January 17, 2011

Delegations: The Glen Eira Way

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[10] Comments 

At the first council meeting of the year, we anticipate that the deferred item on delegations will again be presented with the ‘conditions and limitations’ sections fully legible this time! The comments made here are limited to the planning area, but there are many other items of delegation being suggested, all of which require in-depth consideration by councillors before any rushed decisions are made.

Delegations are particularly vital in planning applications. We provide the following comparisons so that residents may see exactly how much Glen Eira cedes to Officers with the subsequent removal of decision making from councillors. These comments are not meant to decry the value of delegations per se – they are vital for any municipality to carry out its day to day operations. Whereas other councils delegate with strict limitations on the powers of officers, this does not appear to be the case here. Glen Eira delegates 97-98% of its planning to unelected council staff who, we believe, do not have guidelines from council as to what levels of development controls the councillors consider reasonable or appropriate. In many cases ‘political’ decisions and judgments must be made, but without councillors’ guidance on such matters the City Planners are at a loss to know what to do. Planners are competent to make many planning judgments, but are not ‘competent – in a technical sense – to make value judgments that require familiarity with wishes, needs, and opinions of the community. Councillors have this competence, for they are directly elected by the community to represent community values.

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

For instance:

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

 There are many other differences as well – 

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

Glen Eira’s Delegations under the Planning and Environment Act clearly cede enormous power to select individuals. We maintain that these delegations limit councillors’ input and lack the transparency and accountability that is evident in the processes adopted by other councils. Councillors should not be simply ‘rubber stamping’ these staff suggestions. In short, Councillors are elected, of the Community, by the Community, for the Community. Council staff, on the other hand, are not elected at all. It is certainly time that Councillors took the reins in running this Council as is their required duty and to ensure that decision making on something as important as planning is not left to unelected bureaucrats alone.

 

January 15, 2011

Open Space: Where’s the Money Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

MEDIA RELEASE FROM THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING – Wednesday May 28, 2003

Funds for public open space in the City of Glen Eira will grow according to the number  of residents who move into new subdivisions, the Minister for Planning, Mary Delahunty said today. Announcing approval of a scheme that will link developer contributions to the density of the subdivision, Ms Delahunty said approval of Amendment C20 to the Glen Eira planning scheme would introduce a formula to help developers determine their open space contribution.

“Although the City of Glen Eira has terrific parkland, it is a relatively meagre supply overall – running a poor second for the least amount across all metropolitan councils per head of population,” she said. “Part of what the Bracks Government is striving for under Melbourne 2030 is more open space where it is limited and where demand is growing as well as a more certain planning process, where the likelihood of dispute is reduced.”

Ms Delahunty said the amendment reflects the same open space principles that have been in place in Glen Eira, but makes the outcome more certain by fixing the contribution rate payable by developers.

The member for Bentleigh, Rob Hudson, said lack of public open space is a concern for residents and council has also struggled to bargain with developers for appropriate contributions to open space – often ending up in the hands of the appeals tribunal. He said the council had sought the reform. The changes include:

  • Developers of subdivision in suburbs relatively well-served by public open space will pay less, whereas the charges for subdivisions in suburbs less well-served will increase;
  • Developers of subdivisions close to parks will pay less;
  • Developers who provide less than 40m2 of open space for most dwellings will pay more; and
  • Subdivisions of six units or more that provide useable communal open space will pay less.

“For example, if you are building a 4-lot subdivision in Bentleigh, are within 300 metres of a park and are providing an average of 40m2 of private open space per unit, you will need to contribute 2.5 per cent of the value of that land to public open space,” he said. “These changes will make the system for creating public open space in the City of Glen Eira more certain without placing an undue burden on developers,” Mr Hudson said. “Local parks are a vital part of our urban fabric, which we must support and maintain for the long-term – so we have liveable places for current and future generations,” he said.

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

Glen Eira Council Annual Reports for the periods ending June 30th, 2002/3 to 2009/10 reveal the following income from open space levies –

2003      –             $1,249,000

2004      –             $1,453,000

2005      –             $1, 049,000

2006      –             $1,253,000

2007      –             $1,151,000

2008      –             $821,000

2009      –             $1,518,000

2010      –             $1,664,000

QUESTIONS

1.     Land prices have skyrocketed, development has skyrocketed in Glen Eira, yet from 2003 to 2010, the increase in revenue was less than half a million. Why?

2.     Monies are meant to be spent on ‘public open space’ and ‘improvements’. To the best of our knowledge only 1 property (Packer Park) has been added to the open space of Glen Eira via these monies. Why?

3.     $10,158,000 has been declared as open space levies. Where has all this money gone? Why hasn’t it been used for the primary intended purpose, especially since Glen Eira repeatedly claims to have a lack of public open space?

4.     Has council collected all the monies it is entitled to, or have various developments escaped these costs over the years? If so, how many, and why?

This is your job councillors! Insist on the answers to these questions!

 

January 13, 2011

Back to the Future – Again!

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

Here are some ‘highlights’ from councillor and public questions from 2005. Readers should remember that recent council meetings also contained public questions on: mayoral elections and qualifications; councillor conduct; planning and ‘confidentiality’. And of course the Municipal Inspector’s report on the Newton reappointment process. The more things change the more they stay the same in Glen Eira! 

“Considering that the land for the Rosanna Street Nursing Home was re-zoned from Public Park & Recreation Zone to Residential 1 Zone, what Open Space Contribution is to be levied on this development and to what purpose will this levy be applied.” (12th December, 2005) 

“Can Cr Feldman assure us that there were no meetings by six Councillors to decide on the Mayor and why did many residents know who was going to be mayor before the vote took place?” (12th December, 2005) 

“The Whelan report concludes that the responses given to the Inspector in relation to the reason why some former Councillors changed their mind re the appointment of the CEO were not credible (page 86). On the 15th May 2005 the former Mayor, Margaret Esakoff, in response to a request from the community to explain Council’s behaviour in relation to this issue was not as open as possible about the Council’s decision in that she was unable to give reasons why Council delayed the reappointment of the CEO, nor was she able to explain why it would not have been in the public interest to do so, and I quote: ‘I do not believe there is any value to be gained delving into the minutiae of who did what, when and to whom and nor do I think it is appropriate. What is important is that the matter is resolved and we can now move on.’ Under the draft Code of Conduct and/or the provisions of the Local Government Act it is expected that Councillors are open and accountable for their decisions. What recourse does the community have should its elected representatives flaunt the Code or the Act?” (10th October, 2005) 

…. At present with its corporate structure and culture community representatives are advising only the Committees of Friendly Cities (10), Finance (3), and Arts & Culture (1), 14 in all. All other Advisory Committees have no Community Representatives. Officers and self-appointed Councillors that change each year run those Advisory Committees. Given that the State Government requires Councils to consult extensively with its communities on strategic directions using Melbourne 2030 Framework, and as part of the Sustainability Accord: 1. What steps has the Council Administration taken to involve broadly and in depth the Glen Eira community in its continuous planning processes? 2. Has the Council administration considered emulating the Consultation processes of Glen Eira creators? (10th October, 2005) 

“Will Council provide an explanation as to why Cr Goudge singled out certain members of the public gallery on 13th December 2004 and made disparaging remarks about them by saying, and I quote from the official minutes of that meeting, “they are prone to have a bit too much to drink”? Is this acceptable and approved behaviour by an elected representative of the community? (23rd May, 2005) 

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “I’m interested to receive advice on what types of documents that senior Council Officers including yourself are privy to that are off limits to elected Councillors?” 

The CEO responded suggesting that it would be better if he provided written advice. He added; “documents that are involved in the transaction of Council business are generally available to Councillors. Documents which are covered by, for example the privacy act where the purpose for Council having the document or having the information is not related to matters that are before the Council would not be generally available.”

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “Just so that I understand, there are some documents that are available to senior Council Officers but not available to Councillors even under request of FOI?”

The CEO responded saying; “There would be lots of those, yes, for example, personnel files.” (2nd May, 2005) 

“In Council minutes of 7/2/05, CEO Newton reported that there were only 4 ‘outstanding reports’. On this basis: 1. Will Council acknowledge the minute’s inaccuracy since Cr Esakoff on 1/12/03 requested a report on Elster Creek Trail? 2. Will Council account for the reasons for this inaccuracy? 3. Will Council inform the community as to why this report is still outstanding after 16 months?4. Will Council inform the community as to its official protocols and time limits in dealing with petitions? 5. Will Council explain why the Elster Creek ‘petition’ was refused tabling in light of the fact that its website refers simply to instructions as a ‘guide to wording’?” (11th april, 2005) 

“Why has Glen Huntly been allowed to degenerate/deteriorate into a run-down shopping strip, in marked contrast to Carnegie, Bentleigh & Elsternwick?” (21st March, 2005) 

“That a report be prepared on the potential to amend the Local Law in respect of the election of a Mayor to allow an opportunity for nominees and/or candidates to speak for up to five minutes prior to any vote to elect a Mayor.” The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (7th February, 2005) 

“It would appear that most items of interest to the Community are classed as confidential” 

“It was reported in the “Leader” that Cr Esakoff would work towards bringing harmony within the Council Chambers. Would Cr Esakoff be prepared to share with the ratepayers of Glen Eira: 1. Her plan to achieve this goal 2. the time line in which she proposes to achieve her goal 3. the cost to the Glen Eira Ratepayers to achieve this goal and 4. how will the Glen Eira Ratepayers be able to measure her success or failure to achieve this goal?” 

“Would Council assure ratepayers that open Government will be restored in Glen Eira forthwith. How can the events of this evening be justified in what is meant to be a democratic and accountable Council?” 

“The Statutory Planning report claims (14.1) “Decisions made for this quarter are higher than applications received” yet total of active applications is higher in Nov & Dec – 04. Why? Also would it not be better to show an index of Decisions Made/Applications received and by Council, Office, Manager & DPC for number of appeals which also are reported to show about a 20% increase over previous years. Why is this? (28th Feb, 2005)

 

January 13, 2011

Time Stands Still in Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

We thought it would be instructive to see how Glen Eira may have changed over the years – to discover whether processes, services, and governance practices have actually improved in the past 6 years. Our guide has been public and councillor questions dating mainly from 2004. We conclude that basically residents have the same concerns today as they did six years ago – childcare, aged care, openness and transparency, effective communication/consultation and planning issues. Reading these questions it is obvious that nothing much has changed in Glen Eira – except that public questions are no longer taken on notice. The quality of current answers however is another issue!! These questions provide a sad commentary on how little has actually been achieved.

“As Council has made a profit from selling of aged care facilities within the City and not actually increased places in the City, I ask what is being done with the profit and further what is being done to seek government funding in order to increase aged care facilities in the City?” (26th May, 2003)

“What are Council’s public policy objectives for child care and how do they achieve them?”(3rd May, 2004)

“The treatment of Childcare under the State Government’s new competitive neutrality policy requires the implementation of a public interest test prior to the application of CN pricing because of the inherent public policy issues associated with childcare.Can Council please explain why it has failed to undertake a public interest test prior to applying CN pricing policies to childcare services?” (3rd May, 2004) 

Cr Sapir referred to a public interest test and asked if one had been carried out and if so to what degree. She further asked; “what consultation process did Council take to advise parents that there was a proposed fee increase”? (24th May, 2004) 

“Why Minutes of Council Meetings are not available for distribution on request at the Caulfield Library? Should not that be part of standard policy of engagement of the community? Ready availability of such documents should add to the proper governance of the Council?” (24th May, 2004) 

“Can you please advise why did the Council cut down several 25 to 30 metre high trees on the corner of Jasmine and Birch without consultation with the near byresidents?” (9th Feb, 2004) 

“Since the Glen Eira Council has decided to stop subsidizing childcare centres with ratepayer income in the next financial year, will Glen Eira ratepayers see a reduction in rates as a result?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“Re Council Statement of Financial Performance to 29 February. Can you please reveal the source or sources of the above budget revenue of $954,000 from ‘other’sources in above budget? Have our drillers struck oil?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“How does Council justify that public questions that were asked in March 2003 have received a response on 6 April 2004 advising that the questions do not conform with Council’s public question time procedure. Please provide appropriate and specific explanations as this does not comply with acceptable time frames to me as by now I have given up on getting adequate answers from Council.” (13th April, 2004) 

“Why won’t Council undertake a ‘Public Interest Test” on childcare to assess community response?” (15th June, 2004) 

“The Community Plan that was passed this evening is supposed to provide a plan for the community to use as a means of measuring Council’s performance up to 2010. The indicators for 2010 however need further clarification. Which 3 park masterplans are intended for development? What does Council mean by consulting with the University? What are the character amendments that are to be adopted?Which community centre is to be built? What about the 3rd community centre? What are the implications of keeping rates to at least 10% below our 7 Benchmark Councils? These are but a few questions that need to be answered in a Community Plan that purports to be a vision for the future?” (15th June, 2004) 

“We would be most grateful if a meeting could be arranged with relevant councillors and staff (prior to the release of second round offers scheduled for 27th August), in order to discuss the Council’s enrolment policy which fails to give priority to the children currently attending ‘3 year old kinder’ and who wish to continue on with their pre-school education at the same kinder the following year?” (16th August, 2004) 

“As Cr Erlich has observed the report to tonight’s meeting is interesting but unless a measure of input is used together with output, it is largely meaningless from the point of view of effectiveness. Will Council consider reporting the appropriate ‘INPUT’ as well as ‘output’ in future service reports?” (6th September, 2004) 

 “Will the Council apply its generous concessions given to tennis clubs to childcare centres and if not could it please explain why the council’s policy that services used by a minority of the community should be cost neutral and not subsidized by ratepayers, applies to childcare centres but not tennis clubs?” (27th September, 2004) 

“The Agenda papers for Council Meeetings have for some time included public questions and answers. I note that the Agenda papers have, for the last 2-3 meetings, not included Public Questions and Answers. Can Council explain why this is so? Is there anything preventing Council from continuing with this practice?”(8th November, 2004) 

“Of all C type Amendments proceeded with a statutory process:1. How many have used the full statutory process of 6 steps? 2. How many use only 2 steps? 3. How many used broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process? and 4. How many used a public discussion paper as part of broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process?” (29th November, 2004) 

“Will Council put the proceeds from sale of Council land toward purchase of alternative open space in Glen Eira, & that purpose only.” (29th November, 2004) 

“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?” (29th November, 2004)

 

January 11, 2011

The Penhalluriack & Forge Submission

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[3] Comments 

It seems that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack have spent the time and energy to draft a submission to the VEAC inquiry on public open space. We applaud their efforts.

The submission is available here.

 

January 11, 2011

VEAC, Racecourse & Council

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Submissions to the VEAC inquiry into public open space in metropolitan Melbourne have now closed. We look forward to reading the many submissions that individuals and councils have submitted. What should be particularly fascinating is the response from Glen Eira Council. Given that this item only came up at the final council meeting of the year (and the call went out in October), we can only speculate as to the kind of submission that will go in. Of greater interest to residents are the processes that went into any final submissions. Given that the Christmas break has occurred, as well as the holiday period, and the fact that there are no council meetings scheduled until February, we wonder if:

  • Councillors had any say in the writing of the submission?
  • Were they ‘consulted’ in any shape or form?
  • Did they get to see the final version prior to its being submitted?
  • Did they care – or simply abrogated their responsibilities to the administration?

If all of the above questions are answered in the negative, then it once again demonstrates how councillors (either willingly or unwillingly) are excluded from partaking in any truly democratic and representative process. The voices of our councillors will once more have been neatly silenced and side-stepped, even though we assume that the actual submission will have been drafted in their name – ie. Glen Eira City Council!

 

January 10, 2011

Accountability, Transparency and Rule by Nobody

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Any organisation worth a cracker will ensure that each disseminated document carries the author’s name as well as the executive in charge of authorising the document. In this way, transparency and accountability become an integral part of bureaucratic process and we, the residents, know exactly where to sheet home the blame for fudged figures, inaccuracies, or simple omissions of fact. It all boils down to good governance. The alternative is ‘rule by nobody’. Glen Eira often works in this latter fashion. Far too often we’ve found that important reports tabled at council lack any identification as to who is responsible and accountable. The recent ‘notification’ for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development is a case in point. Even stranger is that in all cases where a name is provided, the report simply states ‘ENQUIRIES’!!! Not good enough. The service desk is for ‘enquiries’. Are they therefore also responsible for Planning Schemes?  What a wonderful non committal term ‘enquiries’ is! What a multitude of sins it is able to hide!

By way of contrast we direct readers to the manner in which Kingston and Port Phillip table reports. For example, the last Kingston council meeting minutes contain numerous officer reports. On each occasion readers are informed in the following manner: “Approved by: Tony Rijs-General Manager, Environmental Sustainability. Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning”. The same goes for Port Phillip. 

Even worse is that over the past year several crucial reports were tabled in Glen Eira without any accompanying information as to author or responsible executive/manager. These included: 

  • 17th May, 2010. A report on Aquatic Facilities 
  • 8th June, 2010 – A report on the National General Assembly of Local Government seeking authorisation for councillors to attend
  • 29th June 2010 – A report seeking approval to facilitate forums on Public Transport
  • 21st September, 2010 – the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees vacancy.
  • 12th October, 2010 – Childcare in Elsternwick
  • 3rd November, 2010 – A report on meetings with the Melbourne Racing Club & Trustees 

Are we really meant to believe that no-one is responsible for such important issues as the Racecourse, and Childcare and the $42,000,000 GESAC? Why is there not one single name attached to any of these reports? 

One must also wonder at the consistency of some reports. For instance, Newton’s name was on a 23rd February 2010 document on Special and Advisory Committees and delegate appointments. Our layman’s understanding of delegations is that a CEO must remain aloof from any committee nomination. Does this explain why on the 21st September the report seeking replacements for Whiteside on various committees is ‘anonymous’? Further, Paul Burke had previously reported on arrangements for VEC held elections but on the 10th August, 2010 we find that reporting on the VEC role in filling Whiteside’s position has now fallen to the corporate counsel. Mr. Burke is also put down for ‘enquiries’ on such issues as Packer Park under the guise of reporting back on community consultation. His report is far more than a  summary though – it becomes the argument for dismissing community feedback and endorsing the petanque, bocce and bowling green option! 

And what do our good councillors do about all of this? Nothing!!! Reports are allowed to be tabled anonymously and again, not a whimper! It would seem that accountability and responsibility is low down on the list of priorities. We come back again and again to our perennial question – why is it that in so many areas involving governance, accountability and transparency, Glen Eira is always the odd man out?

 

January 8, 2011

A New Beginning, or More of the Same?

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

The next 3 to 4 months will reveal much about the mindset of councillors. Residents will be able to judge whether the few sparks of resistance and independence by a minority of councillors will go down in history as a mere flash in the pan, or become the catalyst for real change in Glen Eira. Crucial issues loom – the C60; the racecourse centre development; planning delegations to council officers; a ‘review’ of the consultation policy (commented on previously) as well as potential changes to the Local Law in terms of alcohol free zones and the introduction of a vexatious questions clause. Each of these issues, how they are handled and how much the community is involved, will tell residents all they need to know about these nine men and women.  We will know exactly:

  • Whether councillors are fulfilling their legal obligations to shape and direct strategic planning
  • Whether councillors are finally exerting their mandate to rule (in line with community values) leaving administrators to simply administrate
  • Whether councillors are finally paying more than lip service to principles of community engagement and consultation

There can be no ‘new beginning’ for Glen Eira until councillors fully embrace the following principles as set out by the International Association of Public Participation (and endorsed by the VLGA). Nothing will change unless councillors insist that these principles become the bases of decision making within Glen Eira.

Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation

  1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
     
  2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
     
  3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
     
  4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
     
  5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
     
  6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
     
  7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

We sincerely hope that 2011 will bring a revolution to the way this council operates and to the current perceived mentality of ‘we know best’! Such practices have been disasters. To continue along these same lines will only further alienate many in the community and signal the continued erosion of democratic process, accountability and good governance.

 

January 6, 2011

The New Broom & C60

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[3] Comments 

The State Election has come and gone. Forgive the cliché, but we may be at a ‘new dawn’ not only in the State, but more significantly in Glen Eira. With a Liberal Lower and Upper House the time is ripe for significant change. The Southern Metropolitan Region has indeed seen a remarkable turnaround. Of the 11 parliamentarians, 9 are now Liberal. In the Upper House 3 are Liberal, 1 is Green and 1 solitary member is Labour. What does this augur for Glen Eira? How will these figures impact on the Caulfield Racecourse development and the C60? How will it impact on what has traditionally been seen as a Liberal dominated Council? Will it energise an otherwise compliant and passive lot of councillors to finally listen to their community? What planning changes should the community expect following the pre-election promises of these Southern Reps – especially Southwick? We ask again – will they deliver on such promises? 

Listed below are the names of members, their districts, and their contact details. We urge residents concerned about planning, and other issues, to contact their state representatives and to lobby for what they believe is important for this municipality and its surrounds.

First Name Last Name District/Region Party Position Contact
David Southwick Caulfield Liberal MP 95273866
Ann Barker Oakleigh Labor MP 9568 4625
Michael O’Brien Malvern Liberal Min Energy & Resources + Gaming + Consumer Affairs 9576 1850
Clem Newton-Brown Prahran Liberal MP 99819501
Martin Foley Albert Park Labor MP 9646 7173
Louise Asher Brighton Liberal Min Innovation Services & SB+ Tourism & Major Events 9596 9680
Elizabeth Miller Bentleigh Liberal MP 9557 6661
Murray Thompson Sandringham Liberal MP 9598 2688
Graham Watt Burwood Liberal MP 9809 1857
Ted Baillieu Hawthorn Liberal Premier + Min for the Arts 9882 4088
Andrew McIntosh Kew Liberal Min for Anti-corruption Commission 9853 2999
TOTAL ASSEMBLY Liberal + Labor   9 + 2    
John Lenders Southern Met 1 Labor MP 9529 1733
David Davis Southern Met  2 Liberal Min for Health 9888 6244
Andrea Coote Southern Met  3 Liberal PS Families & Community Services 9681 9555
Sue Penniciuk Southern Met  4 Green MP 9530 8399
Georgie Crozier Southern Met  5 Liberal MP 9555 4101
TOTAL COUNCIL Liberal + Labor + Green   3+1+1    
 

January 2, 2011

Our New Look for 2011

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
1 Comment 

We hope you’ll like the new ‘leaner and cleaner’ interface of Glen Eira Debates.

All posts have been classified under 10 distinct categories which are found on the right hand side of the page. By simply clicking on one of these categories, all relevant posts may be retrieved.

Our banner will periodically feature current issues and news such as the full documentation to the C60 Planning Report. Again, all that is required is a mouse click to retrieve the information.

As always, we look forward to your responses and ideas.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »