May 29, 2012

Rates & Charges Up, Services Down!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Submissions for the Budget, Community Plan, and Strategic Resource Plan close in about a week. The continual spin is that Glen Eira is a low cost and well performing council. Our take on all this is that whilst rates and charges keep climbing, services have been downgraded, cut, and certainly have not kept up with demand or resident expectations. We maintain that the basics are being ignored in order to pay for such extravagances as GESAC, and now the Duncan Mckinnon pavilion/grandstand as well as another $700,000+ for Marlborough Reserve. Instead of ensuring that funding goes to the essentials, such as drains, roads, parking, footpaths, open space acquisitions and other themes highlighted by the community, we instead have profligacy and interest repayments that will continue to burden ratepayers for years to come. Residents have every right therefore to question the decision making capacity and priorities of this council.

Our ‘evidence’ as to the downgrading of essential services comes straight from the horse’s mouth – previous budgets and council plans. Residents should also note that instead of specific and quantifiable measures that appeared in previous plans, the ‘measures’ for the 2012/13 version are mere waffle. Nothing is quantifiable. It’s also questionable why, when budgets are set the target is to spend only 90% of the allocated funds! Either the money is available or it isn’t! If the latter then it would certainly be far more honest to state that instead of the claimed $3.8 million designated for roads, that council will really be spending only $3.42 million.

Below is a table comparing the published expenditure over the past 6 years. What needs to be kept in mind is that costs have risen so what $3 million could have ‘bought’ in 2007 is certainly not what $3 million will ‘buy’ today!

 

  2007 2009 2012
DRAINS “Reduce   flooding in Glen Eira by improving the Council drainage network – incidence   of flooding reduced – 1000 tonnes of sediment diverted ($3.3 million)” Renew and   upgrade Council’s drainage system to provide greater capacity – Implement   council’s drainage program – Expend $3   million on council’s drainage

Effectively   monitor and maintain the City’s stormwater network to minimise the   contaminants entering our waterways – Keep drains clear of sediment and   debris – 30km of drains cleaned.

 

 Maintain   renew and upgrade Council’s drainage system to reduce the risk of flood   damage – Implement council’s Drainage improvement and Flood Mitigation Sub   Programs – Expend $3.5 M on   Douncil’s Drainage improvemnt nd Flood Mitigation Sub-Programs

 

 
ROADS Local road   reconstructions $4 million Maintain a   program of road renewals and replacement at a standard that allows for long   term safety and sustainability – Implement   $4 million capital program for road reconstruction – Road program   implemented and approximately 5 km of road reconstructed.

 

 Implement   Council Road reconstruction Sub-program – Expend 90% of the budgeted capital works program for  road reconstruction. ($3.8 MILLION)
FOOTPATHS Improve   the quality of footpaths – 27km of   footpaths replaced

 

 Replace at   least 25km of footpath each year –   Implement $2M footpath upgrade   capital program at various locations around the City – 25km of new footpath   installed. Implement $1.7M footpath upgrade …at   various locations around the City – Expend   90% of the budgeted capital works program for footpath installation.

 
HOME CARE   4956 hours of property   maintenance  provided to eligible   residents  4,500   hours of Property Maintenance.
CUSTOMER   SERVICE   Customer   Service Centre to resolve 80% of calls at first point of contact and with an   average call waiting time of 10   seconds or less

 

 80% of   calls resolved at first point of contact

Average   call waiting time of 18 seconds or   less achieved for all calls

 
FOOD   INSPECTIONS   800 food   businesses inspected

 

 Conduct 800 food safety assessments of   registered food business

(and this after Lipshutz at last council   meeting tells us that food outlets have increased dramatically)

 
 

May 28, 2012

Newton v Penhalluriack: #2

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

The following is from the in camera Council minutes of 20th September, 2011. We have two simple questions for residents to mull over:

  • Is this nonsense worth $65,000 and rising?
  • Who are the real bullies?

“At the Council meeting of 30 August Council resolved

That Council:

Following consideration of the responses provided by the CEO and Cr. Penhalluriack in relation to the O’Neill report

1.

(a)      Resolves that Cr Penhalluriack puts all questions to the CEO and/or Officers in writing and submits them to the Mayor except where questions arise during the course of a meeting.

(b)      Directs Cr Penhalluriack not to make any accusations to the CEO and/or Officers unless he has supporting evidence (which must be produced at the time of making the accusations)

(c)       Urges the Chair to strictly enforce point of order at Council meetings concerning accusations made by any Councillor without any supporting evidence

(d)      Encourages all Councillors to take responsibility for the occupational health and safety of the CEO and/or Officers by taking steps to prevent bullying by acting on any incidents that they may witness and making points of order when accusations without evidence are made.

(e)       Requires Cr Penhalluriack to undergo training on bullying and the appropriate way to phrase questions at meetings and authorises the Mayor to ppoint an appropriate expert to carry out such training to a maximum expenditure of $2,500 (our emphasis)

(f)       Offers the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack Employee Assistance Support

2. Notes Tracey O’Neill’s recommendation to refer Cr Penhalluriack to a Councillor conduct panel and reserves the right to implement this recommendation should the above recommendations not be effective.

3. Appoints an independent arbiter, nominated by the MAV, to rule on issues relating to workplace safety identified in the O’Neill report and to ensure that recommendations are implemented and maintained to ensure a safe effective and productive workplace.

4. Strongly urges Cr Penhalluriack to exclude himself from all discussion in relation to the CEO contract and should he fail to do so, consider the formation of a special committee for CEO contract matters.

5. Notifies Cr Penhalluriack and the CEO of this resolution.

Issues

  1.  Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour subsequent to Council resolution 30 August 

Subsequent to the Council meeting of 30 August a number of OH&S incidents have occurred these include

  • 7 September 2011 – Cr Penhalluriack requested Council Officer (CEO) to supply him with Council Minutes and architectural drawings for Duncan Mackinnon pavilion contrary to the above resolution and also while having a certificate declaring himn unfit for any duties.
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 00553 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted to direct officers to supply him with a Victoria Police report, an arborist report and photographs regarding a tree vandalism incident.
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03554 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack emailed a Council Officer again requesting Council minutes
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03555 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack approached a Council Officer requesting information making the Officer feel under pressure to comply
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03556 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack directed a Council Officer to copy the minutes from the 30 August Council meeting after being refused he then went through the Officer’s desk and read the minutes, which had yet to be distributed, taking hand written notes.
  • 8 September 2011 – (CEO statement) Cr Penhalluriack attended the Citizenship Ceremony from 8.00pm until 8.50pm where he engaged other Councillors in conversation regarding the Caulfield Park Pavilion and amendment C60. Cr Penhalluraick (sic) then went to the City Management area and read the confidential minutes from the last Council meeting at an Officer’s desk. He was seen to still be there at 9.30pm reading through the confidential minutes. (our emphasis)
  • 12 September 2011 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted conversation with Council Officers (CEO) (our emphasis)
  • 12 September 2011 – Incident report 03557 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack questioned a Council Officer about Council documents leaving the Officer shaken and distressed

Also in discussion with an Officer from OccCorp in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack’s potential WorkCover claim OccCorp advised that Cr Penhalluriack stated that “The CEO term finishes in April so that it will all be over by then.”

 

May 27, 2012

Prudent Financial Management? – Duncan McKinnon

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

The saga of the Duncan McKinnon grandstand and pavilion ‘redevelopment’ continues. Council minutes now reveal that the tender has finally been awarded and that the contract price is $9,744,651.52.  

We’re astounded at the apparent inflation rate. All along residents have been sold different versions of what this will cost. The 2011/12 budget stated –“$5.5m for Duncan Mackinnon in 2011-2012 and $1.8m in 2012- 2013”. This year’s budget tells us : “Duncan Mackinnon – $1.09m for Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion construction in 2012-2013 (plus carry forward from 2011-12)”. As for total costs, these are anybody’s guess – something that is surely reminiscent of the increasing costs associated with GESAC. Public pronouncements started off at about $7 million. Then in June last year, the price was announced as being $8.8 million. Now it’s just under ten million and this doesn’t include ‘design’, road restructuring, car park extensions, and so on.

Questions:

  • How can there be a million dollar jump in the space of less than one year?
  • How can there be a several million dollar jump in cost in the space of 2 years?
  • Have residents and councillors been told furphies as to cost all the way along?
  • Where’s the extra money coming from since council can’t borrow anymore?
  • How much has already been spent on ‘design’?
  • Has the delay and subsequent price increase been the direct result of financial blowouts over GESAC? Are we heading down the same path with Duncan McKinnon?
  • Are other services being cut in order to fund Duncan McKinnon?
 

May 24, 2012

Sloppy, Shoddy & Unforgiveable

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

Budget papers are supposed to be an accurate representation of a council’s financial status, its assets, and forward planning. Budgets are also submitted to Ministers, the public, and Auditor Generals. We imagine that they would go through countless hands before they are made public; that they would be checked and double checked for accuracy and consistency. How the following then occurs is simply incomprehensible. This is only one example of what we consider to be totally unprofessional and sloppy performance.

We have followed through on 3 separate budgets at basically two year intervals – 2007, 2009 and the current 2012 budget. The focus is on the stated number of DRAINAGE PITS.

In 2007 it is stated that Council has 16,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 15th 2007, page 5 of the budget)

In 2009 we’re told that Council has 17,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 12th, 2009 – page 17 of the budget)

Perhaps there has been a magical increase of 1,000 in 2 years. However, the piece de resistance comes in this year’s budget.

On Page 32 of the Community Plan Glen Eira suddenly possesses 22,000 drainage pits! Amazing! Then on page 32 of the budget we suddenly are back to 16,000 drainage pits!!!!!!!! Which is it? Does this administration even know? Or are figures simply plucked from the air and any number will do? Who checked these papers? Who is responsible for the inconsistencies and spin?

PS: Some more very questionable figures –

2007 – 5,953 registered business providing 32,750 jobs

2009 –13,521 registered businesses providing 29,000 jobs

2012 –13,521 registered businesses providing  29,000 jobs

2007 – 57,7007 rateable properties

2009 – 58,609 rateable properties

 

 

May 23, 2012

Debate: Does It Really Exist?

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

We beg readers indulgence since we’re about to repeat ourselves. We have continually stated that residents have made it absolutely clear that their prime concern is inappropriate and/or over development. We have also stated that part of the problem is that far too much power is granted to officers via the delegations process and councillors rarely get a look in.

We’ve also remarked on how Tuesday night’s council meeting had a warm and fluffy feeling where everybody was congratulating everybody else for GESAC, for parks and gardens, and so forth. Yet, hidden away in the agenda there was another draft of delegations.

Residents should expect that what happens in chamber is more than back slapping and mutual admiration societies. That when important agenda items crop up (ie delegations, environmental sustainability) that there at least be ‘robust’ discussion and that these recommendations are not simply rubber stamped by a bunch of either disinterested or compliant councillors.

What we’ve done below is feature the time taken to decide on some of these agenda items as well as the discussion on the GESAC report. Readers should note that delegations warranted a bare 90 seconds of council time. Compare this to the amount of time expended on the back slapping!

9.1 GESAC

Moved Lipshutz; seconded Lobo

LIPSHUTZ: started off with explaining that GESAC opened on 7th May with a ‘soft opening’ and the official opening will be on 22nd June. The facility is an ‘unmitigated success…..beyond our wildest dreams….quickly taken up by members…..almost 5000 members….because 95%…is indoors (it can be used all year round)….(so the delay) ‘whilst unfortunate is not significant’…clubs haven’t used it fully (as yet because of) ‘mid season’….we expect that the next round of seasons’ (facilities will be taken up fully)….83 schools within (area)….’of course teething problems’…(such a success that contacted by Australian Properties & other councils and invited to) ‘nominate for an award for innovation’…’at the present moment this is the benchmark’…’feather in the cap’ (for this and previous councils and public for their vision)…’wonderful facility’

LOBO: GESAC is ‘a jewel in the crown of Glen Eira’….’privileged to be one of the foundation members’…’great place offering all year round health’…..’I visit GESAC twice a day’….4914 (members)….numbers skyrocketing….’was budgeted to cost $41.2 million and to the great financial management of this Council ….has paid $37 million’….(staff members live locally and work part time. Rest of speech was basically a regurgitation of the Newton provided Officers Report apart from the aside – ‘Glen Eira Debates and Glen Eira Residents’ Association need to take a positive look of this worthwhile project……(instead of negative)….’it takes courage to say a spade is a spade’….(Thanked the Steering committee – ie Lipshutz, Esakoff & Magee for their ‘fantastic’ job and Newton and his directors).

ESAKOFF: began by saying how as a child learning to swim at the Bentleigh pool the transition is ‘quite amazing’….seed that was planted back in 2005….consultation period….to watch it grow …through that process of design…..watching it grow and now seeing it in its full glory (an amazing experience)….(thanked government for subsidies).

MAGEE: GESAC ‘has no equal’…’gratifying to be a councillor at this time’….’this council is the major stakeholder’….’we are the ones that built it…..we couldn’t have done it without our community…..community through their rates will fund this…(community has endorsed GESAC and) ‘waited patiently’….(5000 members shows that community) ‘weren’t put off by GESAC opening that few months late’…..(took so long because of quality work) ‘the fittings, workmanship’….GESAC will be there for the next 50, 60 hopefully the next 100 years’….(thanked Waite and his department, but ultimately has to thank) ‘our CEO…without….(him the project wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality it is)….’nowhere near as successful …..’thank…from the bottom of my heart’….

TANG: ‘thrilled’ it’s open….’great disappointment that construction project that went behind time’….(visited on Sunday and compared to the pools of his youth. Place was packed with all range of ages)….(Numbers are ) ‘far beyond council’s expectations’ (and thus this isn’t just) ‘a white elephant, a monument to how big a building can we build’….’community facility’….(needs people and there are people there)….’budgetary aspect is certainly something that we have to report on’ (42 million and spent 37 million) ‘and hopefully not too much more’….we need to monitor carefully’….(courts were something community crying out for) ‘starting in the middle of the season….hasn’t been great….that’s the area for improvement’…..’have to get the people who are driving to Nunawading, driving to Albert Park (who don’t have these facilities to take up the ones at GESAC)

Asked CEO question about press reports on membership and compensation for members

NEWTON:  ‘members have not been charged anything up til now….(that will start this week and first debits in June as recognition that project was delayed and some of these people) ‘would have had to pay memberships at other places’….’that’s been very well received’

PILLING: agreed with other councillors and that he and his friends have been down and it is a ‘great facility’…..(said that) ‘there are some gaps’ (in the courts)…’that’s understandable given’ (missed start to season)….’aquatic features are full’ (whenever he’s visited. Hoped that over the next 6 months all the courts would be) ‘well utilised’…..’down the track we will have to consider Carnegie Pool…..I don’t think the success of GESAC should (influence Carnegie)…I’m looking forward to having an argument down the track….

HYAMS: ‘great work that many people have done’ (steering committee, ceo, staff members)….’there will be gaps in the high ball courts….because they can’t transfer over in time…(but expected to see them all busy in a couple of months)…’little parking left (when he’s gone done which is an indication of) ‘how well it’s going’…..’if anyone wants any indication of (what people think of it just look on Facebook site). …’most significant capital project for years and years to come’….(agreed that Carnegie Pool was a facility that should be retained)

LIPSHUTZ: Esakoff had spoken about ‘seeds’ and coming to fruition. Lipshutz then said that ‘someone has to plant that seed’ (Newton)…..(in 2005 when new council came in Newton told them) ‘what a mess our two pools were’…..’losing money hand over fist and he certainly planted a seed……(went on to say how hard the Pool steering committee had worked and Waite and his team)….’builder certainly tried to cut corners…because of the way our project team worked (corners) were not cut’…’previous pools were losing money….this pool is built to make money…it will also be a financial success….’.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY – took approximately 18 minutes.

ITEM 9.2 quarterly report – 3 speakers – Pilling, Lipshutz, Tang. Approximately 7 minutes

Item 9.3 VCAT watch – 2 speakers – Lipshutz & Tang – approximately 5 minutes

Item 9.7 Park user surveys – 7 speakers Esakoff, Lipshutz, Tang, Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Hyams – approximately 13 minutes

Item 9.8 – environmental report – 3 speakers – Tang, Pilling, Lipshutz – approximately 8 minutes

ITEM 9.9 DELEGATIONS – 1 speaker – Lipshutz

APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS AND THIS INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT/CHANGES PUT BY LIPSHUTZ.

 

May 22, 2012

Sugar’N’Spice & All Things Nice

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

Tonight’s council meeting was largely a series of self-congratulations on everything from GESAC, to quarterly reports, to VCAT decisions. We will report in detail in the days to come, but these are the ‘highlights’.

  • Burke referred to a ‘joint letter’ signed by 243 residents complaining about the Kooyong Rd/Alma Rd intersection ‘trial’. Strangely enough, every councillor who spoke referred to this as a ‘petition’ – not a ‘joint letter’. Confusion reigns supreme we guess!
  • Several councillors finally admitted that the GESAC basketball courts were currently under-utilised. This was attributed to the fact that the season hadn’t started properly as yet. The question still remains – does this mean that the Warriors are not meeting their end of the bargain and that ratepayers are subsidising this tender? It also begs the question of how long will this subsidy continue and how much revenue is being lost?
  • Since no councillor reads the blog we’re told, it must also be sheer coincidence that Tang picked up on our citing of the VCAT member’s decision regarding Etna St and the fact that State policy over-rides Council policy which refuses to classify Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre
  • Esakoff reported on the MAV conference where she focused on motions that impacted on Glen Eira. Pity that residents were kept in the dark as to council’s position on any of the motions. Surely the decision(s) on Council’s position on each motion weren’t taken in Assembly meetings since that would be illegal, wouldn’t it? Or did Esakoff simply vote on her own accord without consulting other councillors first?
 

May 22, 2012

Newton’s ‘Little Helpers’!

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

The following is taken from #5 of the O’Neill compiled set of allegations. This claimed: “That Councillor Penhalluriack is determined to terminate the employment of the CEO through non-renewal of his contract of employment based on his own personal feelings towards the CEO as opposed to the fulfilment of any KPIs or other objective criteria. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO in his employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.”

Part of the ‘evidence’ includes –

8 Oct 2010

 Councillor Lobo approaches the CEO and   informs him that he and his wife had lunch with Councillor Penhalluriack and   two guests of Councillor Penhalluriack. At that meeting the two guests had   said that Council’s problems were caused by the CEO. Councillor Lobo said   that he had disagreed with this.

9 Oct 2010

 Councillor Lobo later telephone (sic) the CEO on his mobile and   informed he (sic)  that he had forgotten to tell him that   Councillor Penhalluriack in response to a request from Lobo to vote for him   be (sic) Mayor had said: “No” and then ”I will if you get rid of Andrew Newton”.
 

May 20, 2012

GESAC: How Open & Transparent?

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

We’re not accountants. We’re just ordinary citizens looking for answers and wondering why so much secrecy surrounds the financial dealings and details of GESAC. The latest items to raise eyebrows stem from the budget and the lack of detail as to rates and charges.

The Regulations (2004) define the mandatory ‘standard statement of cash flows’ as ‘a statement which shows all cash inflows and cash outflows from all activities of a Council during a financial year’. GESAC is now open. Charges for everything should certainly be known, and known in advance, if an adequate Business Plan exists. Yet GESAC does not feature in the ‘rates and charges’ section of the draft budget. Carnegie Swim Centre does, as does every other ‘service’ – even to the extent of booking rotundas and open space. GESAC, the largest financial unit,  is certainly conspicuous by its absence.

The ‘get out of jail card’ appears to be this vague and repeated paragraph:

“The 2012-2013 budget reflects user fees for GESAC of $6.9m. GESAC will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council”

This is surely an astounding statement for several reasons:

  • It flies in the face of accountability and transparency. With no itemised figures as to income how can anyone determine the veracity of anything? Is $6.9 million simply plucked from the air?
  • It provides carte blanche to officers – again without councillor knowledge as to precise details. Delegating such authority to officers as happened with the basketball allocations is simply another example of why full transparency is required
  • What does this reveal about Business Plans – do they in fact exist?

Our argument is that throughout the entire GESAC saga the public and probably most councillors have been kept in the dark. All we have ever had are vague statements of totals – without detail, without explanation and without real justification. Below are several more statements taken directly from the budget. We ask readers to consider them carefully and to ask themselves, several fundamental questions:

  • Do the figures really add up?
  • How are they derived?
  • Are you be satisfied that this explains fully what is going on with GESAC?

“The Centre is expected to generate income of $7.07m and incur costs of $6.77m. The financial impact of the Centre in 2012-13 is an estimated operating surplus of $297k”.

“The largest additional cost increases (over and above the 2011-12 forecast figures) are as follows:  Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.7m”.

When this Council has basically ensured that the next generation of residents will have a financial millstone around their necks, then it is even more incumbent on them to provide full and transparent financial details. Otherwise residents are fully entitled to believe that secrecy is the means for covering up a gaping black financial hole and that the reported figures belong to the land of fairy tales.

 

May 19, 2012

A Very Expensive Exercise!

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

Lawyer loses bully claim

Steve Butcher

May 19, 2012

A FORMER partner of a big Melbourne law firm has lost her claim for about $2.8 million damages after a judge rejected the claim she had been systematically bullied.

Fiona Brown had alleged a long-time friend and colleague at Maurice Blackburn Cashman had undermined, harassed and humiliated her and that the managing partner did nothing about it.

Ms Brown, a mother of three, who was head of the firm’s family law department, told the County Court she had been unable to work since November 2003 and had suffered psychiatric injury.

She claimed damages for pain and suffering of about $300,000 and total pecuniary loss damages of about $2.5 million.

But, in his decision yesterday, Judge John Carmody found she had not established that Lee Formica had ”unjustifiably abused, belittled, humiliated, threatened, undermined or bullied” Ms Brown in 2003.

Judge Carmody also rejected ”any suggestion” the evidence supported the allegation of conspiracy between Ms Formica and the managing partner, Michael Brett-Young.

Ms Brown recruited Ms Formica in 2000 and she was made acting head while Ms Brown was on maternity leave.

Judge Carmody concluded from an exchange of emails and evidence given by the ”protagonists” that each was under considerable personal and professional pressure.

They had exchanged ”regrettable” emails, but he did not accept that a reasonable person would classify them as communications that would victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten Ms Brown, he said.

A later exchange of emails and related conversations he regarded as a ”classic storm in a teacup”.

Judge Carmody concluded, after examination of extensive medical opinion, that Ms Brown ”is suffering from significant depression with associated anxiety features”.

He did not find she had tried to ”deliberately mislead” the court but that at times her evidence was exaggerated and at others she ”downplayed the significance of events”.

”In short, [she] had focused completely all of her difficulties on what she perceived to be the injustice meted out to her whilst being employed at the defendant’s law firm,” he said.

He ordered costs, likely to run into six figures, against Ms Brown.

Her solicitor later told The Saturday Age they were reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyer-loses-bully-claim-20120518-1yw4q.html#ixzz1vGX1t02F

 

May 18, 2012

Keeping The Bastards Honest!

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

Despite all the protestations that no-one at Council follows Glen Eira Debates it is amazing how often our posts have engendered some kind of verbal ‘feedback’ to our criticisms in actual council meetings. Words have also, at times, given way to real action. The latest example features in the agenda items for next Tuesday night.

We recently pointed out how the ‘measures’ included in the Council Plan for the past 4 years have NEVER been implemented as required. Whilst the measures promised to report on the NUMBERS of permits granted for Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas, this was never done. Instead there was the wonderful waffle of vague percentages. Well, we are very pleased to report that for the very first time that we are aware of, the Quarterly Report in relation to this objective actually does what is supposed to be done ie. “247 dwellings approved in minimal change area and 628 in housing diversity to the end of March (figures updated quarterly)”. This stands in contrast to the nonsense that was previously stated – ie. ‘75% of dwellings approved occurred in housing diversity area’. For this belated ‘improvement’, we unashamedly take some credit.

We haven’t been all that successful when it comes to delegations. The same old ceding of power to unelected officials continues unabated. We simply repeat here something that we wrote a year ago –

“We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin,   Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have  a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such  committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that      agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide  ‘advice’. This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen      Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report      which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We   doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to  the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

There are many other differences as well –

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip).”

Nothing like this of course, happens in Glen Eira

Item 9.1: GESAC

This report bears Newton’s name. We simply marvel at the sheer audacity of the following sentence and what it could possibly imply about the intelligence of residents?

“Government grants constituted 35% of the construction contract. Glen Eira ratepayers enjoy 100% of the facility after contributing 65% of the cost.”

Surely the ‘cost’ must include $2.5 million per year in interest for the next 10 or 15 years, plus running and maintainence costs; plus staff costs; plus insurance costs; plus setting up costs; plus lost income costs; plus tendering costs; plus more car park costs; plus road changes, traffic light installation costs; plus power supply costs. At a rough estimate just on interest alone the alleged $45-47 million project balloons out to between $70 – 80 million dollars. Does this then equal ‘65% of the cost’ or are residents just being fed more and more spin?

 

PS: CORRECTION. We’ve double checked the Quarterly Reports and despite the long standing requirement to report NUMBERS for dwellings in Minimal Change/Housing Diversity this did not happen until the Quarterly Report of November, 2011.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »