March 7, 2012

Newsflash: Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

GERA has organised a Community Forum entitled: Overdevelopment – Coming to you soon!

Guest speakers are councillors from the municipalities of Port Phillip and Kingston (Serge Thomann and Rosemary West) so this should give Glen Eira residents a good insight into how these neighbouring councils approach, and ‘solve’, some of the problems associated with over development. It will be interesting to see what these councils do in contrast to what Glen Eira doesn’t do but is capable of doing if only the will was there! We believe there will be plenty of opportunity for Q & A sessions.

So, come one, come all, and learn about planning, the future of your street, and what can be done to halt rampant overdevelopment.

Full details are on the GERA website (http://geresidents.wordpress.com), but FYI the arrangements are:

DATE:             15th March

TIME:               7.30 (drinks & nibbles at 7)

VENUE:           The Bentleigh Club, Yawla St., Bentleigh.

ENTRY:            Members free. Non members – gold coin donation.

 

March 7, 2012

GESAC: April, May, June…..?

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

At last Tuesday’s council meeting the magical word APRIL was used by Lipshutz for the very first time as to the potential opening of GESAC. The usual spin featured in his report on the Pools Steering Committee. We were again told that everything is ‘on budget’ and ‘progressing well’. Council is of course, ‘disappointed’ that the opening is now at least 4 months late, but as usual that’s ‘no fault of ours’ only the builder’s but Council is ‘taking action’ via its liquidated damages. Lipshutz ended by hoping that the pool will be open ‘for the basketball season’.

Again we highlight the lack of substance in this so called ‘report’; the staggering claim that GESAC is ‘on budget’ despite no income for 4 months – just expenses. We also maintain that such spin is an insult to the intelligence of ratepayers since only the most gullible or imbecilic would believe a single word of this propaganda. When oh when will this council actually come clean and provide residents with the truth as to the full financials of this project?

One thing however has been successfully completed – the chopping in half of Bailey Reserve for the car park extension and the relocation of the playground. Extra unbudgeted cost – just under $1,000,000. The image below captures the full horror as of February 15th.

 

March 6, 2012

Common Sense: Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Lash out on Bentleigh bike lanes

6 Mar 12 @  05:00am by Donna Carton

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON N36CK903

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON

GLEN Eira Council has spent $65,000 painting bike lanes on roads with legal kerbside parking. The 4.5km of new lanes in Bentleigh have been branded a joke by some cyclists who can’t ride in them because parked cars block their way.

The council said it had no plans to make the lanes on McKinnon and Brewer roads clearways for riders.

Carolyn Atkinson, whose husband and son-in-law are regular cyclists, said Glen Eira council had wasted ratepayers’ money on the project. “I saw them painting the line and at first thought it was a parking bay. “Then they painted in the little bike symbol and I just laughed,” Ms Atkinson said. “There is no room to cycle around the parked cars. Why did they bother?”

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the lanes were recommended as high priorities in the Glen Eira Bicycle Strategy 2010. “The recommendations noted that where there is limited road width, bicycle lanes which can be parked over may be necessary and are probably the most feasible option,” Mr Burke said.

Glen Eira Bicycle Users Group member Carolyn Priest believes the lanes are “better than nothing”. “On stretches where no-one is parked (cyclists) can move back into the lane,” she said.

Jason den Hollander, of Bicycle Network Victoria, said while Glen Eira council’s money could have been better used in this instance. “They should have put a cycle lane on both sides of the road, and allowed parking on one side,” he said.”

COMMENT: Identical problems occur on McKinnon Rd where, apart from bicycle lanes, three sets of rubberised speed humps have been installed over a distance of 400 metres. Residents were first informed of the creation of the bicycle lanes via letter. This obviously constituted ‘consultation’. One elderly resident took the time and trouble to write back claiming that McKinnon Rd was entirely unsuitable because of width and gradient. The response was that Council had determined that McKinnon Rd was ‘perfect’ since it was ‘flat’. So that’s why this section is called McKINNON HILL!

As a consequence of such ‘improvements’, we wonder if Council has bothered to investigate the new RAT RUNS that have now been created by motorists attempting to bypass McKinnon and Brewer Rds via the quiet residential streets running off these major roads? With the imminent prospect of Centre Rd adopting the 40k speed limit, Bentleigh and McKinnon residents have much to look forward to!

 

March 5, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer II

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

Above is the belated (4 month!) response from Transport Planning signed (illegible) on behalf of Cr. Forge. Residents should carefully note the range of ‘excuses’ for doing absolutely nothing and the validity/credibility of such responses. In particular:

  1. Opening paragraph does not address the issue at all, although it does emphasise the importance of ‘safety’ – but this is only relevant it seems for Glen Huntly Rd. and not the side streets leading off the arterial road.
  2. There is no quantification of anything. The inclusion of the phrase ‘even if an increase in traffic volume’ is remarkable. In other words, Council has got absolutely no idea about the impact of their decision making. Further, exactly what does ‘relatively low’ mean? Relative to what?
  3. What does ‘based on current conditions’ mean? Is the classification of Rowan St. at 421st on the ‘priority list’ the figure determined PRIOR to the introduction of the 40k zone in Glen Huntly Rd, or following the introduction of this speed limit?
  4. It’s extremely kind of council to reiterate what the current speed laws and limits are – but the conclusion that there are ‘no plans’ to do anything certainly does not follow logically from this opening sentence. Further, just because the ‘vast majority’ of cars are travelling below the legal speed limit, means that a sizeable minority ARE NOT and therefore constitute a safety issue.
  5. The offer of a ‘detection trailer’ is indeed magnanimous, but what does it achieve? Has council ever bothered to find out whether these trailers in fact achieve their stated objective? Do they result in decreased speed limits? Where is the evidence?
  6. The removal of two concrete lids is irrelevant to the complaint. Is this supposed to suggest ‘hey look, we’re at least doing something’? All it’s confirming is that the concrete lids have been smashed time and time again so council are now finally not relying on concrete but attempting some remedial and long overdue action. But it’s got nothing to do with the central issue and nor has ‘road patching’. In fact, perhaps the best solution to this problem would be do nothing – if the road isn’t patched and is full of pot holes this could well be the most effective deterrent for both speeding traffic and traffic in general. Surely such an idea should appeal to a ‘do nothing’ council!
 

March 4, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer!

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

In this big bad ugly world of bureaucracy, it’s incredibly difficult to know what and whom to believe – especially if contradictory advice is given by the same source! We just have to wonder why one individual is told ‘no it can’t be done’ and another individual is given an official order to do exactly what individual one wanted done! Are great big porkies being told? – or is this just another example of sheer bureaucratic bastardry, or we simply can’t be bothered doing anything about your case? What’s particularly disappointing about this whole set of circumstances is that poor old Neil Pilling, and Forge in recent times, have had their names attached to these formal letters without we presume any questioning. Here’s what we’ve learnt.

A resident from a local walking group wrote off to council complaining about fences on a property that obscured sightlines and hence were unsafe for pedestrians and traffic. The response from council with Pilling’s name attached said in part: “Following an inspection of the subject site, it was noted that sightlines for motorists exiting the ROW are obscured by the high fence at (address deleted)….In order to substantially improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians, the subject fence needs to be splayed. However, as this property is already developed, Council cannot require the owners of this property to lower their fence at this stage”.

So, we’re told that there’s nothing that good ol’ Glen Eira Council can do until there is another ‘redevelopment’. Tough luck for pedestrians, kids riding cycles, and motorists. It’s very strange then, that ON THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, we have another letter, signed by John Bordignon and written to a different resident. In this case, after years of the house being completed, the resident was officially ordered to:

“demolish and remove the illegal building work, being the section of fencing from the eastern and western timber paling fences, within three metres of the street alignment to a maximum height of 1.5 metres from natural ground level in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006”.

They were given 30 days to comply with this order! We also note that the Building Act, 1993 at Section 106(d) states: “the building, land or place or building work on the building, land or place is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or of any person using the building, land or place or to any property” then an order may be issued. This surely belies the advice given to Resident 1 and is more reprehensible since there is an admission that ‘sightlines’ are obscured and hence logically, create an unsafe environment.

COMMENT

How on earth can two contradictory statements be made about an identical issue? Is this nothing more than an attempt by this council to fob off a resident’s legitimate concerns by resorting to what can only be interpreted as a blatant untruth? Or again, is this just mere incompetence or plain old sloth – we just can’t be bothered? Perhaps it’s even bureaucracy deciding to flex its muscles because the second resident decided to seek legal advice? As we’ve stated before, such incidents do nothing to endear this bureaucracy to residents and certainly destroy any faith that anyone should have in their pronouncements, professionalism and actions. In permitting their names to be attached to such letters, councillors are complicit in these untruths and they are the ones who end up carrying the can – not those who are, and should be held responsible.

 

March 3, 2012

Another Happy Customer!

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

We’ve received the following email:

“Hi- I’ve perused your GE Debates website & noted that while all the topics are very pertinent to residents, I noticed that there seems to be little discussion of Council’s non existent traffic management in the City of Glen Eira particuarly in and around local streets surrounding main shopping strip roads (particularly in Elsternwick, Glenhuntly Road shopping strip).
 
Since the introduction in 2011 of 40kmph speed limit Mon to Sat (reduced from 60kmph) in Glenhuntly Road, the local side streets have been inundated with cars trying to escape the slower speed limit, creating RAT RUNS & creating danger for pedestrians, kids & pets. In fact there have been 2 cats killed (our beloved pets) by speeding cars on Rowan street in 2011.
 
A recent traffic survey conducted by Council at my request in Rowan Street Elsternwick showed the traffic volumes had increased from 900 to 1400 per week & approx 20% of these cars were speeding (above the required 50kmph). Council however has refused to take any action to implement safety measures…(anything would do- e.g. speed limit signage (50kmph), no left turn at certain designated peak AM & PM times, one speed hump, etc).
 
I have an FOI currently with Council seeking data & information and criteria for setting of priorities & decision making, as well as budget & expenditure over the past 3 years on local street road safety measures implemented.

I have sought the assistance of my local councillor Cheryl Forge, who has been inept completely & instead of remaining independent & helping her constituents, seems to have sided with the Council traffic engineering department, as I have received (only 4 months late) a response she signed that is almost word for word the same as the Council traffic department’s initial response. How disappointing!!!!
 
I think the traffic management issues are seriously neglected in the city & Council is not complying with good traffic management practices legislation or keeping up with practices seen in comparable inner city councils (e./g. Stonnington, Port Phillip, etc)
 
There is a definite problem in the local streets. I’m sending you photos of ‘Keep left give way sign on the roundabout) that was driven over last weekend, (by a 4 wheel drive no doubt).

I’m wondering if you could post this comment (in its entirety or edited if deemed too long) on your website & invite comments from other residents. I’d be interested in their views and also what action we residents could collectively take to pressure this incompetent Council to take action to make our local streets safer. At the very least, the speed limit should be reduced in local streets to 40kmph to align with the main roads! How illogical is it to have higher speed limits in local residential streets than in the main roads!!!

Thanks in advance

 

March 2, 2012

What Very, Very, VERY Expensive Games We Play!

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

From the minutes of 28th February 2012.

OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Item 10 Urgent Business

Crs Hyams/Tang

That a matter relating to the VCAT matter between Council and Cr Penhalluriack be considered as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

(a) Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

1. That Council place on the public record the resolution for Item 12.5 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 2, 2011, relating to a Councillor Conduct Panel, other than paragraph 5 which relates to legal advice, and all attachments.

2. That the following facts be placed on the public record:

  • As a result of concerns that some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff may cause Council to be in breach of its occupational health and safety obligations to provide a safe work place, Council unanimously resolved to engage a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety to investigate these concerns.
  •  As a summary of the investigation report records, some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate. The summary recommended, among other things, that Councillor Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality and his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.12 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack participated in various Council discussions and determinations in relation to the above matters. Councillors believed that this conduct breached the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act. Those councillors present therefore unanimously resolved, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2011, to make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel and to seek a finding of misconduct against Councillor Penhalluriack for these alleged breaches.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack denies these allegations and exercised his right to refer the matter to VCAT for determination. While Councillor Esakoff, as then mayor, was appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the Councillor Conduct Panel and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a councillor or councillors, once the matter was referred to VCAT, it was possible, and therefore appropriate, that Glen Eira City Council be named as the applicant.

That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.

9.45pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 2011

Item 12.5

LEGAL ADVICE COUNCILLOR CONDUCT PANEL

Enquiries: Peter Jones

Director Community Services

This item is confidential pursuant to s 89(2) (f) “legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” of the Local Government Act 1989.

10.45PM The CEO and Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel under section 81B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the conduct of Councillor Penhalluriack for alleged breaches of Councils code of Conduct and the Local Government Act in the form generally of the attached application. (Attachment 1 Application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel)

2. That Council seek a finding of misconduct against Cr. Penhalluriack.

3. That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally.

4. That Councillor Margaret Esakoff be appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the application to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

5. REDACTED.

REDACTED

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Forge

Except that all references to a failure to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the mulch facility be removed from the application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

That Council:

i) Note the Elster Creek Trail, including part of the shared path, encroaches onto the title of properties at 14 and 16 Hopkins Street, McKinnon.

ii) Note that the owners of 14 Hopkins Street intend to erect a new fence on the rear title boundary of this property.

iii) Note the owners of 16 Hopkins Street have applied to Council for a Town Planning Permit to subdivide this property into three lots including a lot along the rear. Further, that the owner agrees to gift the rear lot to Council to create a 1.5 metre buffer between the shared path and private property.

iv) Subject to approving the Town Planning Permit for the subdivision of 16 Hopkins Street, agrees to pay the owner all reasonable costs to prepare necessary plans and transfer the rear lot to Council.

v) Advise the owners of 14 and 16 Hopkins Street of Council’s decision including thanking the owners of 16 Hopkins Street for agreeing to gift the rear lot to Council.

vi) Incorporate this resolution in the public section of these minutes.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

 

March 2, 2012

Definitely An Election Year!

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

Below is part of the transcript from yesterday’s parliamentary sitting.

Caulfield electorate: open space

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak on the adjournment tonight and address a matter to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. The matter I seek to raise relates to the important issue of open space and sporting facilities in my electorate of Caulfield. I ask the minister to investigate whether his department can provide some support for my local councils to investigate improving and increasing the available open space in my electorate. This is a great problem within our community because we have so many young up-and-coming people who want to play sport, including juniors who are coming through the clubs, and they are in desperate need of grounds to play on.

Open space is a real concern in the community, and it is an issue I have raised on countless occasions in this chamber. I have noted that the city of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne, with only about 6 per cent of the city’s 230 hectares classified as public land.

There is open space in our neighbouring areas that many of our constituents use. Elsternwick Park in the Brighton electorate is an area that is used, and the member for Brighton has also been advocating for some time for the upgrade of the facilities in the park.

The park is a great facility, but it is in desperate need of an upgrade. Given the growing population of Melbourne and the importance of local people being able to utilise open space, we need something to be done about it. Access to open space is as important as roads and infrastructure, and it provides the much-needed heart that breathes life into a city. There is no question that in our case we are in desperate need of a heart transplant.

We need to look at ways to get more open space. I have looked into this issue, and it was back in the 1990s that work was last done within the council to look at how open space could be utilised. We have a number of areas within my electorate that could be further utilised, such as the former reservoir on the corner of Glen Huntly and Booran roads, which is currently fenced and not used. It has been fenced for some time. Whether it be passive space or whether it be active space for sporting clubs such as football, cricket or soccer, which has experienced increased participation rates right across Victoria, there is a desperate need to do something about this issue. We have a number of people using open space passively, including for dog walking, and we have recently done some work on the five precincts of open space at Caulfield Racecourse.

That also needs to be factored in as part of a review. I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to provide some much-needed funds to conduct research into how we could better utilise our open space and come up with a better plan for the city

…………..

MS. ASHER

I am delighted to inform the member for Bentleigh that the coalition government, through Tourism Victoria’s events program, has allocated $10 000 to help market the games. The idea is to encourage spectators, competitors and their accompanying family members and friends to stay on and explore Melbourne and regional Victoria. As the Deputy Speaker knows, Victoria is a very compact state and people can get around very easily. I know the member for Bentleigh will be forcefully advocating this event amongst 2014 games.

The funding will be used for website development and for advertising in agency journals, magazines and newsletters as well as for posters, postcards, brochures and promotional activities at the upcoming 2012 games to be held in New Zealand next month. I am sure the Victoria Police members from the Moorabbin and Caulfield police stations who service the member for Bentleigh’s electorate will be very involved in promotional activities for a very good purpose rather than for purposes that have nothing to do with the economic development of the state of Victoria.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MR DELAHANTY

I am also pleased to inform the member for Caulfield, who is here tonight, that the Glen Eira City Council has been provided with $30 000 for its open space strategy. The member for Caulfield spoke about the fact that we cannot create any more open space; it is about how we use the space we have. It is important that we plan for its use and all those types of things. One of the things that was brought to my attention when I was the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation was people’s concern about access to sporting facilities, whether that be for passive or active recreation. As we know, Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world and Victoria is the sporting state. We need to plan for the further use of our sporting facilities.

I am also pleased to announce that the Bayside City Council has been awarded $22 500 for the Elsternwick Park precinct. I know that the member for Caulfield raised this matter, but the member for Brighton, who is in the house, also spoke to me about it; it is in her electorate. I had a brother who used to live not far from there, and I know the park very well. This funding will enable options to be investigated for providing new and upgraded sporting facilities at Elsternwick Park.

The Victorian government is committed to helping communities stay active, enjoy their sport and recreation facilities and lead healthier lives. The first step in achieving this is to identify opportunities and priorities through strategic planning.

This funding will support a strategic approach through community working with councils in the provision of sport and recreation facilities and programs. We want to see people stay more active more often, and this planning will allow that to happen

+++++++++++++++++++++++

This latest funding is on top of the $80,000 announced on Tuesday for lighting at the Packer Park vel0drome.

 

March 1, 2012

Pavilions, Politics & Polling

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

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS

Esakoff made two requests. First was about the ‘progress’ of consultation on the Booran Rd. Reservoir including dates for such meetings and that the report be tabled back at an Ordinary Council Meeting. Seconded Lipshutz.

Esakoff spoke about how the community in 2007/8 had made it clear that they wanted to have a say on the future of the site. There had been plenty and regular enquiries about ‘what was happening with this site’…..’a growing frustration’…..’I will not be forming any view until we hear from the community’ (She would then)’form a vision based on those views…..beginning of process of bringing it all to fruition…open space…concerns all of us…..(talked about more dense living and why this makes open space even more important)…..’site is unique, enormous’….

PENHALLURIACK: said he thought it was a ‘wonderful idea’ and supported the request.

MAGEE: asked if council would also be consulting with the State government as part of process as to their ‘plans for funding’. Hyams replied that it would be part of ‘funding process’ rather than ‘consultation process’.

ESAKOFF: said that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: We find it fascinating that this item rears its ugly head at this particular point in time – an election year! Booran Rd. has been on the ‘agenda’ since at least early 2008. This comment appears on the Glen Eira Environment Group’s website: “Council has said that there will be a second round of public consultation possibly in 2010 to gauge the public needs relating to the end use of the reserve. FOGHR hope that this second attempt in public consultation will be transparent and fair and not be loaded to achieve a predetermined outcome as the first round of public consultation clearly was.” To the best of our knowledge, no such ‘consultation process’ has ever occurred. Yet, here we have the ‘sudden’ call for ‘consultation’!!!! Just plain amazing what an election year can throw up!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LIPSHUTZ: asked for a report on ‘options available” for removing the Council Depot from Caulfield Park and the costs involved. FORGE seconded. Lipshutz said that ever since he has become councillor people have been asking him about this issue and that the depot is ‘a blot’ on the park. ‘we’ve looked at that a number of times’….(now that the park has been ‘beautified’ the depot is) ‘in the wrong place and shouldn’t be there’…..’not suggesting that it should be done prior to anything else….’should be brought to the table’…(issue has come up again and again)…‘It’s not an electioneering issue as Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested.… ‘everyone’….’including Friends of Caulfield Park‘….’we may in fact decide that it is too much money’….’Cambden ward does not have too many issues’….’happy little vegemites in Cambden ward’….but certainly that is one issue…..

FORGE: ‘should be ashamed to have this blight in Caulfield Park….(thought that things can) ‘easily be relocated’….(hot house is) ‘derelict and not functional’….waste of space….(cars/trucks so that park has been) ‘inundated with….unnecessary function….(would like extension of aviary and more barbecues)….’I think the whole area could be much better….’beautified and cared for’…..

MAGEE: Asked Lipshutz to include a ‘joint venture’ in the report with neighbouring councils. Gave example of Bayside’s ‘huge depot’ and Glen Eira could share this and thus save costs for both. Both Lipshutz and Forge agreed to this amendment.

PENHALLURIACK: Penhalluriack spoke about an architect friend who had drawn up some plans for what might work at Booran Rd and that the depot could be moved there. Asked Newton to include these as part of presentation. Went on to call the depot ‘a horrible blight’ at Caulfield Park….(spoke about Friends of Caulfield Park’s latest newsletter which showed how cars and other vehicles are using the park even at night) ‘parked all over the place’….(Supported both Lipshutz’s and Magee’s ideas).

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: Again, an old issue suddenly bursts forth. We have previously written on this as part of ‘untabled requests for reports’ by councillors. We reiterate that on 16th November 2007 Lipshutz and Whiteside had this passed in council: “That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City.”. We also note that 4 years later Mr. Jack Campbell asked a public question as to the outcome of this report. The response led to a single line reference in an Annual Report that an ‘investigation had been undertaken’. End of story! Now, 5 years later we get a very similar request! We might well ask what Cr. Lipshutz has done in the interim and why now, this issue should again be brought up. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are around the corner? We would also like to make the point that it was NOT PENHALLURIACK WHO RAISED THE QUESTION OF AN ELECTION YEAR BUT LIPSHUTZ HIMSELF WHEN HE CLAIMED HE WAS ‘NOT CYNICAL’!!!! 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

ESAKOFF: asked for a report on ‘available options for the provision of female facilities’….’at Lord Reserve Pavilion’ and ‘baseball pavilion in E.E. Gunn Reserve’. (Read from phone). Hyams asked for seconder. Lipshutz seconded. After Lipshutz spoke briefly Hyams asked Burke to read out the request. Esakoff then spoke and said ‘I probably should have said change facilities and toilet facilities….'(NOTE: at this point Esakoff had switched off her phone). Tang then said that he thought that ‘Esakoff had changed the motion’ (in the last thing she said) and that this requires the ‘endorsement of the seconder’….(Lipshutz accepted the changes). Esakoff then spoke about ‘clarifying…by adding on a word’ ….’intention was’ (change and toilet facilities are) ‘two separate things’. Penhalluriack asked Burke to read the motion.

ESAKOFF: summed up by ‘reiterating the need throughout the community’ (about pavilions)….’not modern facilities’…’these two….placed above the Victory Park pavilion priorities….because of that deserve to be deliberated on…as much as we need to deliberate on Victory Park.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: We strongly suspect that 2 of these requests for reports (Lipshutz’s one on the park depot and the Esakoff one on pavilions) did not accord to council’s requirement of 24 hour notice in writing. Lipshutz mentioned a ‘foreshadowing’ of his request during an earlier part of the meeting. If notice had been given as required, there would be no need for such a statement.

Hyams claims that Esakoff’s request was ‘legitimate’ since it was part of the debate on the Victory Park item. No it wasn’t. Both of these other parks were part of a spurious argument designed to derail the motion under consideration – ie. Victory Park. Council’s resolution, which Hyams has quoted, reads in part that 24 hour notice must be given – “except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” We see no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here and no ‘motion’ was put ‘during the course of the meeting’. The Victory park item had been debated and decided. It was a closed matter. Esakoff’s request was therefore unlawful.

We also maintain that the confusion as to what the actual wording of the request for a report (as noted by Tang) is the result of Esakoff first reading from her phone, switching it off, and then not having the original wording in front of her. Again, this claim is verified by gallery observers. All in all, these episodes do nothing to instill confidence and trust in the workings of this council.

 

February 28, 2012

Victory By Stealth?

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

In this post we are reporting on one single incident that occurred at tonight’s council meeting which illustrates fully the extent to which this Council and some of its councillors are prepared to ‘bend the rules’ and ignore good governance in order to serve the interests of their masters. We are referring to the ‘debate’ on the Victory Park ‘refurbishments’. A full account of this item will appear soon. However, here is the chronology of events:

  • Lobo’s motion to accept Option 2 and include the funding in discussions on the 2012/13 budget was passed 7 to 2.
  • Esakoff and Tang voted against the motion. Only after Lipshutz saw everyone else’s hand go up and he realised the cause was lost, did he sheepishly and belatedly raise his hand in support of the motion.
  • We now jump to Esakoff’s Request for a Report. The look on all councillors’ faces was priceless – this had clearly not been previously discussed in the Councillor Assembly. So much for the ‘no surprises’ policy and the recently passed resolution that councillors shouldn’t vote for something or even second something that had not been presented with 24 hours notice!! But let’s face it – Esakoff isn’t Penhalluriack!
  • What is even more alarming is that ESAKOFF READ OUT HER REQUEST FROM HER MOBILE PHONE. In other words, she received a text in the middle of a council meeting and as the good little servant she is, acted upon these directions. At least 3 members of the gallery can verify this.
  • We suspect that the message either came from Paul Burke or Jamie Hyams since both sit elevated in chamber and behind panels. In other words, we believe that Esakoff received clear directions on what to say and what to ask for!
  • Her Request for a Report related back to the Victory Park issue (her argument had been defeated) but the request was basically a reiteration of her previous rehearsed and probably trumped up argument. Again, we will provide the full details in time.

It is indeed a very, very sad day that certain councillors are nothing more than pawns under the direction of ‘faceless men’. As for adhering to council’s Local Law and recent resolutions re the ‘no suprises’ policy, it’s obvious that this only applies to certain councillors and not to others. Hyams’ silence here makes him equally complicit and culpable in this chicanery. As Chair of the meeting he should have ruled her Request for a Report out of order – unless of course, he was the author of the text message! Governance is truly moribund in Glen Eira and no amount of carefully arranged stage craft can hide this fact.

PS: It would also behove Cr Hyams to ensure that he disseminates the truth rather than what is good for public relations. He claimed that the Booran Rd Reserve had been ‘gifted’ to council and that Council now in fact owns the land. Not so. At least the State Government at the time had enough good sense not to hand public land over to Glen Eira – they simply appointed them as a Committee of Management. Residents deserve accuracy instead of continual spin – especially from the Mayor!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »