies, rather than the forum for discussion, argument, persuasion, facts, figures, and respect for community views. Residents deserve better than this. If local councils are truly the ‘third tier of government’ as proclaimed by such peak bodies as the MAV and VLGA, then Councillors and Administrators must be prepared to voice individual opinions, and stand ready to back up such opinions with reasoned argument.
Glen Eira Debates intends to become the forum where such debate may take place. We extend an open invitation to all councillors and administrators to engage with their community in an open and transparent fashion. Let us read what you think and why you hold this view. Let us debate the issues that will see local governments become more than ‘service’ agencies and really fulfil their mandates as representatives of the people!
A couple of rules however:
1. Comments will be vetted by several moderators so that defamatory remarks are censored
2. Anonymity will be maintained – simply post your comments under aliases if you like
3. Reasoned argument and ‘fact’ will always be welcomed on any issue affecting residents and ratepayers of Glen Eira
Finally, Glen Eira Debates will seek to redress what many see as the malaise of the past decade. Both criticism and praise will be levelled where appropriate and fudged figures and facts disclosed as nothing more than spin. It’s time that Glen Eira is seen as more than a cosy ‘club’. It must become a vibrant and proactive municipality that is transparent and fully accountable for its decision making.”
I think it is time to review the blogsite, what it stands for and what it should be doing for the next 5 years. The review may be even more important for the next year or so, because of the coming Council election. In here we do know very well what is wrong with this Council. But what exactly you would like your Councillors to focus on a positive way?
For example, one of the first issues raised on this blogsite was the Bicycle Strategy and Sustainable Transport Strategy. We have them both. Isn’t that good that this blogsite has raised and perhaps contributed to those strategies. As the good song says about the dark times “accentuate the positives” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwp-IvX8VM8
Congrats Glen Eira Debates
July 12, 2015 at 2:10 PM
Just after Cr. Pilling cast his casting vote to demolish Frogmore (for reasons that don’t bear scrutiny) he thanked the Save Frogmore campaigners for raising public awareness of this issue.
That folks pretty much sums up Glen Eira’s attitude to community input into Council decisions. An accredited heritage advisor’s recommendation, strong support from the National Trust and over 1600 documented supporters for retention of Frogmore and only 2 for it to go – it’s going and all the supporters get is a thanks for making this current walkover a little more interesting.
July 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM
Pillings as thick as a brick
July 12, 2015 at 4:34 PM
The article is inaccurate on several matters, such as the intended size and composition of development that Council decided is appropriate under Amendment C60. It will be much much larger.
The “land swap” itself was sanctioned by State Government with bipartisan support [as usual, when it concerns the MRC’s hegemony over the Caulfield racecourse reserve]. It did however come with “conditions”, such as exchanged land being fully landscaped at MRC expense, one parcel to have a 10-year tenure for MRC, “market rental” as determined by Valuer-General and those payments to be available to maintain “public benefit”, social benefit to be provided by C60 such as “affordable housing”.
Subsequently MRC paid some money, possibly $300K, to relieve itself of its obligations concerning the marginal land the government accepted in exchange. GECC was offered to be made CoM for the land, but declined [very sensible, considering how much it would have cost us for the “privilege”].
As far as the public can work out, no meaningful action has been taken to respond to or implement the A-G recommendations in the report “Management and Oversight of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve”. In particular there has been no clarity about the principles CRRT should be using when making decisions about the management of the land. The financial aspect is abysmal, with MRC not paying market rental, and retaining money for its own purposes that should have been available for the purposes of public park and recreation area.
I disagree that MRC members have a conflict of interest. They were appointed to represent the MRC, and they have assiduously pursued the MRC’s interests at the expense of all others. The government, by appointing people aligned with the racing industry as its own trustee representatives, has ensured the land has been managed only for the benefit of MRC. Without guidelines or an overriding purpose or a set of principles applying to CRRT, its trustees are free to pursue their own interests.
There is an obvious disconnect between the A-G and GECC. A-G believes the councillor trustees represent GECC, whereas GECC believes the councillor trustees do not represent GECC and are free to act contrary to the interests of GECC. If so, then councillor trustees should declare Conflict of Interest on any matter concerning CRRT and its major tenant MRC in Council meetings, although in the past they generally haven’t.
There is almost zero chance of the government investigating itself, and I doubt IBAC has the power to investigate. Making dodgy decisions to benefit rich and powerful interests isn’t in itself illegal.
July 12, 2015 at 5:04 PM
The landswap that enabled the MRC to build the Caulfield village (aka Asian village) should have had a clause in the motion that ensured no development would start until the land in Neerim Rd was firmly and legally under the control of the Glen Eira Council via the Trustees. This was an oversight by the Councillors and the CEO.
July 14, 2015 at 2:16 PM
Hopefully a full Ombudsmans Investigation will finally shine a light on all of this. Really way overdue and so obvious to all.
July 14, 2015 at 6:05 PM
wouldnt it be terrible if Moody was found guilty. No Moody No training at Caulfield??? http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/tale-of-two-cities-for-peter-moody-as-trainer-digests-cobalt-charge-20150711-gia7cn.html