December 14, 2011

Penhalluriack: Double Standards

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

Item: Right of Reply

Penhalluriack read his ‘right of reply’ (published in the agenda) concerning an earlier request (November 2nd) as to why numerous Officer reports had not been tabled at ordinary council meetings and why Esakoff’s statement had subsequently ‘disassociated’ Council from his statement.

TANG: raised a ‘point of order’. Stated that what Penhalluriack said contains ‘a reference to council’s actions’ and ‘as a member of council’ he wants to ‘correct’ this and also Penhalluriack’s correction of the Mayor, although ‘I do not feel it is my place to do that’. So raised a ‘point of order’ requesting ‘Right of Reply’ on Penhalluriack’s commentary where he would address issues concerning council ‘generally’.

ESAKOFF: ‘Yes you can Cr Tang. Go right ahead’

TANG:  Repeated Penhalluriack’s statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from anything he had said and quoted the last section. ‘I think that’s a reference to what council’s done…I don’t accept that entirely…..(long servicing councillors) have received a number of the reports that Cr Penhalluriack was referring to…..there is an argument that council (should have them tabled at ordinary meetings) but that argument weighs against every one of us as councillors I don’t think it’s in Cr Penhalluriack’s ability to disassociate himself from that (since as a member of council he’d have to include himself as having breached the local government act)….’if we want a report at an ordinary council meeting we will specify that’…..I am of the belief that there is no requirement….in the Local Government Act…(also went on to say that Penhalluriack’s claim that he hasn’t received any advice from councillors is) ‘clearly a false statement….because I believe….I received a circular….which identified….where these reports went….I thought I received the same circular as every other councillor received.’

COMMENT

There is clearly a double set of standards operating at this council, especially when it comes to Cr Penhalluriack. Cr. Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply was available (for the first time ever) in the agenda papers. This means that every councillor would have had prior notice of what he was about to say. Under the ‘no surprises policy’ the Local Law also states :

“The statement must be made in writing and included in the notice paper for the next ordinary meeting of Council except where the comments referred to in subclause 238(1) have arisen since the printing of the agenda”.

Tang’s response, and Esakoff’s complicity in allowing him to raise both a point of order and a Right of Reply are unconscionable and contravene Council’s own set of laws. It is absolutely clear that there are one set of rules for Penhalluriack and another for the gang. We will expand-

  1. Esakoff is mandated to provide reasons for allowing Tang to raise a point of order and agreeing to it. She did not.
  2. If Tang has a legitimate point of order, then this should have been raised BEFORE Penhalluriack spoke and NOT AFTER – especially since he knew exactly what Penhalluriack was going to say.
  3. The point of order morphed into a ‘Right of Reply’. Why wasn’t Tang’s ‘Right of Reply’ published in the agenda together with Penhalluriack’s? Did Tang, in effect give prior notice as required by the Local Law? If not, then why was he allowed to get away with this tactic? Why did no other councillor and especially the Mayor rule him out of order?
  4. Tang’s statement is an absolute nonsense and designed to not only cloud the issue that Penhalluriack raised but to protect Newton. The facts are clear: Not all requests for reports are tabled in ordinary council meetings – that is what Penhalluriack said. Esakoff confirmed this in her statement when she admitted that reports are often presented in assembly meetings. Tang also confirmed this. Hence Penhalluriack’s statements are not ‘false’, nor ‘incorrect’, but truthful and accurate. Hence his statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from his statement is also correct and legitimate. What is far from legitimate according to Council’s own idiosyncratic ‘no suprises’ rules, is Tang’s ‘point of order’ and then ‘Right of Reply’. We believe there was absolutely no need for it and surmise that the only motive could have been to defuse (and smear?) Penhalluriack. We also believe that this was an orchestrated tactic given Esakoff’s ruling in allowing such a statement. This entire episode again speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy and double standards operating at Glen Eira.
 

December 13, 2011

Council Meeting: The Bastardry Continues

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

The gallery included many men, women and children from the McKinnon Basketball Association. The following report on the discussion focuses on the decision whether or not to hold the discussion on court allocation in public, or restrict to in camera. It was part of the response to Committee Meeting Minutes on GESAC.

LIPSHUTZ: Gesac is ‘unfortunately behind schedule….(due to) builder’s delay….probably be able to make an opening in February…..basketball courts are pretty much completed….(pool area) will still take some time….(paying) liquidated damages in a large amount…our project managers are on top of every aspect….number of issues where (builders have had to redo work) because we are insisting….that GESAC will be of the highest standard….”

MAGEE: “there’s nobody more disappointed….than myself ….GESAC behind schedule….we were all hoping that GESAC would be open on the 1st December….I’m actually quite comfortable that it’s late….Council has a number of senior engineers working for us on site…..(sometimes they decide that ) what is happening is not good enough…..stop, redesign, pull out….it’s crucially important that we don’t rush GESAC….just quickly patch it up and get it finished….(handed over and then) for the next umpteem years we’re continually trying to patch it….GESAC….in my opinion is the state of the art…..(many basketballers in the gallery) and I can whet your appetite by telling you that the courts are the best that I have ever seen….it is a world class centre, it is made of world class materials…we have to be patient because we have to do it properly….there’s an item of business to be considered later on in camera (12.8) and that’s to do with basketball …..Council is not able to deal with that item in the ordinary council meeting…..that item must be considered….dealt with in camera….I thank you all very much for coming….but unfortunately we can’t talk about the allocation of basketball in the open part of the council meeting….but I can assure you there will be a report…..and a report on the voting…..I would have loved to have been able to do more tonight, but it’s an item for camera and it will stay an item to be considered in camera….

PILLING: ” I thank everyone for coming here tonight….because of confidential nature we have to do this privately….the results of our decisions tonight will be available in council minutes when published ….It’s a bit disappointing I understand but advice is to do things by the letter and certain councillors are resolved to do that….great to see (people) committed and passionate….I’m hopeful it will be a good outcome for the community.

COMMENT: the really sad aspect of this outcome is not merely the disregard for all those people who crammed into the gallery tonight and then left disappointed. But what these comments reveal is that once again, decisions are made behind closed doors (ie. ‘advice’, ‘certain councillors’, ‘resolved’). After all the pronouncements on Cr. Pilling’s blog site, it would have been uplifting to actually have a motion put to the floor that the item be discussed in chamber. By failing to move any motion, and meekly accepting what was obviously decided previously, residents are again left to ponder what has happened to transparency and accountability – although it would not be too hard to guess which councillors might have opposed the removal of ‘confidential status’. Please note, Cr. Lobo was absent. It would therefore have been a very interesting vote – probably 4/4 and Esakoff forced to use her casting vote – again embarrassing to a council that prides itself on being a cosy ‘club’ with no division!

We will report on the other items in the next few days.

 

December 12, 2011

Our Disappearing Parkland

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

We thought residents would like a ‘bird’s eye’ view of what has been happening at Bailey’s Reserve. First off, we present the BEFORE AND AFTER LOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next there is a slideshow where the size and scale of GESAC may be truly appreciated.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

December 11, 2011

GESAC Basketball

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

We’ve copied the latest post, plus a comment, from Cr Pilling’s blog and congratulate him on the initiative shown in this alternative motion.

“As reported widely and here in previous postings there has been an ongoing issue throughout the past six months of resolving the weekend allocation usage at our great new indoor court facilities at the soon to be opened Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre(GESAC) in Bentleigh.

This wonderful new $45m community facility,the largest ever built in the municipality, was primarily funded by local ratepayers with significant contributions from both the Federal and State govts. The original expression of interest offer to the Oakleigh Warriors effectively meant that in excess of 1400 local players in the Mckinnon Basketball Assoc would not be playing this season at GESAC- this situation I have consistantly stated is unacceptable.

This Tuesday night under item 12.8 GESAC MULTI-USE COURTS of the Council meeting agenda I will be supporting the following proposed alternative motion.

1.That council notes the report

2.That council sets the seasonal hire rate for basketball at GESAC at $40.00 per court per hour.

3.That council awards the Friday tenancy (6pm to 11pm) and Sunday (9am to 11pm) to The Oakleigh Garden State Warriors Basketball Association.

4.That council awards the Saturday (8am to 11pm) tenancy to the McKinnon Basketball Association.

5.That all court fees are payable regardless of court use. 6.That council requires a bond of $10,000.00 per court payable on signing of the lease agreement. 7.That if either association is unable to fill its allocated times, it must first offer that time to the other before it can be offered to any other association, body or individual. 8.That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting. (if in camera)

Will also support a division (a recording of how Councillors vote) on this item and the tabling of this item in the public (non-confidential) section of the meeting.

This is an equitable,reasonable and balanced proposal that caters for both associations and allows for all local kids, families and clubs to use our great new facilities at GESAC. It sensibly balances financial and community responsibilties. I will be encouraging all Councillors to support this motion”.

Reader’s comment: “Some questions – why should the Warriors get 19 hours of court time and the McKinnon basketballers only 15 hours – and this all on the same day? Why should this be held in camera? If Newton suggests this, then councillors should overturn the decision with a council resolution. Simple if councillors can get together 5 votes.”

 

December 10, 2011

The Wisdom Of Solomon – Or Cow Towing To The MRC?

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

Following several comments we decided to do a little bit of investigating. Readers will remember the Queen’s Avenue issue and residents’ call for something to be done in regards to the overgrown vegetation and lack of real footpath which forced pedestrians and joggers onto busy Queen’s Avenue. The issue was therefore one of safety.

With typical convoluted logic, the officers’ report tabled on the 2nd November 2011 recommended, in part, the erection of a barrier in order to ‘force’ residents and joggers to use the other side of Queen’s Avenue. This barrier has now been erected for the princely sum of at least $15,000!!!!

What is quite ridiculous about this barrier is that the very officers’ report which purported to support ‘safety’ included the following paragraphs:

“Safety

Since Council called for this Report, Council has involved the Crime Prevention staff of Victoria Police. They do not support any changes which would increase the use of the strip of land without increasing safety by significantly reducing the risk of ‘ambush’ from vegetation and clearly separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic along Queen’s Avenue.”

“To improve safety along Queens Avenue, officers have previously recommended that Council move to encourage pedestrians to use the footpath on the east side of the road. This is because some pedestrians continue to use the informal track on the west side where they risk tripping and/or stepping into on-coming traffic.”

Solution? Put a barrier in to ensure 100% that pedestrians have to step into traffic! And pay $15,000 for the privilege. What should also be borne in mind is that BECAUSE of the overgrown vegetation, pedestrians will not see the barrier until they are upon it. How’s that for shrewd ‘risk management’ and prudent expenditure of public monies? And we have to ask, how much would a little pruning have cost?

 

December 9, 2011

Oops! Our Plumbing Is Showing!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

December 9, 2011

Gobbledygook & Dirty Tricks

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is a mixture of more gobbledygook plus a few new dirty tricks. We will go through some of these.

Pools Steering Committee Minutes – 1st December 2011.

“The builder’s revised program suggests further delays in relation to the gym and stadium. As these elements are not on the critical path, these works should not delay overall completion of the works. Unfortunately, officers are aware of other works that are not tracking as per the revised program. These delays (primarily in the pool hall) have the potential to further delay works. Officers have advised the builders of their concerns.”

COMMENT: If the gym and stadium are not on the ‘critical path’ does this mean that there are more serious problems with construction that have lead to the delay?

Under the heading Cash Flow – nothing, zilch, a big zero!

Budget/Variations

“There are a number of additional deductions under the contract. A quantity surveyor is currently valuing these works. Council continues to levy liquated (sic) damages.”

COMMENT: ‘additional deductions’ is a fascinating phrase. We suggest that what this is really referring to is that the original GESAC design is being cut back because of the cash flow crisis. Of course this will be trumpeted as GESAC coming in even further ‘under budget’. But residents should know what corners are being cut and what this suggests about the final quality of the building and facilities.

Critical Issues

The next paragraph is unintelligible and we are continually astounded at how such nonsense can be released into the public domain – “There are a number of active critical issues that officers continue to manage (some of which confidential has they relate to contractual matters). Critical issues include planning for handover of the facility from the builder, commissioning and managing delays in the program.”

COMMENT: Residents may as well forget January as the opening of the site. Again, the phasing is sublime in its attempts to camouflage the truth – “This would mean the facility would not open to the community until after the end of January”. ‘After the end of January – can only mean February, maybe even March’. But it sure sounds better to say ‘January’ rather than the later months! And no further meetings until ‘some time in January’!

DIRTY TRICKS

For the first time EVER a councillor’s ‘Right of Reply’ is published in the agenda items, rather than after it has been delivered at council meeting and then appears in the Minutes of that meeting. We can only speculate as to the thinking behind such a new ‘initiative’. Is this meant to ensure that Penhalluriack sticks 100% to the published script? That if he diverges by one single word, then Hyams and his cohorts will leap to their feet and declare a point of order?

Hyams is also very, very busy again requesting amendments to various previous minutes according to the Records of Assembly.

One other point we’ve noticed is that on all previous occasions when ‘legal advice’ and OH & S matters were discussed BOTH Penhalluriack and Newton left the room. (See 15th November for example). However, the minutes of 22nd November (after Newton has got his reappointment!) there is no mention of Newton departing even though the items cited were: “”Under s89(2)(a) ‘Personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 re OH &S compliance” and “under to (sic) s89(2)(f) ‘Legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” regarding OHS legal advice.”

MURRAY RD DEVELOPMENT

This application is for a 4 storey building comprising 31units. Officers recommend permit for 30 units. What caught our eye again was this sentence: “In principle, there are a number of factors which make this site appropriate for medium density development at the scale proposed:

  • It is located within close proximity to the Hawthorn Road tram route and shops;
  • It has abuttal to a tall 3 storey commercial building to the north and a single storey commercial building to the east (both fronting onto Hawthorn Road);
  • it has abuttal to two storey flats to the east”

COMMENT: When did a 30 unit development suddenly become ‘medium density’? Why the use of the word ‘tall’ in ‘3 storey commercial building’. Three storeys is three storeys surely? But what is most laughable is the logic of the argument – because of the existence of a 3 storey building and a 2 storey building then this seemingly justifies the granting of a permit for a 4 storey building! A small paragraph then follows – “Whilst the proposed development will be taller and more robust in its build form than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of reasonable change to the character of this street being within a Housing Diversity Area”. We congratulate the planning department for its expertise in the use of euphemism and spin and simply wonder where in the planning scheme does the policy state its ‘expectations’ as to medium density meaning 30 units on one lot?

Audit Committee Minutes – 27th November 2011

“The Committee noted the Auditor-General’s issuing of a high risk rating for Council based on a low liquidity ration as at 30 June 2011. Officers confirmed that the overall high risk rating was due to the liquidity ration of 0.95. The CFO stated that the monthly finance report to Council now included an additional liquidity section. The CFO also confirmed that Council should continue with all planned operating and capital expenditure, but should avoid any unplanned expenditure proposals. He said that delaying any planned capital expenditures such as the roads program or the warm season grasses program may have a negative impact on future renewal costs. The Chairman requested that Councillors be made aware, particularly at the strategy workshop, of the spending impact on the liquidity ratio. He also requested close monitoring of Council’s liquidity position and asked the CFO to report back at the next Audit Committee meeting”.

COMMENT: Another Machiavellian strategy by the CFO (Chief Financial Officer)? It’s okay to spend an unbudgeted for million on extending the car park at GESAC and relocating the playground, but not okay to delay roads and sporting ovals? Again, the logic is mind boggling, especially when you consider that many of these roads are repaved yearly! All in all, we suspect that this is a not so subtle warning to councillors to watch their “p’s and q’s” and not to interfere with the grand plans laid out by Messrs Newton and co – for example such as the recent funding of Take a Break and the attempt by Cr. Magee to have public toilets installed in Bentleigh. The message seems clear – it states “butt out councillors and let us continue as we will”!!!!

 

December 9, 2011

GESAC Basketball

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

Dear MBA members,

The mediation between McKinnon and Oakleigh took place yesterday(Wednesday)  We assume that the outcome of this will be discussed at next Tuesday’s Council Meeting, following which we will know more.

In the meantime, we strongly recommend that you continue to write to your Councillors encouraging them to make a decision in the best interests of McKinnon Basketball Association, their local and largest Basketball Association.  Please contact the MBA office if you require a list of the specific MBA credentials.

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

 

December 9, 2011

‘We Are Not Amused’….She Said

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

Paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2220.html

The hearing of this case extended over two days. On the first day of hearing the responsible authority and the objectors presented their cases. The case was part heard with the evidence and submissions on behalf of the applicant company remaining to be heard. During the interim suggestions of possible problems with this proposal attributed to council engineers were raised. I am not impressed. This case had, in any event, been complicated by incorrect advice offered by the council and its engineers in relation to drainage questions. Apparently, there was once a drainage pipe that ran across this site. At some stage this arrangement was reconsidered when a two metre wide easement down the eastern side boundary was proposed. Provision was made for there to be an agreement under s 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for a two metre easement in that location. This agreement was executed but never registered at the Titles Office. That omission is the responsibility of the responsible authority.

The company was told that there is no pipe or drainage works in the easement so that it could be built over. This occasioned a redesign to make use of that area. Then the council informed the company that there was, after all, a pipe in this locality so that the area could not be built over. The applicant company redesigned its proposal. 

Another aspect, arising between the hearings, is that the council engineers have apparently, and belatedly, decided that they would like to acquire control over a further one metre wide strip along the two metres wide easement. The suggestion is that there should be no building over a three metre wide strip. This is said to be on account of a “local law”. Perusal of the local law shows that it makes no such provision. The only basis for it is some adopted council resolution or policy in relation to this one metre wide acquisition of control. There is no proposal to acquire such a right on any basis that would involve just compensation to the land owner. In my opinion, there is no legal basis for the claim to an extra metre width along that two metre strip. At least none was suggested. I note that the local law and the “policy” are not part of planning laws. I do not think that they create any legal requirement in real property law that detracts from the property rights of the owner of the land.

 

December 8, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[10] Comments 

Council playing favourites, racing club claims

5 Dec 11 @  02:33pm by James Twining

A RIFT has emerged between Moonee Valley’s racing club and council over the draft racecourse master plan, just weeks after the proposal was officially submitted.

The club says it was “excluded” from a public information session run by the council last Thursday night but that the rival Save Moonee Ponds residents’ group – campaigning against the club’s draft master plan and rezoning – was given a platform to slam the proposal at the meeting.

Club spokesman Brian O’Neil said the club was “perplexed” by SMP being given floor time at the information session, attended by more than 100 people.

“The (club) is extremely disappointed that council excluded it from (the) information meeting, yet gave a resident action group a 30-minute presentation and a seat at the head table from which to voice their opposition to our proposals,” Mr O’Neil said.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the council was approached by SMP for support.

“Save Moonee Ponds is a newly formed community group,” he said.

“They are not a large profitable organisation like the Moonee Valley Racecourse.

“Save Moonee Ponds approached council for some support to help them raise awareness of their group and issues. We thought the best place to do that was when we were getting the community together for our information evenings.”

Mr Smith said the community meetings – another was held on Sunday – were to share information about the planning process and not to go into detail about what was proposed.

He said the racing club would “definitely” be involved in the formal consultation process, to start in the first half of 2012.

By way of further contrasts we’ve uploaded 2 presentations – one by the Moonee Valley Council and the other by the Save Moonee Ponds Group. Please note:

  • The fact that this council features resident advocacy groups material on its official website
  • The council’s ‘consultation’ will include online surveys, facebook pages, etc. (see their presentation)

Even these two simple things are a standout in comparison to the Glen Eira methods employed for the C60 and the Centre of the Racecourse debacle.

// Comments

 Julie Vulin writes: Posted on 6 Dec 11 at  08:56am

Yes, SMP is not a large profitable organisation with deep pockets and endless resources such as MVRC. As YOU say, SMP is a community group.  MVRC’s let the cat out of the bag – they are not under threat of going out of business, they’re greedy business people with no regard for the community of Moonee Valley.  The community already know who MVRC is, now we need them to honestly and fully know what they propose to do to ruin it – that’s where grassroots SMP comes in to play.  Mr. Browell, Mr. O’Neil, please come to the next community meeting, allow us to ask questions that you’ll give direct answers to, such as why are you being so contentious and not considering a reasonable development appropriate for a residential location not on a category 1 road!

Annie Spilar writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  08:01pm

Oh please MVRC… are you really serious?  I mean, the MVRC ‘consulted’ the general public didn’t they?  Oh no, that’s right, they just set up a room to view the proposal and didn’t offer any consultative process with the community.  Hence, ‘Save Moonee Ponds’ was born.  The last form of communication I had from MVRC was a letter basically saying, this is happening and if we don’t get what we want, we will move elsewhere.  Again, I fail to see where the consultation is happening between MVRC and the residents. SMP is merely the name given to us, the residents, who are saddened and dismayed at what is happening to our community, rather than naming us all individually.  Work with ‘us’ MVRC… so far, I have only seen you work against us.

Sarah writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  06:31pm

I am “perplexed” that the Moonee Valley Racing Club suddenly wants to be involved in community information sessions. The MVRC held their own information sessions, at which they presented their submission. They then promised further consultation with the community prior to their submission, which was never delivered.  The MVRC had ample time and opportunity to consult with the community prior to making a submission, but they chose to ignore the concerns raised and plough ahead with their submission anyway. There is nothing wrong with getting the community debate going about the issues surrounding the masterplan.  Council was perfectly justified in allowing the residents to get up and talk about their views in an organised manner. The discussion held by Save Moonee Ponds did not “slam” the proposal and was in fact positive about the prospects for development at the Moonee Valley Racecourse, including the long term survival of the club. The MVRC are feeling “excluded” because their proposal is largely unwanted by the community and they simply don’t like what they are hearing.

John Westwood writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  05:49pm

Making no satisfactory concessions to the community, apart from an extra exit, it’s outrageous that MVRC thinks that those who are trying to represent the community are being shown favours, unreasonably so, when Moonee Ponds will be affected by 20 years of dirt and noise in such a hostile development. New residents living in the MVRC development will have their open space reduced to 1/2 a meter, according to Sunday’s Forum at The Clocktower. So where are the children going to play? Go to school? Or, for that matter, get there? Thankyou Mr. Neville Smith for pointing out Save Moonee Ponds does not stand to make any profit in trying to spare homes, the neighbourhood, schools, infrastructure, amenity, heritage and the environment. Instead of complaining, why don’t they try negotiating a proposal the community can live with.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »