The recent outcry against the secret vote for ‘guns in parks’ highlighted once again how Glen Eira continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy and abuse of the legislation. In 2011 we featured a post which itemised the number of decisions made in camera and the number of decisions which were subsequently reported in the minutes (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/
Not too much has changed since. Countless items that feature in the agenda papers for in camera decision making are not reported in the subsequent minutes and what is even worse, there is no explanation as to why only some items include the number of applicants for the tender, the criteria, and most importantly the estimated cost. Countless others simply describe the vague nature of the tender and that’s it!
But the most damning indictment of all is that an examination of the minutes proves once and for all how decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. On the 8th April, 2014 the following tender appeared in the in camera agenda items –
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of a contract for refurbishment of the Caulfield Park Conservatory Number of tenders received 8; Number of evaluation criteria tenders
assessed against 3
Estimated contract value $250,000
No outcome for this item was recorded. Yet at the very next Council Meeting (29th April, 2014) there is the extraordinary report and subsequent vote to demolish the conservatory – despite 2 rounds of public consultation and 2 previous resolutions that demanded it be maintained and restored. So what happened on the 8th April that caused this change of heart? What did it cost to produce and advertise the tender documents? Or is it the case that behind closed doors on the 8th April it was decided to scuttle the debate and the subsequent meeting was merely to ‘ratify’ an already made decision? Even if we are wrong here, it does not say much for council and councillors when public money is wasted on tendering and within three weeks this all comes to nought!
Things get even worse with the following –
12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works (21st July 2015)
Nothing was forthcoming. Hence residents had no idea – (1) if a contract was awarded (2) what was the price and (3) exactly what does ‘associated works’ really mean.
There are other gems too which illustrate the nastiness and internal bickering that has been part of Glen Eira ever since Newton set foot in the place. Here are some examples – again not disclosed and we can only wonder how much more of ratepayer funds went into lawyers’ pockets without disclosing the amounts –
Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff
That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:
12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (9th April, 2013)
Crs Hyams/Lipshutz
That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:
An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (6th November 2013)
Crs Lipshutz/Magee
That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:
12.3 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the contract for Community Energy Efficiency Program.
12.2 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.(11th June 2013)
The results of the following items were not disclosed in the minutes –
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for the provision of legal services.
Number of tenders received 5
Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against 5
12.4 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (17th December 2013)
which relates to the contract for internal audit services
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of prequalified supplier panel for the procurement of trucks
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for processing of organic waste
12.4 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to the appointment of Community representatives to the Citizen of the Year Awards Committee
But the one we love the best is the ubiquitous nonsense of – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter.
12.4 under s89 (2)(f) ‘legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct.
12.1 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee (4th February 2014)
12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to insurance
12.3 under s89 (2) (f) “legal advice” which relates to “Code of Conduct – Possible Additions” (july 22nd 2014)
12.2 under (f) “legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct. (18th March 2014)
12.5 under s89(2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to additional open space.
under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for Tender 2014.043 Provision of Wide Area Network (Wan) Infrastructure
12.5 Under section S89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” Open Space Strategy – gap areas. This report does not recommend any acquisition of any housing. (5th September 2015)
12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works 21st july 2015
12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates the appointment of a contractor for the supply of fuel for Council’s vehicle fleet.
12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to disposal of general household waste
12.0 under s89(2)(a) “personnel”, minutes of Community Consultation Advisory Committee meeting of 19 February 2015 relating to nominations received for Community Representatives on the Committee
Thus it goes on an on. Why on earth residents can’t be told who is the contractor for disposal of general household waste’ or who will be the supplier for fuel and how much this will cost, is literally beyond us. Why the secrecy? Or is it all designed to make it that much more difficult to follow the money trail and to see who is getting what?
We should also be prepared for the fact that when the new Code of Conduct comes out post election that there will be the attempt no doubt to gag councillors even more. You don’t spend thousands upon thousands on lawyers and then maintain the status quo! And please remember that the legislation does not MANDATE in camera decision making. It merely suggests that councils ‘MAY’ decide to deem certain items confidential. In Glen Eira this has come to mean practically everything whilst other councils are prepared to publish their decision making on commercial tenders Glen Eira doesn’t. Whilst other councils are prepared to publish their ceo performance assessments, Glen Eira doesn’t. And whilst other councils are far more specific in their descriptions of confidential items Glen Eira is content to say again and again – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. That is double speak at its absolute best and indicative of a council who pays no credence to their obligations of transparency and accountability.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 10, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Am not surprised that the Conservatory in Caulfield Park has bobbed up again – coming hot on the heels of Council’s abhorrent performance on the Guns in Parks issue, it is another example of how badly skewed Councillors have allowed representative government to become in Glen Eira.
The push to get rid of the conservatory started around 2008 and it became a bi-annual event until 2014. Every 2 years Council (ie. Administration abetted by Lipshutz) wanted it gone and every time the community strongly opposed it’s removal and supported restoration.
The last time (and I mean the last time) it raised it’s head was in 2013-2014. In July 2013 Council produced (at a significant cost to residents) a lavish pictorial community survey which was distributed to some 3,500 nearby residents. It asked those residents to identify their preferred and least preferred option. Overwhelming the survey results showed a preferred option of restoration and a least preferred option of removal which Council had to accept. That should have been end of story but hold on to your hats there’s more to follow.
Come June 2014 after Council had fudged the numbers and included removal of the ampitheatre, the total estimate cost was approximately $400,000 and was significantly higher than Council’s previous, and never substantiated, estimate of about $100,000 (which didn’t include the ampitheatre). Fortunately/deliberately, Council did not provide estimated restoration costs in the survey, so all Councillors (the current incumbents) ignored the disparity in cost estimates or undertaking another survey, and happily argued that, had residents known the costs, the survey results would have been different, therefore, the conservatory should go. 6 months later it did.
It was then, and is still today, a pretty impressive display of how our elected representatives don’t represent. It ranks up there with the Guns issue
December 10, 2015 at 8:36 AM
Secrecy has been know as a cover for corruption. This is why it’s important that or councillors and their bureaucrats be seen to to be above this type of behavior, They do nothing for their credibility by hiding-out in the backrooms of the town hall conducting business in secret. Good reporting via the minutes is all important, Glen Eira has alway had problem with accurate minute reporting.
Lift your game guys you’re being paid to do a good job
December 10, 2015 at 9:54 AM
No guessing whose names feature the most. Tweedle dum and tweedle dee – Lipshutz and Hyams. The most vocal opponents to open government. You have to wonder why don’t you?
December 10, 2015 at 10:20 AM
No need to wonder – consistently it’s self and cronies. Why else the zones, no tree policy, the conservatory, the shonk of guns, no purchase of open space and constant preference for the MRC.
December 10, 2015 at 3:40 PM
It is no secret that we are badly governed and that GECC repeatedly breaches the Local Government Act. The guns debacle is just one more example amongst many. LGA states Council Meetings should be open to the public but provides a long and ambiguous list of matters for which a meeting may be closed to the public if they are being discussed. It doesn’t say that the voting or resolutions can be kept secret. It goes further. The Minutes MUST contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made. For the resolutions recorded in the Minutes, the relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process MUST be incorporated.
Council gets away with it by taking a dubious interpretation that everything considered at a closed meeting is Confidential Information. This position is inconsistent with the intention and wording of the rest of the Act, and Council prefers secrecy over meeting its obligations.
By failing to publish details of the proceedings and resolutions made, and failing to provide relevant reports or summaries of relevant reports considered during their secret decision making, Council is breaching the Act and councillors their own Code of Conduct. They should resign. Local Government Inspectorate should be held accountable for their lax oversight too.
December 10, 2015 at 7:54 PM
People might remember that it was Lipshutz who got the no surprises bit into the code of conduct. That was designed to stop councillors asking questions of each other.
December 10, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Can GE debates from their records show examples of decisions initiated by Hyams, Lipshuck and Eskallof?
December 11, 2015 at 6:42 AM
The answer to the high number of secret meetings is quite simple. Must be one of Newton’s KPI’s, “to encourage secret meetings”.
December 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Enough is Enough the gang with YES man Pilling are screwing GE residents. Guns of Navaron now
also Guns of GE Goonies in public life.
December 11, 2015 at 2:59 PM
The Minutes of 20 Oct 2015 also shows some subtle language in the Motion to close the meeting to the public that is designed to mislead. It states: “That the meeting be now closed to the public…in order to consider…”. The Act does NOT require the meeting to be closed. Council is NOT obliged to close the meeting. Council can consider the items in a public meeting. The Act just says Council may close the meeting if any one of a long list of matters is being discussed. It doesn’t say resolutions can be kept secret, doesn’t say Council can refuse to provide a summary of information considered, doesn’t say Council can avoid transparency and accountability in its decision-making. Why do our Mayors consistently show so little leadership?
December 11, 2015 at 9:33 PM
What can you expect when Mayors are…….