And more of the same?
August 18, 2015
Progress?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[25] Comments
[25] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- August 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates
%d bloggers like this:
August 18, 2015 at 9:33 AM
Oh dearie me. More beat ups and selective memory syndrome from those involved. What a shame that both Magee and Hyams have forgotten all about another municipal inspector’s report that pinpointed countless ills about governance. Add on another couple of ombudsman’s investigations, a fortune spent on lawyers, Whiteside resigning and all that is supposed to equal progress.
August 18, 2015 at 6:29 PM
Macca don’t forget all the kerfuffle with the ceo reappointment where he only got two years and then the basketball courts lease that burke handed out to outsiders and that also finished with the ombudsman. Lobo has called Lipshutz for racism and there’s plenty more but off the top of my head can’t recall right now. Residents have always got the wrong end of the deal and its cost them plenty of money to keep all the lawyers in work. The place has gone backwards.
August 18, 2015 at 9:39 AM
If Delahunty is one of the “independent” advisors someone has a misunderstanding of the word independent. Delahunty is an aspiring member of the ALP and as such will only provide a biased view which will be designed to entrench her party in office. This will include compulsory postal voting. It will also ensure distribution of preferences by the VEC. Makes it easier to use stooges. Delahunty expects to take over from Danby.
August 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Delahuntly isn’t jewish she has a n uphill battle within her party, chances are she won’t make it
August 18, 2015 at 1:52 PM
We know that but aspirants tend to have selective vision as reality can spoil the dream. Hearing her trying to use Yiddish expressions on a polling booth makes one want to puke. Talk about disingenuous.
August 18, 2015 at 1:16 PM
Delahunty has sold out completely.Payback is a couple of lousy little pocket parks in Camden that will look good on a cv as the road to parliament and to hell with Carnegie, Bentleigh and all the other suburbs. Every time I read that she praises officers and votes with Hyams and Lipshutz my skin crawls. Council is there to give her a step up and nothing more.
August 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM
Customer service and sound governance are miles apart. Shows how out of touch Hutchins is with what is going on. Answering a phone politely in a few seconds is good public relations. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with giving residents a voice that is listened to and even asked for. Time the Leader stopped being led by the nose and did some good and unbiased reporting.
August 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM
Well done Mr. Magoo you’ve done it again
August 18, 2015 at 11:03 AM
If we are to believe the hogwash that Magee is spouting then council should be rolling in money if they “enforce any permit” they give out. What about all those sites that do not have permits? Somebody had better tell Magee that “temporary inconvenience” can last up to a year. That is sure “temporary”.
August 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM
The only valid measure of “progress” should be assessed against what the Local Government Act see as the role of a council.
“What is the role of a Council?
(1) A Council is elected to provide leadership for the good governance of the municipal district and the local community.
(2) The role of a Council includes—
(a) acting as a representative government by taking into account the diverse needs of the local community in decision making;
(b) providing leadership by establishing strategic objectives and monitoring their achievement;
(c) maintaining the viability of the Council by ensuring that resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner;
(d) advocating the interests of the local community to other communities and governments;
(e) acting as a responsible partner in government by taking into account the needs of other communities;
(f) fostering community cohesion and encouraging active participation in civic life. ”
In my view the only “progress” achieved is the strengthening of the administration’s power and the complete surrender of councillors and their unwillingness to take charge and act in the interests of residents. Decision making that so regularly ignores resident views is not meeting section f; budgets blown to smithereens because of Gesac and Duncan Mackinnon does not meet section c; strategic objectives that do not even consider residents as with the zones does not meet clause b. Then there’s clause a which I regard as the most important. Decision after decision has been made without regard to community views and without consultation on many of them. That is governance at its worst.
August 18, 2015 at 12:38 PM
I welcomed Magee becoming Mayor, but I’m having mega doubts of late.
Cleary he is suffering from the Ivory Tower Syndrome and has forgotten the community that elected him as Councillor. Yep, Council has changed since it was sacked but it is only in the dysfunctional details. Council continues to ignore the residents and also its own policies (as and when it suits) in favour of Administrative goals. The ever increasing number of disgruntled residents out there, that is making its voice heard and connecting with others in the Glen Eira community, is being driven by Councillors failure to listen or act in the interests of residents rather than the administration.
Magee’s letter responding to the outcry re public safety and amenity concerns during the construction phase of developments is a case in point. The increasingly vocal outcry is coming from all suburbs and all zones in the municipality, Yet Magee’s response is that it is permitted under State Legislation and it is the Site Manager’s responsibility – BULLSH*T!!!!. Council is the responsible authority, Council approves the construction plans and is responsible for ensuring they are complied with and applying penalities for noncompliance. Council is also unequivocally responsible for public safety in the Municipality.
While residents are fully aware, and accept, that construction works create “temporary inconvenience” what they are not prepared to accept as an “ïnconvenience” is that, both the abled and disabled, are being forced to walk on roadways without protective barriers because construction has made the footpath impassable or being unable to access or exit their property because tradies and construction vehicles find it more convenient to block their vehicular access. “Temporary” (be it hours or months) is also irrelevant when it’s related to issues of public safety and compliance with the road and parking laws.
August 18, 2015 at 2:13 PM
Off topic – but important!
It would certainly behove the Leader to check what it publishes and to stop accepting at face value Council’s version of reality. The latest example of this comes from page 3 of today’s paper under the banner of ‘Height Limits’. It states in part, that in forwarding amendment C123 for approval to the minister (on child care facilities/centres) that “the height of childcare centres MUST be within the mandatory height limits specified in the new residential zones”.
The amendment states NO SUCH THING! In fact, council’s attempt to introduce such a ‘mandatory’ condition was rejected by the planning panel. Instead of MUST, we now have the weasel terminology of SHOULD. That, as everyone knows, and council has consistently argued, is NOT MANDATORY.
Here are some quotes from the Planning Panel. The Leader should really be far more careful in what it publishes and repeats!
“The Panel accepts, however, that some changes have been made which do alter the emphasis of the policy or introduce new elements which are not consistent with the purposes of the zone, or the intent and function of a policy. These specifically relate to the introduction of reference to mandatory heights and respecting neighbourhood character. For this reason, the Panel has recommended the deletion of these. The Panel has also made a number of other minor recommendations.
The one point of difference relates to inclusion of references to mandatory maximum heights, this proposed policy states:
Any buildings are not greater than the mandatory maximum height specified
in the relevant zone applying to the subject land.
This is not included within the existing policy and is not considered to be a neutral translation.
In considering this issue, it needs to be recognised that this policy relates to all zones within the municipality, not just residential zones. Having said that, the greatest sensitivity is likely to be in the residential zones. The Residential Growth Zone 1, General Residential Zones 1, 2 and 3 and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1, all include mandatory heights being 13.5m, 10.5m and 8m respectively. But it is important to recognise these mandatory heights
only relate to a dwelling and a residential building, and do not apply to buildings for other uses within these zones, such as child care centres. Therefore policy should not seek to implement a mandatory control that is not contained within a zone.
Yet having said that, it is important to recognise these uses and developments should respond to their local context in terms of height and scale, and this will in part be determined by mandatory controls where they exist. For this reason, the Panel considers it appropriate that the policy include a statement to this effect, but not one that requires it to comply with the mandatory heights specified.”
Further, there can be no excuse for the officer’s report stating quite disingenuously – “In particular, a policy statement has been introduced for the height of child care centres to be within the mandatory height limit as specified in the new residential zones.” For the uninitiated into councilspeak, this would appear to be a full endorsement of ‘mandatory height controls’. It is no such thing!
August 18, 2015 at 2:52 PM
Leader and council in cahoots. No surprises cos who pays the advertising bills.
August 19, 2015 at 6:49 AM
Spot on
August 18, 2015 at 4:19 PM
We are supposed to believe that safety is top of the list in Glen Eira. If it was top of the list of priorities then the road safety strategy which expired in 2012 would have been redone a million times over. Pull the other leg Magee and stop sounding like Newton’s dummy.
August 18, 2015 at 6:50 PM
This is an important debate on the anniversary of the Council 2005 sacking. Of course this year is also the anniversary of Andrew Newton 15 years as a CEO. One should also consider the tumultuous years of the first term of the Council, which saw its first Investigation in 1998 and its demise of its first CEO Margaret Douglas in 1999 as well as the first 5 years of Andrew Newton’s reign. Without understanding the whole 18 year period it will be difficult to appreciate why Glen Eira is different to other Councils in some respects that are the subject of many complaints on this site.
However, I disagree with D.Evans that this Council is somehow not fulfilling its role according to the Local Government Act as presented. Somehow D.Evans draws a very log bow with its interpretations. There is no mention at all of residents/ratepayers in the Act, only communities. And what are Glen Eira communities? If you have a look at the Glen Eira Communities Directory http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Connect/About_our_City/Community_directory you will find thousands of communities, but only 2 residents groups GERA and Glen Eira Residents Action Group, whoever they are. They are minuscule in comparison to all other listed. If we are to judge the Council by communities voice then we should ask all those listed for an opinion on the role and function realisation. If Council’s website is any guide then Glen Eira Council is doing pretty well to ensure communities have a voice either through its directory, newsletter or functions during the year. Communities are thriving in Glen Eira.
Of course, there are issues of governance and town planning that could be improved or changed to the satisfaction of some residents and ratepayers, but one needs to be much more focused on the detail than generalising as D.Evans did.
August 18, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Residents and ratepayers are terms that do occur in the local government act – admittedly in the context of voting and rate payments. The intent of the legislation is without doubt about the interaction of council with residents – or ‘community” according to your definition. You write –
Glen Eira Council is doing pretty well to ensure communities have a voice either through its directory, newsletter or functions during the year. Communities are thriving in Glen Eira.
In the first place the legislation defines “community” as – local community includes—
(a) people who live in the municipal district; and
(b) people and bodies who are ratepayers; and
(c) people and bodies who conduct activities in the municipal district
All of the above equals residents.
A lot also depends on your definition of “thriving” in the context of the relationship with council, the extent to which council actually listens to the members of these individual “communities” and what power such groups have in ensuring that the role of council (to serve the community) is being fulfilled. Even if I take “community” to be the wider umbrella term for “resident” the local government act still has plenty to say about what councils should do for their “communities”. I’m quoting now –
– all services provided by a Council must be responsive to the needs of its community;
– a Council must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides
-a Council must achieve continuous improvement in the provision of services for its community
There could be ten thousand “community groups” listed on council’s website. That doesn’t mean a thing in terms of good governance, acting in the public’s interest, and being accountable, transparent, and the proper use of public money. I still maintain that in these areas council has been and continues to be a dismal failure.
August 18, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Thanks for clarifying the meaning of community wrt residents and ratepayers. I still think that you would have a hard time justifying your statements on GECC being a “dismal failure”. If you had a look at the Council website, there are some 250 items there that could be classified in your “terms of good governance, acting in the public’s interest, and being accountable, transparent, and the proper use of public money”. Which of the items listed would your claims stand your charge of a total failure. I can understand that there are some complaints from time to time relating to some items listed on the GECC site, but unless you can specify a totality of failure for an item or continuous failures in an item, you will have a Buckley’s chance or rather none to prove it in any investigation or court. Some failures on some items do occur, but they are NOT criminal offences. Give me some criminality please.
August 18, 2015 at 10:21 PM
The assumption that the number of communities listed on Council’s website is a guide as to how well Council gives a voice to the community is seriously flawed. Providing a listing does not constitute giving those groups, or any resident (group member or not), a voice. It also falls far short of actually listening to that voice.
And as for the comment re generalising, it’s known as that because it’s generally true. Just like the statement that “without understanding the whole 18 year period it will be difficult to appreciate why Glen Eira is different to other Councils” is.
While I admit I’m not fully aware of the details for Glen Eira being different to other Councils, I do know that the areas of biggest difference are related to Glen Eira Council’s failure to undertake proper town planning and community consultation (in any form) and the absence of good governance practices. All are extremely significant issues that warrant a much stronger comment than “could be improved or changed”.
August 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM
In response to the statement of how and why Glen Eira may be “different to other councils” we would like to refresh readers’ minds with the following:
1. Of the 79 Victorian Councils, Glen Eira is the only one without provisions for a Notice of Motion in its meeting procedures.
2. Glen Eira has the distinction of being investigated 3 times by the Municipal Inspectorate in the past 12 years, at least 2 ombudsman’s investigations, and at least $40,000 of ratepayers’ money spent on lawyers on Newton’s reappointment
3. Glen Eira also has the distinction of : no dissenting from the chair at council meetings.
4. The ‘no surprises’ clause in the Code of Councillor Conduct – which does not exist in any other council’s policy
August 18, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Conanon, moving to “criminality” and on the basis of what’s on the gecc website. You’ve been lowered in my estimation with this little bauble of side stepping sophistry. Criminality is one thing. That requires a brave whistle blower to get to the truth. Bending the rules here and there is quite different, and when the rules don’t spell out in plain old English what is and is not good practice and good governance, then we’re really up shit creek without a paddle. Newton is an expert at all this. He decides what consultation takes place because apart from budgets and a few other things, the legislation doesn’t say what should and shouldn’t be consulted upon. There’s also the catch 22 of council only needing to “consider” community views. Well, they “consider” and ignore. That’s all legal by the way and not “criminal”. But it’s lousy government when practically nothing that the community want is ever achieved. By the way, I doubt that councillors even know what the community wants since they never bother to find out in consultations that are worthy of that name.
August 19, 2015 at 8:32 AM
Hyam’s frequently justifies Council’s decisions by saying we did nothing wrong or contrary to the law. To my mind this is an absolutely absurd and extremely sub standard justification.
Acting within the framework of the law is the minimum basic standard that can be applied to assess Council performance. It is a “given” (nobody would reasonably expect Council to breach the law) and the unspoken starting point for assessment, it is not the end point.
Add
. acting in the best and expressed interests of residents and ratepayers and
. acting in a bipartisan, responsive to the community manner that is open, transparent and accountable and
. basing decisions on objective and informed information
to the above minimum and you have an a vastly different, more appropriate performance assessment standard. It also a standard that Council continually falls way short of.
August 19, 2015 at 5:20 PM
The “progress” is that Council no longer makes front page news for its councillors punching each other. Instead they now spend hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing their enemies through marginally less violent means. Council’s Minutes document that abusing residents is acceptable to the majority of councillors.
Cr Delahunty is a good choice for advising the Minister about ways councils can undermine good governance based on her extensive experience at GECC: she has quickly learnt many of the techniques practiced here. GECC specialises in making decisions in secret in Assemblies of Councillors and optionally announcing them in Council Meetings. Council also uses every excuse possible to remove discussion from the public realm, and refuses to be transparent or accountable in its decision-making. It exploits the fact that DELWP never checks whether requests from senior officers have the appropriate authority, thereby avoiding public scrutiny.
The comments from Cr Magee about safety are ill-informed but probably written by a member of the administration. The relevant Acts do NOT give developers the power to close roads and footpaths unilaterally. Council has that power, and it can grant developers permission to do so, although Council insists it never does that if it compromises pedestrian safety. The evidence contradicting Council surrounds us all.
August 21, 2015 at 3:41 PM
Going back to the issue of community vs residents or ratepayers. While I agree that residents and ratepayers may be considered part of a local community, they do not form a recognised community entity. They are just individuals that politicians, businesses, companies or governments of any persuasion can and do ignore unless they have a significant pull. For example there are over 80 sporting clubs listed on the GECC website. They have a pull with the Council, so if residents disagree with sports clubs, it will likely follow sports clubs and ignore residents. This is the reality.
While I appreciate comments and arguments put forward on this Complaints site, I do not see it having much effect on Glen Eira Council. Even if the composition of the Council changes I still do not see how one can turn around the nearly 20 years of Glen Eira Council administration and policy implementation. Here is an example of a planning issue that should have been considered and never was, although our population has increased by over 25 %. This was mentioned by the mayor Cr Jim Magee, that a school should be built at Virginia Park. He has done it as an individual and not something to be analysed and proposed by the Council as part of their social infrastructure planning. But hey, early education, maternity centres, aged care, schools, employment issues should all be considered as part of planning and perhaps population planning as other councils are doing.
So this is my grape contribution to the Complaints site. Do I see anything to be changed? Nope, because residents and ratepayers have no say unless they can be recognised as a community entity with a pull.
August 22, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Spot on Conanon – residents need to organise and work together in the long term for any real difference to occur.
Got any ideas on how to achieve this? Are you willing to take a leading role?
I’m willing to help you.