June 12, 2012

A Brief Report

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s)
[3] Comments 

Tonight’s Council Meeting was frankly disappointing in terms of the overall turnout of residents. Of the 20 plus submissions on the Council/Community Plan, only three people addressed council whilst most of the submitters were not present in chambers. Whether unforseen circumstances prevented their appearance and presentation (ie Friends of Caulfield Park had expressed the desire to address council) or whether residents after years and years of submitting their thoughts, ideas, and aspirations, only to have nothing come from their efforts, thought in the end, it was a useless exercise, we do not pretend to know. However, as the saying goes, the outcomes of the submissions are what’s important and residents will undoubtedly judge council on this basis. We will report in greater detail on the presentations in the next day or so.

Of immediate interest are the two development applications which together drew approximately 110 objections – the Glen Huntly Road, and the Gilmour St, Bentleigh proposals. We believe that the debate on these two applications illustrated precisely what is amiss with Glen Eira Council, its Planning Scheme, and how reluctant councillors are to challenge the current (hidden) agendas. The Glen Huntly Rd applications basically accepted the officers’ recommendation, whilst the Gilmour St application reduced the number of dwellings to one double storey and two single storeys.

Penhalluriack made two ‘suggestions’ – to defer decision on the Glen Huntly application. There was no seconder. His request for a report on the Exeloo toilets and for a cost/benefit analysis that included maintenance costs, and graffiti removal costs, was defeated. Magee seconded.

In the coming days we will present a detailed account of the arguments so that residents may judge for themselves the contradictions, the grandstanding, and the innumerable lapses in logic.

PS: It’s also worth mentioning that the game of verbal gymnastics continues unabated. 3 councillors continually referred to the “transitions policy” as a “transition ZONE”. We remind readers that nothing could be further from the truth. This is NOT A ZONE. It merely creates setbacks for those properties abutting Minimal Change Areas. To call this a ZONE is not only misleading, but we contend, deliberately mischievious. If councillors do not even know what they are voting for, then we are all in real trouble. If they do know, then their obfuscation of the truth is unacceptable.

 

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

  1. “ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
  2. “Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
  3. “My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
  4. “The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
  5. “the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
  6. “The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
  7. “”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”
 

June 8, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
  • An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
  • An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity  abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining  sites in Minimal Change Areas”.  Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement.  However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.

Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?

 

June 6, 2012

Community Plan/Budget: Short On ‘Solutions’

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments 

The draft Community Plan deserves credit for highlighting the problems and issues which will, and already are, impacting dramatically on residents. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to realise that traffic management, planning, and open space are key concerns. The Community Plan has this to say on these matters:

Population/Planning: “Additional dwellings required to support population changes in the future will impact upon Council’s town planning, traffic, parking, assets and infrastructure services. The appropriateness of new development and maintaining heritage of local housing continues to be a strong concern of local residents. Council needs to work with the State Government to ensure Victorian planning controls appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents.”

Traffic: “The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009 (VISTA) commissioned by the Department of Transport reveals that 72 per cent of all trips in Glen Eira during a weekday are undertaken as a car driver or passenger, ten per cent use public transport, 15 per cent walking and two per cent use a bicycle. These facts reveal opportunities to target and promote sustainable transport options”.

So, what STRATEGIES, what actions, what performance measures and what investment does the budget and the Strategic Resource Plan propose in order to address and resolve these ‘problems’. Sadly, very little. The above quotes are a good indication of how bereft, and unwilling, council is to tackle the core of the problem rather than merely tinkering with the edges. Planning should be about more than ‘maintaining heritage’ or working with government. It needs to ensure that the Planning Scheme has done everything it possibly can to ‘appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents’. There is no mention of this in the Action Plan apart from the very limited C87 and the ‘transition’ policy – already rubber stamped! Nor will the creation of 4 speed humps per year solve the growing problem of rat runs through local residential streets. If ‘safety’ is the primary concern, then much, much more needs to be planned and budgeted for. Residents should really ask: how many traffic lights have been installed; how many pedestrian crossings; how many roundabouts; how many splitter islands in the past two years?

The most obvious failing of these plans is the inability (or perhaps deliberate) blurring of what constitutes a strategy and an objective. We maintain that very few ‘strategies’ exist. The community/council plan is loaded with lofty goals, but is short on feasible, comprehensive strategies. The result is a complete lack of integration between goals, strategies and performance measures. Yet, heading after heading proudly states ‘strategy’. The following are NOT strategies – they are warm, fluffy, motherhood statements undoubtedly intended to provide the illusion that something is actually being done. We ask readers: are these ‘strategies’?

  • Improve safety and movement of road users and provide a fair and equitable balance of parking.
  • Improve road safety and manage congestion on the local road network.
  • Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
  • Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas
  • Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.
  • Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

The list goes on an on. None are carefully laid out strategies that clarify, detail, nor provide clear criteria against which performance may be evaluated in the Action Plan and its ‘measures’. The result will be more of the same – a budget and council/community plan big on rhetoric, but failing in action and appropriate funding.

 

June 5, 2012

VCAT: More Council Failures?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Readers may remember a highly contentious planning application for 1a Albany Court, North Caulfield. This was for the extension of numbers and access for a synagogue. The gallery was full of objectors and the decision by councillors was split. This has now gone (again) to VCAT in the hope to extend the pedestrian carriageway. The full VCAT decision may be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/669.html

We present some extracts from the member’s decision which highlights the fact that Council:

  • Hasn’t sought enforcement orders for continual breaches of the permit
  • Hasn’t bothered to notify residents of this new application

“The Council explained there had been a synagogue (shul) operating at 1A Albany Court for a number of years without planning approval.”

“Nearby residents oppose this application for two main reasons. The first reason is the history of non-compliance by the permit applicant with the planning scheme (for operating an illegal synagogue); with the current planning permit (for erecting a walkway that is not on the land to which the permit applies); and other non-compliance with permit conditions. This is not a matter that I can deal with as this application is not an enforcement proceeding for compliance with the planning permit.”

“The Council initially opposed this amendment but during the hearing advised it no longer opposed this because the amendment is a relatively minor requirement. On the face of it, the creation of an easement may be considered a secondary aspect of this proposal. However, it is also an aspect for which separate planning permission is required and the Council needs to then determine if material detriment may result that necessitates the giving of public notice. As the planning application lodged with the Council has not been processed, I am not aware if the Council made a decision on this aspect of the processing of the application. In any event, the notification given as part of this section 87A application was limited to four properties at 2 and 3 Albany Court, 4 Grimwade Court and 18 Kambea Grove. If notice was required as part of a planning application, it would have been to at least the adjoining properties (as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires), and the notification undertaken by the Applicant in this case does not include all properties adjoining 2 St Aubins Avenue. Further, the extent of notification given in this application did not include all persons who originally objected, nor the persons who were originally notified of the proposed synagogue at 1 and 1A Albany Court (as identified in the Council’s Practice Note material provided to the Tribunal after lodgement of this application). For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include the additional planning permission for the creation of an easement in this permit”

 

June 4, 2012

Desperate Tactics By Desperate Men!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[30] Comments 

The following story is featured in today’s Herald Sun.  What concerns us more than the allegations, is the ongoing concerted character assassination – without evidence – ably abetted by Hyams and his masters. We draw readers’ attention to his alleged comments and ask –

  • Is this how a Mayor should behave – judge, jury and executioner?
  • How dare Hyams divine motive without ‘evidence’?
  • How did the Herald Sun get hold of the story?

We find it totally reprehensible that Hyams has the gall to state that a fellow councillor is attempting to ‘flout the law…to make a profit’. Our conclusion: what a nasty piece of work this is!

Glen Eira councillor link to alleged illegal backpacker house

  • Keith Moor
  • From: Herald Sun
  • June 04, 2012 12:00AM

AN alleged illegal backpacker hostel labelled as a death trap is being run out of a property owned by Sunday trading rebel and Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Cr Penhalluriack’s own council recently sent a written warning demanding the hostel either be shut down or made safe. But the demands have so far not been met and the hostel in Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, is still operating.

A Herald Sun reporter attempted to check in on Friday night, but was told every bed was taken. Sounds of a party in full swing could be heard coming from the house.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams said it was extremely disappointing a councillor was allegedly “flouting the law like that to make a profit”. “These places are often potential death traps, not to mention the disruption they cause to the lives of neighbours,” he said.

But Cr Penhalluriack said if the property was being run as a backpacker hostel then it was happening without his knowledge. He said he rented it to a man with a wife and children about five months ago.

Council building surveyors last month inspected Cr Penhalluriack’s property, which is sandwiched between his Caulfield hardware store and garden centre, and found it was being illegally used as a boarding house. That inspection was prompted by a complaint from a nearby resident about rubbish problems and the “constant turnover of backpackers” at the house. There were nine backpackers living in it and paying rent to a tenth resident when the place was inspected on May 2.

Cr Penhalluriack yesterday said it wasn’t worth spending money on the property as he was planning to demolish it and turn it into car parking for his garden centre. He said he recently gave the tenants 30 days to leave.

Cr Penhalluriack’s protests against a ban on Sunday trading led to him being jailed for 19 days in 1984. The state government eventually allowed open slather trading in 1996.
moork@heraldsun.com.au
– with Jonno Nash

 

June 3, 2012

Racecourse: The Clayton’s ‘Agreement’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

We’ve received quite a few comments of late relating to the Council/MRC ‘agreement’ and the fact that the promised actions have not eventuated. If anything, the MRC has gone on its merry way, totally ignoring Council and the community.

Adding insult to injury is the total silence by the Special Committee (Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams and Esakoff) – as well as the administration. Apart from 2 planning applications not a word has come from these sources. Nor have we heard a single mutter from the Trustees – Magee, Forge, and Tang (when the latter actually makes it to meetings!) Nothing but nothing has been reported upon: no ‘progress’ reports, no minutes, no media releases, no statements. Residents have been left dangling with no information and no knowledge of what is really going on. Once again Council mission statements of transparency and accountability belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda (to use an old Lipshutz analogy).

The only information to eke out has been the result of public questions demanding explanations for the failure to inform residents of street closures. The pathetic response included:

“The recent notification provided by Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to residents for the Caravan and Camping Show was disappointing and unacceptable and the MRC has been so advised. Consequently as a basis for more timely notification to residents, Council officers have advised the MRC that a calendar of all their future events is to be provided .

The process is that a traffic management plan is prepared by the MRC and reviewed by Council for every event that is expected to significantly impact traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Racecourse Reserve.

As traffic management arrangements are continually being trialled to ensure impacts to residents are minimised (and different events have different traffic management requirements), no formal agreement can be put in place with the MRC regarding which roads would be impacted (and for how long) or which roads are closed.“ 

Has this ‘calendar’ materialised? What does ‘significant’ mean? Is ‘no formal agreement’ a euphemism for ‘the MRC can continue to do what it likes, when it likes?’

As to the events themselves, here is a list of what’s been happening at the Racecourse for the past 8 months or so and how ‘access’ for the public has been handled. We’ve probably missed some, so the list shouldn’t be seen as complete.

EVENT

 DURATION

GATES

Caulfield Guineas

 1 day

closed

Caulfield Cup

 1 day

closed

Baby & Kids   Market

1 day

  

Sewing & Craft   Show

4 days

  

Monash Exams

5 days

  

Platinum Play   Family Fund Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Monash Exams

10 days

  

Carlton &   United Breweries Family Xmas Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Wholesale Direct   Shopping Evening

1 evening

  

Mathilda Market

1 day

  

Building &   Construction Workers xmas

 1 day

Closed (high noise   level)

Metricon Xmas   Function

1 day

  

Harvest & Graze

1 day

  

Caravan & Camping   Show

 6 days

Closed – used for   parking

Twins Plus Festival

1 day

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Carex – Health &   Aged Expo

2 days

  

Age VCE Career Expo

4 days

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Open University   Exams

 4 days  
Early Childhood   Development

2 days

  

Circus (one already held & one upcoming)

2 MONTHS (WITH SOME DAYS 2 SHOWS A DAY)

  

Just these figures alone give us a tally of roughly 130 days. Wouldn’t it be good to know how much REVENUE Council receives as a result of all these fixtures? Or does it all go to the MRC and not a cent returned to Council?

Surely if this venue is to hold so many events then a traffic management plan IS essential and should be made public. It is also incumbent on Council to ensure that all gates are open as per the agreement.

The issue of fences, pathways and other ‘developments’ in the centre, we will leave to another post.

 

June 2, 2012

Public Relations!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Mean test on seniors at Glen Eira pool

2 Jun 12 @  05:05am by Jessica Bennett

David and Marilyn Murphy don't receive a Seniors' Card pool discount. Picture: HILTON STONE N48MS704

David and Marilyn Murphy don’t receive a Seniors’ Card pool discount. Picture: HILTON STONE

KEEN Murrumbeena swimmers are disappointed the new Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre won’t offer Seniors Card discounts.

David Murphy, aged 60, and Marilyn Murphy, 59, said they swam every second day at the Carnegie outdoor pool, which is only open during the summer.

He said they decided to try the Glen Eira centre and were dismayed to find their seniors’ cards weren’t accepted as concession cards.

“When I received my Seniors Card last December I very proudly presented it at the Carnegie pool and they accepted it,” Mr Murphy said.

He said the aquatic centre manager told him the cards weren’t accepted because they were not means tested.

“Most who take the trouble to get Seniors Cards are self-funded retirees who are comfortable but not rich,” Mr Murphy said.

“Some seniors would clearly be using the indoor facilities for health and rehabilitation.

“I hope this doesn’t stop them from using the centre.

“It just seems a bit petty. Would it really matter if one billionaire got a $1 discount?”

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke confirmed Seniors Cards were not accepted at any council sports facilities as they were not a means-tested concession card.

 

May 31, 2012

Secret No More!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[8] Comments 

The following provides residents with a glimpse into the behind the scenes machinations that have come to characterise this administration and councillors. First we present part of the in camera minutes of 20th September 2011 which were not reproduced in any public minutes. However in the minutes of 22nd November 2011 there is a new resolution which bears a striking resemblance to the unpublished one. The in camera minutes of 20th September state –

Crs Tang/Hyams

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August right of reply Council:

  1. 1.     Notes that On 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated:-

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2.     Considers that the above statement is likely to mislead or deceive.

3.     Requested Cr Penhalluriack to withdraw this statement and he has not done so.

4.     Considers that had Council rebutted the statement at that time, or were Council to do so in a public forum, it may constitute a breach of confidentiality. Council therefore notes that the comments were likely to mislead or deceive and accordingly, Council disassociates itself from those comments (our emphasis)

DIVISION

Cr Forge called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                                                             Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lobo                                                                 Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                                                            Cr Magee

Cr Tang

Cr Hayms

Cr Pilling

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED. 

Then wonder of wonders, the minutes of 22nd November contain this resolution –

Crs Lipshutz/Tang 

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council: 

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.” 

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above. 

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. 

COMMENTS

Readers need to keep in mind that this second resolution happened to take place when Penhalluriack (and Lobo) were on leave. It also raises questions as to why two councillors changed their votes and what kind of pressures may have been applied to ensure that the resulting vote was unanimous? As to the logic of the argument, well, we’ve already commented on that in our November 2011 post, but it’s worth reiterating that there is a vast difference between potentially breaching confidentiality as stated in the first resolution and the conclusion that ‘the comments were likely to mislead or deceive’. Further, Council at this point in time had not revealed that O’Neill had been hired, so by including the ‘fresh’ resolution in the minutes of 22nd November they were probably contravening their own confidentiality embargo!!!

Readers may well ask, what’s the point of two similar resolutions? Is this simple ‘damage control’? More muck raking? Or so that the word ‘unanimous’ can be put at the bottom and continue the pretence that this is a united council? Please note again who are the primary  ‘little helpers’. 

 

May 31, 2012

Do We Really Need All These ‘Fat Cats’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Staff numbers at Glen Eira continue to rise and rise. We’ve reported several times already on the number of ‘fat cats’ sitting on well over $230,000 per annum in contrast to other councils. But the scenario is even worse when we include ‘contractor’ costs. The promise made years ago was that Council would try to minimise its reliance on contractors. So much for promises! Below is a table detailing employee and contractor costs for the last 7 budgets as well as staff increases from 2008 onwards. Contractors we believe ARE NOT included in these staff figures.

 

2006/7

 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

2012/13

Salary

 37,960 41,066 43,277 44,073 47,838 51,841

56,277

Contractors

 16,339 16,063 16,803 17,646 20,532 22,471

25,183

Staff   (EFT)

 ? ? 623 630 654 715

736

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »