April 10, 2012

The Leader: Leading Or Lead?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[30] Comments 

Caulfield woman’s concrete objection

10 Apr 12 @  05:00am by Andrea Kellett

A SINGLE objection has put a $1.8 million upgrade to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve on hold. A Caulfield North woman has lodged an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) against the project.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams said the appeal could delay the project up to a year.

Mary Healy is opposed to a planned concrete path in Glen Eira’s “precious open space”, and will put her case to the tribunal on May 31. She said she would propose an “alternate” gravel path. “There’s too much concrete,” Ms Healy said.

The appeal is a massive blow to the Melbourne Racing Club, which has hoped to create a public park in the racecourse infield before the Spring Carnival.

It is also a blow to Glen Eira Council, which has for years wanted to increase recreational use at the reserve. The council voted unanimously to grant Melbourne Racing Club a permit in August last year.

The plan includes a lakeside picnic and barbecue area, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths, a junior soccer pitch, a playground and fitness equipment. The racing club will pay for the design, construction and maintenance of the facilities.

Cr Hyams said the VCAT appeal had “stymied” a much-needed community facility. “It’s disappointing because this was going to be a really good park for the whole of Glen Eira,” Cr Hyams said.

Melbourne Racing Club development and strategic planning manager Brian Discombe said the appeal had delayed the project. “Any delay is not a good outcome for the club or the community,” Mr Discombe said.

PS: The most expensive piece real estate used as a car park. Photo 20th March!

 

April 9, 2012

April? We Don’t Think So!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Photos are dated 20th March

 

 

April 7, 2012

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

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

Item 4.4 of the Special Council Meeting involved the ‘conflict of interest & Laneway’ issue. In the accompanying Officers’ report (which again has no name attached to it!) there is the statement –

“As the substance of this matter was handled under delegation and has not previously been considered at a Council Meeting, documents relevant to the Ombudsman’s Report are attached.

1. Recommendation That Council note that Council’s in-house lawyer (Corporate Counsel) rejected the proposal in relation to the laneway on 22 October 2009.”

We could again quibble and ask why only a selective version of correspondence is suddenly made public. What’s more important however is the statement as to whether the question of the laneway has ever come up in any shape or form at a council meeting. Clever wordplay such as ‘substance’ cannot disguise the fact that the laneway issue has featured prominently in previous formal council decisions. We refer readers to the minutes of 25th September, 2007 and the 16th October, 2007 where the question of the laneway and adverse possession were constantly referred to. We quote from the minutes of 25th September –

“Proposed construction of buildings and works over the right of way

The applicant does not own the right of way. It is a road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004, which is available for public use.

The applicant has rights to use it to access his property. The two adjoining residential properties facing Hawthorn Road also have access rights over the right of way from their properties.

The structure will physically block access to part of the right of way for the two Hawthorn Road residential properties, and prevent public access..

As an aside, the applicant has lodged an adverse possession claim for the right of way through the Land Titles Office. This process has not concluded. Notwithstanding this, it has no bearing on the town planning decision before Council”.

Also in these minutes there is an ‘addendum’ from planner Effie Tangalakis which ‘corrects’ the earlier officers’ report in its comments on the laneway. It reads in part:

“At its meeting of 4th September 2007, Council deferred consideration of Item 8.5 until the next Council meeting. The decision to defer the matter was subject to clarification on the ownership of the right of way affected by the proposal.

The right of way consists of two parts; a northern and southern portion. The southern portion is owned by Katrine Isobel Penhalluriack subject to an easement of carriageway in favour of the abutting properties in Hawthorn Road.

The Certificates of Title to numbers 339 and 341 Hawthorn Road show the combined northern and southern portions as being a “road”. The ownership of the right of way, as with the ownership of the subject site or adjoining properties, does not affect the town planning consideration or the planning merits of the case. What is significant though are the carriageway rights to the abutting properties over the land on which the planning permit is sought for a building.

As indicated in the Council report, this outcome does not constitute proper and orderly Planning”.

Council meeting of September 25th 2007 contains emails sent by Penhalluriack to councillors. The emails focus on the inaccuracies in the officer’s report especially in relation to the laneway issue. It’s also clear from these emails that Penhalluriack as a citizen, not a councillor, had meetings with councillors regarding the issue – as is the right of any ratepayer.

Penhalluriack’s application was eventually passed 6 to 3. Those voting in favour WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING COUNCILLORS WERE : Tang, Lipshutz and Esakoff. 

To therefore claim that the issue of the laneway has been exclusively handled under delegation and has never ‘in substance’ come up before council is both untrue and another example of selective corporate memory. Even the ombudsman reveals that current councillors had knowledge of such dealings when he states: “that the document that Cr Penhalluriack was seeking was created before Cr Penhalluriack became a Councillor and was created for the purposes of advising former Councillors of Mr Penhalluriack’s various disputes with the council.” 

All councillors therefore knew about the disputed laneway. Several of them had even voted on the application that contained the contested ‘roadway’. To now plead ‘ignorance’ and the furphy that it was all handled under delegation does not coincide with the facts of the matter. None of these councillors are poor, innocent bystanders, ignorant of what has gone on. This is simply another example of misrepresentation and deliberate distortion of the facts. More than anything, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff have played a major part in this whole fiasco.  

When Lipshutz, Tang and the others last Tuesday night voted to unanimously accept the recommendation they created a further black mark against themselves! Lobo’s pathetic attempt to disengage himself from the situation with his totally irrelevant argument is even more laughable, especially when he took the Ombudsman to task with the following comments: 

LOBO: read the title of the ombudsman’s report and stated that he had to ‘wrestle’ with this since the meaning of ‘governance’ embraces all councillors and staff in providing ‘transparent and accountable local governance’. Went on to say that he thought he and others had done ‘all we could do to help’ Penhalluriack and as a result he rejected the title of the ombudsman’s report saying that it should have instead been called bullying etc. ‘by a councillor of the city of Glen Eira’. Lobo then claimed that the ombudsman has ‘painted all of us’ into the ‘category of poor governance’. He concluded by saying that ‘we have done what we had to do’. 

PILLING: reiterated the blurb that this issue hadn’t been handled at a council meeting and that it was all done under delegation and he supported the recommendation. 

Our conclusion is that the ombudsman on this one point at least got it right. All councillors are tainted by their failure to provide good governance in continually accepting without question or comment the nonsense that is put before them by administrators.  

 

April 5, 2012

Mulch, Truth, & The 4 Ring Circus!

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

ITEM 4.3: Reopening the mulch facility

Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest as a result of the ombudsman’s report but maintained that he hasn’t a conflict of interest.

Lipshutz moved the motion to reopen and Magee seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that when council first made its decision to close the facility that this was based on ‘mainly’ on Penhalluriack providing councillors ‘with some reports…..mainly Google (based) I understand….(and what council has got is a report made by a government department and professionals, so) ‘appropriate course would be…..reinstate the mulch shed’ (and put into place the recommendations from the consultant. Will provide) ‘safety and certainty for the community’.

MAGEE: Magee said that he’d asked many customers from the sawmill industry about how they ‘confine’ their green and dry waste. The answer that he was told to overcome all problems is a ‘mist spray’….’keeps the dust at bay’ (so stops the inhaling of dust). Was pleased to see that the consultants recommended this and admitted he didn’t notice this when he first read the report ‘so good to see that’s an industry standard’. Stated that the mulch would now be ‘confined within the confines’ of the shed and not allowed to spill out. Said that all the recommendations such as gloves, masks, spray etc. would be installed and that if in 6 months times ‘we’re still having issues’ and the mulch is seeping out, then the shed could be regularly emptied. ‘I’m more than happy with the conditions that are put on it’ and that now with the industry standards applied that ‘they are more than sufficient’.

FORGE: announced that she had an ‘alternative motion’ that stated the item is ‘outside the scope of the notice’ of the agenda and that all councillors be given before the May council meeting ‘all necessary documents relating to the mulch facility’ and that these consist of ‘all test reports conducted by Noel Arnold’ followed by a report from officers on relocating the facility.

PILLING: stated that in May last year there had been a request for a report on alternate sites ‘that hasn’t come to council….I have concerns about the site….next to a chiildren’s playground and a school….I support the request for a report…. I think it’s fair enough that the report comes to council before we vote on it’. Spoke about the arguments put up when there was discussion about Notice of Motion and that councillors should have information and that applies here – ie councillors get the information first and then vote…..’we should follow process’….”I’ll be voting against 4.3″.

TANG: Said it’s important to explain his position. On the original motion back last year he ‘was in opposition’ to the motion to close the facility. Said that he didn’t have concerns about the faility until Penhalluriack raised them. Said he thought that Penhalluriack’s position was ‘unreasonable’ in light of ‘the advice council had received’. These people had ‘put their professional qualifications on the line’ and he felt that with their recommendations the facility should have remained open. ‘My position in that regard hasn’t changed’….(and when councillors resolved to close it that’s why he moved the request for report on other suitable locations) ‘because I felt there was community support for the facility’….’the appropriate safeguards being those recommended to Council’. ‘We didn’t see the results of that report…..(because) of the various priorities Council has had…..I would want to see the outcome of that report…..(facility was good)’ but location was wrong….they should have the opportunity to see alternate sites….this facility can be provided from Glen Huntly Park with appropriate safeguards’. Happy to make a decision after seeing the Officers’ report.

MAGEE then asked Burke that since council has been looking for a site ‘for so long, has council found an alternative site?’

BURKE: ‘No we haven’t….original motion which was to close a free service not a service that was anything else’

MAGEE asked what difference this makes.

BURKE: ‘There is a good deal of confusion. Some people believe there were health issues. The motion was never about health issues. The motion was about closing a free facility’.

MOTION DEFEATED – voting for LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE.

AGAINST: TANG, PILLING, FORGE, HYAMS

FORGE: repeated what she said earlier – item be adjourned; 2 weeks before 1st May meeting councillors receive ‘all necessary documents’ about test results and a report on feasability on relocating the facility ‘as previously requested by Council’. THERE WAS NO SECONDER!

LIPSHUTZ came up with another motion that councillors be ‘provided 14 days prior to the Council Meeting’ documents ‘including but not limited to all test results’ from consultants and a report from officers also be provided.

PILLING sought clarification on the reports. Burke answered that there is ‘only one report’ and that he is ‘not assuming that this is an attempt to gain access to documents that would be in confidence’.

LIPSHUTZ then rephrased  his motion AND  removed the word ALL from ‘test results’. Forge seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: Acknowledged that ‘process is important’. Forge’s original motion was ‘inappropriate because it is within the scope of this Council Meeting’

That’s why he couldn’t support the first part of Forge’s motion. Also said that for the Noel Arnold reports that ‘that’s not in the purview of Council and Council can’t ask for that….(they can look at the report and the) ‘process would be that council would consider the report’ (if there’s another place to relocate then) ‘council would consider that’.

TANG: Said that this is ‘difficult’ because not everyone agrees as to why they ‘knocked back the motion as printed’ (Didn’t support Forge’s motion because he didn’t think) ‘it was outside the scope….it does relate to the finding of the Ombudsman’. Went on to say that it ‘doesn’t matter’ if the driving force was Penhalluriack because ‘at the time we all had to make a decision based on the advice we received’. On test reports ‘I just don’t know what councillors are going to do with it….(councillors aren’t going to put an interpretation on them – that’s the job of Noel Arnold) ‘they need to interpret their test reports and come to a conclusion’….(Councillors can disagree with their report but not to) ‘rewrite the report based on the source material…..that’s outside the scope of the decision making process’. ‘I’m not in favour of reinterpreting the test results’. Said that councillors really want a report on ultimate sites. What’s wrong with Forge’s motion was ‘that there is no guarantee that that will go to the community’ so the resolution needs to ask that it goes to a council meeting. Suggested that this be added to the motion.

FORGE then asked Newton about the notice for the meeting that appeared in The Age. She read out the ‘purpose of the meeting’. ‘It seems to me we’re taking a lot of time to discuss the mulch’ and why this wasn’t included in the notice so that the gallery would know what they were going ‘to listen to’.

NEWTON: Said that the ‘meeting was called by the Mayor, not by me’ and that the ‘business of the meeting was specified by the Mayor’. The CEO ‘does not have the power to determine’ the agenda for Special Council Meetings.

FORGE then asked Hyams the question.

HYAMS: Read out the title of the Ombudsman’s report and said that the report ‘had a number of paragraphs….about the mulch facility. So in discussing this issue we are discussing that report’. Also stated that the agenda item was made available on the Friday so ‘the public would have seen’ what was to be discussed.

HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz and Tang that it’s important to get the officers’ report and ‘that’s the way we should be proceeding’. Said he would be voting against the motion because it doesn’t do ‘what councillors intend it to do’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that the consultant’s report doesn’t mean that ‘councillors can start reinterpreting’. That before councillors make a decision it’s ‘appropriate’ that the officers’ report ‘is in front of us’. Supported Tang that the report comes back to an ordinary council meeting and would accept the amendment.

MOTION PUT – MOTION IS LOST

FAVOUR – FORGE, LIPSHUTZ, LOB0

AGAINST – HYAMS, MAGEE, TANG, PILLING

TANG then moved the motion that a report be provided to ordinary council meeting ‘detailing all findings to the…..feasibility….of alternate mulch facility….within the City of Glen Eira’ and that paragraphs 28-73 of the Ombudsman’s report as well. Lipshutz seconded.

MOTION PUT – carried unanimously.

 

April 3, 2012

Special Council Meeting

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

A few preliminary comments on tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

  • Doors were again locked
  • Residents attending the meeting in order to find out what was going on would have left none the wiser and certainly confused as to (a) why the urgency, and (b) what the outcomes were
  • History revisionists were out in full force

We report on Item 4.1 – noting and ‘adopting’ the Ombudsman’s report.

HYAMS: Asked if anyone had a conflict of interest to declare. No one did. Hyams moved the motion including that the Secretary of the Department implement recommendation 2 and 3 of the ombudsman’s report. Pilling seconded. Began by explaining why there wasn’t 7 days notice because needed a ruling from VCAT before the compulsory conference which is set down for next week. so there’s a ‘very tight time frame’…’I find the report to be a very accurate recounting of the facts…..behaviour of Cr Penhalluriack and the effects of the behaviour’. (Spoke about how on the night of the Mayoral election many councillors referred to the ‘difficult’ year that Esakoff had had as Mayor)….’now…the community understands why….significant report (because Ombudsman lists all of his previous reports and only 8 of them concern councils and only 2 are about individual councillors) ‘so clearly when the Ombudsman releases a report about a single councillor’ (not to be ignored).

Read out Paragraph 12 which talked about Penhalluriack ‘contesting the rules governing his behaviour in a forceful and aggressive way’…’that’s why we come to this situation….(referred to his tv interview and that they didn’t include the entire comment) ‘Cr Penhalluriack is a very successful businessman used to running his own show….having his own way….has trouble with the contraints imposed on councillors via the Local Government Act…(Mentioned that the report is) ‘largely uncritical of council and its efforts….critical on council being too lenient on Cr Penhalluriack….(3 aspects to the report – mulch facility). Municipal Inspector ‘has released a letter to us that said there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden of proof required for criminal cases…..(therefore no action but Ombudsman looked at misconduct which)’would have a lesser evidentiary burden’…..so because something isn’t prosecutable as a crime doesn’t mean it isn’t misconduct’…..’so the Municipal Inspector and Ombudsman aren’t necessarily incompatible….(stated that he didn’t think that Penhalluriacks ‘motivations’ re the mulch were to profit his business)….’but motivation and even action you take doesn’t matter’…..what matters is that the interest exists….(Said that he had argued before that there wasn’t a conflict of interest and that he had moved the amendment to withdraw the mulch from the allegations to go to the councillor conduct panel)…’but having seen the Ombudsman’s report (he accepts that there could be a conflict of interest)….

‘Laneway matter seems to be pretty straight forward….(he wasn’t present at the meetings)…but that’s the ombudsman’s findings and we’re obliged (to accept them)….(as to the bullying)’I have to agree…..’given the repeated nature of these infringements….(then findings of misconduct and serious misconduct) ‘may not suffice’…..’under Section 81k of the Local Government Act (VCAT can find misconduct and serious misconduct but )‘the ongoing behaviour…justifies us asking the other parties to endorse the ombudsman’s recommendations as well’….’I would hope that the Secretary would send the right message about the importance’ (of the report). (As to recommendation 3 then the processes are ‘cumbersome’ and expensive for councils and when there is a councillor who is) ‘potentially far more disruptive than Cr. Penhalluriack could practically shut down the council ….make all discussions impossible’….

ASKED FOR TIME EXTENSION. Motion was carried. Penhalluriack asked for a division. ‘You really want a division on whether I should be allowed to talk any longer’. Penhalluriack answered ‘yes’. Tang raised a point of order that you can request a division on a motion

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack

Hyams: Perhaps Cr Forge (might like to see what Cr Penhalluriack) is doing before she puts her hand up next time.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams to withdraw the comment. Hyams asked ‘On what grounds” and Penhalluriack said that it was ‘rude’ and ‘not necessary’. Hyams responded that that wasn’t grounds for a point of order. But ‘I will withdraw’.

HYAMS: went on to reiterate that when a councillor is disruptive and could close down council that there are far ‘wider matters’ to be considered and that’s why there’s the recommendation to the Secretary.

PILLING: ‘I fully accept this Ombudsman’s report…seriousness of the report…many instances of councillor misconduct….

PENHALLURIACK: Started off by stating that people need to ‘look at background…arisen because Andrew Newton refuses to speak to me…..refuses mediation….(refuses to discuss) ‘the problem he obviously has with me….I feel that problem has existed ever since I was elected….made my life very difficult….bully in this area is not me…I am the victim of bullying….from all of the councillors ….ostracised me….forced me from my place of work…(Said that both the O’Neill report and Ombudsman’s report are based on) ‘opinion….who may be lying through their teeth….when you get in the witness box….you are named…subject to…cross examination….I have no idea who in this room has given evidence…ombudsman is a great institution….digs out corruption….I am not corrupt and I have never bullied anybody in this room. (Admitted to getting frustrated) ‘but I am not a bully’. (Went on to state that the ombudsman investigator (Mcullough) has) ‘quite a file’…..most unhelpful (in getting copy of meeting with him)….in my interview…..all I was asked about was the mulch shed….(not the other matters and he doesn’t know who raised them)….’I am the person who has been victimised in all this’ (didn’t have to go this far because council could have gone to mediation before O’Neill and Esakoff simply handed it over to council)…‘council resolution was to (go to mediation first and this didn’t happen)’.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to comment on the report because ‘it speaks for itself…endorses (the recommendation because it is ‘general’….’where you have any councillor’ (causing problems and not like parliament)‘we’re a band of 9 councillors and we work together’….’when a councillor does not do so….intolerable situation...Local Government Act doesn’t do what should be done…’quick and easy solution’….allows the mess to…drag on….forever and ever…..(Commented on Penhalluriack’s claim that he was ostracised in that every councillor) ‘at one stage….tried to assit Cr Penhalluriack…..unfortunately (Penhalluriack says I’m right all the time and you people are wrong)…‘I reject absolutely that this is Mr Newton’s fault….’not about mediation’…’went as far as getting a report….unfortunate….let the law take its course….(we’ve got a system and have to abide by it right or wrong).

MAGEE: Stated that it’s been ‘going on for quite some time’. The recommendations will perhaps also go to VCAT after the Councillor Conduct Panel ‘that’s where we get the opportunity to question…(Penhalluriack has opportunity to)’present evidence himself’…’the evidence from both sides needs to be put together (and someone independent adjudicate). Stated that when all the evidence has been put forward that he’s looking forward to a decision, ‘a definitive answer’….’somewhere a defining line where we can accept the answers….at the moment I ….endorse the recommendations of the Ombudsman….(but also wanted the end of the process)

FORGE: Said last 17 months have been difficult and that she and Cr. Penhalluriack have ‘worked very closely’, and ‘every blow that he has been feeling I feel as well…(reiterated that at VCAT they can be cross examined and)’get an answer to these questions’….

MAGEE:Brought up point of order that he didn’t say anything about being cross examined but that Penhalluriack could ask questions.

TANG: Said that he thought councillors needed to explain in a council meeting ‘how they react and why…..ongoing process….tying to work with Penhalluriack’ (objected to the term ‘ostracise’ because he claimed that all councillors)’had tried in lengthy…conversations…..early…late….hardware store….tried to work with Cr Penhalluriack to achieve what he wants to do within the prism of the Local Government Act….to try and get the information that….(he wants and whether his motions are)’reasonable within the confines of theLocal Government Act’. Accepts the ombudsman’s findings because councillors have employed ‘abundant caution’…..trying to gather all the evidence before proceeding….(outside and putting all this to Penhalluriack)….’only after that process did council go outside….to resolve these issues…..flush out these issues….Cr Penhalluriack himself decided to go to VCAT….Ombudsman has obviously decided to independently investigate….(council didn’t think that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest over mulch)…ombudsman is not in the position of a councillor….(time extension)….I accept the finding….notwithstanding that I may have taken a different position in the past….(Said that Penhalluriack’s claim that he wasn’t asked about all the recommendations/allegations that Penhalluriack would have got the ombudsman’s report in draft format to respond, same with internal investigation)…’was provided for….I agree with councillors who have said he has been disruptive….process needs to be resolved….agree with recommendations….it could have been resolved easier….given our obligations as councillors…..taken all reasonable steps we could….(now with the ombudsman’s report) ‘we can do nothing else’.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the Municipal Inspector’s report 15th March and 26th August 2010 ‘be incorporated into the minutes’. Pilling seconded. Tang asked why he wanted these documents and which versions since council got one version and Penhalluriack another one. Penhalluriack said that these documents ‘throw a different light….(on the obmudsman’s report reagarding the mulch and misuse of his position to enter the CEO’s office.)

HYAMS: Stated that there no compunction on anyone concerned about workplace safety ‘to undergo mediation’…(said he was aware of mediation in another council where the councillor ended up ramming an officer’s head into a wall)…”I don’t know that mediation is necessary…what is obligatory is for council to provide a safe workplace….(Penhalluriack claims that he’s been ostracised but it’s )unfortunate that (his behaviour has lead us to taking this aciton)…’the only criticism the obmudsman had of us is that we were too lenient on him….(reiterated how councillors had spent much time discussing these issues with Penhalluraick)….’we had an indepeendent expert come in….inappropriate behaviour…ombudsman (also found this)….”I hope that if VCAT comes to the same conclusion that we don’t hear they are also wrong….(voting isn’t about whether Penhalluriack is ‘liked’)….’very personable….’I’ve had a good relationship with him (most of the time)….our duty to look at this objectively….honour our obligations….

MOTION PUT: IN FAVOUR – Lipshutz, Lobo, Magee, Pilling, Tang, Hyams

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack.

 

April 2, 2012

GESAC: Here Come The Lawyers?

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

Errors stall Glen Eira pool opening

BY BEAU DONELLY
02 Apr, 2012 01:48 PM
CONSTRUCTION of the $41 million Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is expected to be completed later this month – four months behind schedule.Head of the pools steering committee, Cr Michael Lipshutz, said builders’ mistakes and “cost-cutting” measures by developer Hansen Yuncken were to blame for the delay.“Part of the delay has resulted from our two  project managers catching the builders cutting corners and making mistakes, some of which are serious,” he said. “We’ve made them fix it because we want the highest quality finish and want the centre to last at least 40 years.”Cr Lipshutz said that while some of the mistakes posed a danger to public health and safety, most were cosmetic.

But while the council was pressing to have the centre open by the end of April, Cr Lipshutz said progress was ‘‘in the hands of the builder’’.

Hansen Yuncken will be forced to pay more than $1 million in liquidated damages for the project running late. To date, the council has paid Hansen Yuncken $36.89 million.

According to the council’s GESAC eNewsletter, the gym, indoor stadium, change rooms, child-care centre, reception and car parks have been completed.

Builders are still working on the outdoor concourse and final rectification works around the site.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said staff had started to install gym equipment.

“Once that is done and all construction work has been completed, the community will be advised of the precise opening date for GESAC,” he said.

Hansen Yuncken’s Victorian manager, Richard Hansen, said it was not appropriate to comment.

COMMENT
  • Will Lipshutz’s comments get him into trouble? – ie. ‘cutting corners’
  • Does ‘not appropriate to comment’ mean that residents should start looking out for a long and protracted legal battle? Will we be told even if this does eventuate?
  • Tender for gym equipment went out (listed as higher purchase agreement with Westpac) in July 2011. It was still being discussed in camera at last council meeting. Thus, is there a problem Houston? If not, then why the need for another in camera ‘discussion’?
 

April 1, 2012

Brothers In Arms!

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

April 1, 2012

Hyams: How Soon We Forget!

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

Featured below is only one comment attributed to Hyams following the release of the Ombudsman’s report. There were of course many comments which taken together reveal once more the thinking that is undoubtedly behind much of what has happened. It’s an election year first and foremost and the pressure is definitely on. We restrict ourselves however to only one of Hyams’ alleged statements published in the Melbourne Bayside Weekly because of the sublime irony it contains –

Glen Eira mayor Jamie Hyams said voters should take the report’s findings into account at the next election. “The decision to run is up to Frank,” he said.

Leaving aside the sheer political expediency (nastiness?) of such a comment, we simply ask: Is this the reason Hyams didn’t run in 2005 after he had been sacked by the Minister? The fear that voters would ‘take the report’s findings into account’? Three years later, when he stood for election, we presume there was always the hope that the notoriety would have slipped voters’ minds! Ah, how soon some of us do forget and would like others to forget!

 

March 30, 2012

Mulch: The Acid Test

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

One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY.  Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:

  • The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
  • The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks

Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.

Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?

Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?

We should remember that:

  • In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
  • When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
  • Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.

The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.

At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.

This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?

 

March 30, 2012

The Ombudsman’s Report: A Resident’s View

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

Based on a careful reading of the report, the public should be concerned about the role of Ombudsman in investigating people as distinct from government organisations, practices, and legislation. I’d be furious if a report was written as maliciously about me. As for the timing, designed to prejudice a matter before VCAT, one good thing to emerge so far from VCAT is that it criticized the lack of specifics in Council’s case. The Ombudsman makes the same mistakes, and adds several of his own. The overall impression is that the Ombudsman is not a reasonable person, is incapable of critically analysing information, and is prepared to use his incredible coercive powers to assist (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of a fellow bureaucrat.

Analyzing the report properly would take a similar amount of space to that of the Ombudsman’s, which would be about as tedious as his own report. For the moment I’ll just make the following general comments.

The report is not about conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council. The report makes that claim, but the contents reveal that the report is only concerned with Cr Penhalluriack. No investigation of poor governance or bullying by other members of council or council staff has been done.

Although Worksafe appears in a list of reports done by the Ombudsman, there is no appearance of Worksafe with respect to various accusations made about bullying, harrassment, humiliation. Its almost as if Council is aware that should Worksafe be involved, the behaviour of other individuals, include the Mayor and CEO, would be examined. Maybe they have received legal advice warning them not to involve Worksafe. I have previously pointed out some behaviours that constitute bullying according to examples provided by Worksafe. Incidentally, there is only one piece of evidence in the report concerning harrassment, and the victim was Cr Penhalluriack.

The expression “conflict of interest” is bandied about in the report carelessly. “Conflict of Interest” is defined in Local Government Act, which also places limitations on what is conflict of interest. Both Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman are aware of LGA 77A(4). The Ombudsman sneeringly dismisses it (“irrelevant”), but doesn’t say why. Quite simply, the Ombudsman despite *all* the evidence available to him concerning the mulch heap, doesn’t see it as a health issue. Even the CEO did though, taking some actions to soften the criticism when it emerged that the facility was a health risk and was poorly operated. The CEO, as the driving force for the relocation, is embarrassed about his failure to do due diligence about the site and its operation.

The interpretation of 77A(4) is critical to much that is at stake here–whether a perceived conflict (as defined) can “reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter”. The Ombudsman has revealed elsewhere his belief that $20 is sufficient to be capable of influencing an officer. [Unless they’re Musical Viva tickets.] The trouble with being a martinet and expecting others to follow is that it leads to poor governance. Few of us were happy that a Gang of Four (GoF) were given delegated authority for matters as important as C60. It came about because of the interpretation some councillors placed on matters as trivial as having a drink with a member of MRC executive. (MODERATORS: Sentence deleted).

There is a particularly telling section in the report, #151, in which the Ombudsman quotes uncritically a Council resolution to make certain matters public. From the resolution: “and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a Councillor or Councillors”. Of course, the legislation doesn’t state that. The legislation very clearly provides 81B(1)(a), meaning Council can apply. It is symptomatic of the carelessness plaguing both investigations and Council’s efforts, in which honesty and integrity have been sacrificed.

The Ombudsman claims repeatedly that council officers have been diverted by Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour and not focusing on what they should be. He didn’t provide any evidence or justification for saying this, although the lack of structure plans, open space, openness in decision-making does support the view that council and officers haven’t been doing what they should.

The Ombudsman also makes the extraordinary claim, without evidence, that Cr Penhalluriack’s “services on the council have not been of assistance to the good government of the City of Glen Eira”. This is an unforgivable abuse of his powers. Cr Penhalluriack has been prepared to ask questions and to analyze critically Council reports, and at least made a token effort to resist the culture of secrecy that pervades our council. Accountability is so important, it appears multiple times in the Preamble, the very *first* section, of LGA. The Ombudsman has not been elected to his office and is not accountable to the people of Victoria. If he doesn’t like elected representatives then he should advocate shorter terms for Council like we once had.

In several places the Ombudsman refers to carefully selected past incidents in an attempt to use prejudice to strengthen the case against Cr Penhalluriack. The Ombudsman should have known, given his extraordinary coercive powers, of the long history of ill-feeling between the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). He should also have known of the matter between the CEO and Cr Grossbard previously, of the sacking of Council in 2005, the members of that council who are currently councillors, of the manner in which Andrew contributed to (some may say engineered) the downfall of a previous CEO, of the embarrassing “apology” issued by Cr Esakoff to the CEO concerning the seeking of the reasons why a long list of requested reports had not been published in Council Minutes, the hissy fit he threw in public when Cr Penhalluriack asked his reasonable question. This should have been either stated or acknowledged when attaching weight to the statements he accepted uncritically and the ones he rejected when statements conflicted.

And so it goes. Instead of improving governance in Glen Eira, such as by tackling the excessive use of secrecy, the Ombudsman has chosen to add to the problem. Only he knows why.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »