Time for a quasi ‘performance report’ on council. It is now a year since Glen Eira has had a new CEO at the helm and 4 months since 5 new councillors were elected. Has anything really changed? Has there been ‘progress’ in terms of transparency and accountability? Has this council lived up to the rhetoric of ‘listening to residents’ and instituting vital change to democratic processes and protocols?
Some potential positives –
- Several directors are gone – so there has been a major reshuffle of senior admin
- Suspension of standing orders in order to cater for ‘community conversations’ at council meetings
The negatives –
- No change to Local Law until 2019
- No change to advisory committee meetings protocols
- No intention of reviewing residential zones despite huge community outcry
- And much, much more……..
In December last year, the Ombudsman released her report into transparency in decision making by local councils. Glen Eira was one of the councils focused upon. According to the report the basis for the selection of the 12 councils was: the number of complaints received about them; comments received via the Government’s Local Act Review, and the performance measures on ‘transparency ratings’.
We’ve uploaded the full report HERE and fully endorse the findings made. Each recommendation is something that for years and years this council has fought tooth and nail to avoid. We can see no reason why many of these recommendations cannot be instituted immediately and do not even require amending the Local Law – ie publishing the agenda at least 5 days prior to the council meeting, instead of late Friday afternoon!
Here is the media release on the recommendations –
We must also take some credit in leading the ombudsman to conclude that Council’s Delegated Planning Committee had been operating illegally for the past decade! That is why several council meetings ago, there was the resolution to rescind the delegation to this committee and reconstitute it! Thus here was another opportunity for council to mend its ways – to be far more open and transparent. No such luck in Glen Eira – except for the notation in the CEO’s response that the public could request minutes from this committee. Certainly news to us and why hasn’t this been widely publicised if in fact true?
The motivation to change, to live up to the rhetoric, to ensure greater transparency, and to work with the community instead of against it, would appear to be moribund. If it were alive and well we would not:
- Have to wait until 2019 for the Local Law to be amended – especially when the current public question fiasco can occur at the drop of a hat and at the whim of the anti-community forces within council
- Find planning conferences designated as ‘sensitive’ and accessible by ‘invitation only’
- Council submissions/consultant’s reports on vital issues would be available PRIOR to council resolution and NOT AFTER
- etc. etc.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 22, 2017 at 8:56 AM
With 3 lawyers as councillors for ever and a day, tons of corporate counsels, and heaps of money spent on them, they still couldn’t get things right. It’s taken some amateur residents to put the spotlight on them. Once found out they could have decided to produce regular reports and have the minutes also available. No such luck. I like the bit in the omb report that says Glen Eira is the only council that has this committee of officers only. One more example of how out of line this council when compared to other councils. Plenty has to change in Glen Eira and it’s about time that the new mob put their money where their mouths were pre-election.
February 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM
Congrats to the blog for showing up this incompetence and to the ombudsman for taking them to task.
The dpc meetings that I have attended as an objector are a complete farce and waste of time. No councillor is present only 3 officers and a planner. The planner takes about ten minutes to ramble on about the application. Nothing is given to objectors in writing so it is very difficult to keep track of everything the planner says and then to question him later. That’s the first thing that has to change. The planner’s report should be available to everyone beforehand so that there is time to analyse it properly. On one occasion the developer didn’t even bother to show up so there was no chance about reaching consensus or compromise with objectors. Plus no one told me that I could get minutes of the decision making. After about a week I received the planner’s report and a very brief explanation of why permits had been given. I also had to take a day off work to attend. I don’t know why these can’t be held in the evening when people are more likely to be available.
February 22, 2017 at 12:37 PM
The worth of the new 5 Councillors (which is yet to be seen) will only be judged by the ethics and fairness with which they conduct themselves.
February 22, 2017 at 2:38 PM
Good point, we still have Hyams, Esakoff & Magee hanging around around like a bad smell from the last horror regime. All three highly resistant against all changes, that may undermine their petty power bases.
So wisely Rebecca McKenzie must move slowly, just in case Hyams is able to round-up and rally Cr Dan Sztrajt & that other little bloke, into his blind realm of being anti resident. He was highly successful in turning Pilling into a lap-dog lackey,
McKenzie isn’t blind she see the dangers.
February 22, 2017 at 9:44 PM
It is assumed that the other little bloke is Cr.Silver. He has already demonstrated that he is thinking of the residents by voting against social housing in Caulfield North. Many other supported the motion through their own personal beliefs. Silver voted with the residents sentiments. If they continue to vote through with their heart they may not always be in tune with the residents.
February 23, 2017 at 9:25 AM
You are wrong, I know the area well enough to understand that Camden Ward is bigger than North Caulfield. I not surprised to hear that among the elite QC social set, social needs of housing come in very last.
To be consistent I suppose you and the little bloke would also be against corporate tax welfare and superannuation welfare for the wealthy.
February 24, 2017 at 6:42 AM
Since when did the developer have to pay for social housing? That is the roll of government. Why would the developer build something and give it away. I believe the MRC are the greediest mob around but there is no laws that make them do what the council wanted. The council did not define what type of social housing they wanted to include. It was a half cocked motion that will achieve nothing.
February 24, 2017 at 11:00 AM
Developers don’t “give it away”. They get a return plus other concessions like more apartments crammed in and allowed.
February 24, 2017 at 2:13 PM
That does not happen.
February 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
The ombudsman’s report is a weighty document and a good one. Her recommendations all make sense. I particularly like the comments on delegations. The tradition in Glen Eira has been for councillors to say yes to everything and wash their hands of all responsibility. The delegated authority should not sit outside what most reasonable people expect of accountable and transparent government. It must be the roles of councillors to insist that all the necessary procedures are in place so that there is transparency. Much needs to change in how Glen Eira goes about its planning and governance in so many other areas.
February 23, 2017 at 4:31 PM
Silver will shine if he is against dishonesty. Three out of 5 are clones. Any guesses who they are and who made them clones?
February 23, 2017 at 5:09 PM
you have lost me completly
February 23, 2017 at 4:53 PM
“Ensuring transparency and accountability in Council decision making” are one of the Objectives of a Council according to the Local Government Act. Not in Glen Eira. We can submit public questions, have an officer reject them even when under 150 words without citing anything in Local Law, sit through 3 hours of uninformed debate, and then have Council refuse to provide the information requested. Average time to return a phonecall is about 2 weeks, if it is ever returned. There is no statutory mechanism that can be used to find out the reasons for officer decisions when made under power of delegation. There is something seriously wrong with the culture at GECC.
February 23, 2017 at 7:10 PM
Culture has stunk for years. Up to the fab 5 to fix it pronto.
February 23, 2017 at 9:39 PM
Keep dreaming,the Fab 5 will be divided by the notorious two. Everyone had faith in Delahunty to clean up the Council as she had promised many residents that that was the purpose she was standing for. Delahunty hope you have not lost the way.
February 24, 2017 at 6:46 AM
Delahunty could be characterised as a fast talker. Bit like a shop with a great window but when you get inside the shelves are bare.
February 24, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Re Social Housing: encouraging the provision of Social Housing is State Policy, Local Policy and a key objective in the Incorporated Plan for Caulfield Village. The developer wrote the Incorporated Plan and included Social Housing in order to get their amendment adopted. VCAT has abused its authority yet again. If the developer chooses not to comply with their Incorporated Plan [and they wrote the document] then they should have the equivalent of the Planning Permit that they operate under revoked. That would be the ethical response, so it won’t happen.
The whole process stinks—land “swap”; failure to comply with residential amenity standards; steady expansion and deliberate understatement of size of development; and now gradual rollback of the “mixed use” component to be replaced with yet more apartments.
February 25, 2017 at 8:35 AM
The notion that a developer will pay for social housing is unreal. The Federal Gov. set aside large amounts of cash for affordable housing during the Gillard Government. Developers could apply and get cash to incorporate affordable housing into their projects. Many did and vert successfully.Unfortunately like most well intended schemes this one was rorted. Opposite Monash Clayton is an example. Large new residential housing for overseas students. Total rort. That money could have been used in Caulfield as it was intended. Policies are of no use unless they can be made to work. The GEC has been totally duded by the MRC. No one has described what type of social housing was to be included. Instead of wasting time have nebulous warm glowing stuff in the amendment it would have been better to focus on setbacks and height limits.
February 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM
I specifically wrote to councillors requesting they make compliance with ResCode to be a precondition for supporting Amendment C60. They didn’t, and we now have a shitty development that doesn’t meet multiple standards or even the Better Apartments Design Standards.
However, returning to social housing, people can argue about the policies and their effectiveness, but there are policies in place and they shouldn’t be ignored. My view is that the developer secured adoption of their very generous Incorporated Document and subsequent Development Plans in part because of the promises they made. They have now reneged, and as a result they should also lose their social license to build Caulfield Village. The two go together.
February 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM
In case people aren’t aware, a new MRC application came in late December for – “Ground floor accommodation use within the mixed use precinct”. Another example of chip, chipping away at permits already granted in order to increase the residential component of something that was sold to residents as providing ‘certainty’. We imagine that the MRC is laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of council and its residents. Thus far they have won every single round – as was probably always intended under the tutelage of Newton, Akehurst, Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz.