My fellow concerned citizens, 

As requested, please find attached the text of my letter of resignation from the Council of the City of Glen Eira, dated 30 July 2010 

I’m sorry I cannot reply to you individually due to the large number of responses I received, but I would like to express my thanks to you all for your interest in the good governance of the City. I also thank you for your sentiments of support. Many of you reminded me of the issues we dealt with together over the last 5 years. Some of you asked why I did not raise some of these issues more publicly whilst a Councillor. I understand this point but the Local Government Act allows certain matters to be treated In Confidence, and I have to abide by the law in this situation. However I can assure you I raised many concerns both with individual Councillors and with the Council as a group. 

I would like to encourage all of you to involve yourselves in Council matters and to demand transparency and accountability. For example:

  • Attend Council meetings every 3rd Tuesday at 7.30pm at the Council Chambers and submit questions in writing before 12noon on the day of the meeting Questions can be about any relevant matter, but  questions should be specific, constructive  and short, to elicit the best possible response..
  • Become informed about issues, individual Councillors attitudes and behaviours which may affect their decision making on particular issues.
  • Appreciate the quality and hard work of the Council Officers and Staff who have been recognized by State and Federal Government for their high achievements in many fields
  • Communicate your opinions to your Councillors and be aware of the importance of the position of Mayor who must lead the Council and be unbiased and sensitive to the interests of the whole community.
  • Read the most recent Report by the Local Government Inspector and his criticisms of some Councillor behaviours.  

I continue to live in Caulfield North and remain interested and concerned for the long term future of the Municipality.   

Sincerely 

Helen Whiteside

14 November 2010

 WE’VE UPLOADED THE LETTER HERE and also under ‘Why We’re Here’.

A quietly arranged Notice by Glen Eira Council and MRC circulated only to adjacent properties of the Racecourse, invites people to a Planning Conference to discuss the plan to open up the middle of the Racecourse to the public.

When: Monday 15 November

Where:  Glen Eira Town Hall cnr Glen Eira & Hawthorn Roads

Time: 6.30 pm

Questions to ask are:

  • How big is the proposed Public Access area in comparison to the Racecourse grounds?
  • What facilities are being proposed for this area?
  • What access facilities are being proposed?
  • What access facilities are arranged for the disabled?
  • What times the Public Access area will be available for public access?
  • What does the MRC propose to do about horse training facilities at the Racecourse?
  • How does horse training affect public access to the Public Area?
  • How does horse stables and its environmental problems affect contact with general public as proposed?
  • What precautions have been made in regards to health and safety issues if training is to be retained?
  • How long is the training of horses to be retained at the Caulfield Racecourse?
  • Are there plans to increase the Public Access area on the Crown Land after horse training is removed?

Readers, these questions are also relevant to be asked of ALL candidates at the current State election.

The Caulfield Racecourse is a asset worth over $2 billion dollars  that is of State wide and National significance, and of international fame. It was earmarked by the Crown Grant of 1858 by Queen Victoria, and confirmed by King George VI in 1949.  The Grant is very specific as to its three uses “for a Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park at Caulfield in the Parish of Prahran”.

We’re conducting some online research and need your help. We specifically want to know the following:

•How do you rate the outcomes of your formal interactions (ie. submissions, public questions) with council?
•Were your questions/submissions adequately responded to? Were they acted upon?
•Were the responses relevant, accurate, and enlightening?
Below are a list of names. These are people who have had direct interaction with council via public questions and submissions. If you know anyone on the list please alert them to this research. Yours and their feedback is important. We can be contacted via gedebates@gmail.com

A previous post reported that in the space of 4 years, Glen Eira Council had spent AT LEAST $16,781,000 on sporting grounds, and facilities. Over the top, we asked? Especially when other services appear not to be getting their slice of the pie!

Just to confirm our suspicions that such a high level of spending for one (minority) sector of the population is not all that common, we cite what the Kingston Council has put out as a media release. The release was in response to criticism made by cricket clubs as to the poor upkeep of grounds and poor planning. In addressing these allegation, Kingston CEO Nevins wrote:

“…Council spends in excess of $1 million a year on sportsground maintenance which includes ground renovations and upkeep; mowing; irrigation system maintenance; water for irrigating sporting fields; cricket wicket renewals; and oval top dressing.

Over the last four years Council has also undertaken capital works on pavilions, cricket nets and wickets totalling $2.56 million as well as spent $120,000 on warm season grass conversions. Over the last three years we have invested more than $170,000 in pavilion maintenance, $120,000 on water management at Doug Denyer Reserve and provided more than $30,000 in community grants to cricket clubs.”

Such figures pall into insignificance when compared with Glen Eira. Yet, Kingston has a greater population, greater ‘open space’, more teams, and more sports grounds. Are they that negligent, indifferent, poor managers, or is it simply that they have decided that budgets need to be equally shared between all sectors of their community?

Glen Eira Council has published a new Media Release entitled “Issues for the City and the State Election”. Highlighted are such issues as: level crossings, inadequate State funding for childcare/kindergartens and proposed pruning of street trees near power lines. Significantly, the word PLANNING, appears only once – almost as a throwaway in the penultimate paragraph. The Caufield Racecourse also only garners a mention here.

We highlight this to readers since this ‘call to arms’ stands in stark contrast to the VLGA vision of the significant issues facing the electorate. Their emphases is almost exclusively on planning and the need to recognise the role of the community in determining planning outcomes. Why are the respective ‘visions’ so vastly different? What does this say about Glen Eira’s approach to planning and community consultation? But of course, Glen Eira has now removed itself from the VLGA after only one short year! We’ve uploaded the VLGA document here

 

Today’s Caulfield Leader – Page 7

OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF GLEN EIRA

RESIGNATION FROM COUNCIL: FORMER MAYOR HELEN WHITESIDE EXPLAINS

Dear fellow citizens and ratepayers of Glen Eira,

Helen Whiteside resigned as councillor of Camden Ward and Deputy Mayor in July 2010. Council decided not to make public my resignation letter. Many people have contacted me with questions and support seeking more details, so I feel the need to explain.

After 5 years on council, elected twice, it was with sincere regret that I felt I had to resign.  The reasons were an accumulation of council decisions which in my opinion were not in the long term best interests of the City of Glen Eira, including, among others:

CEO reappointment: poor governance, excessive legal costs, and biased decisions during an extended process to reappoint our high performing CEO

Open Space: the decision to rescind a S173 agreement exchanging public open space land, now resulting in open space being removed from public use;

Conflicts of Interest: In my view some councillors did not make decisions based on merit and objectivity in the interests of all

Subsequent  to my resignation some councillors with whom I worked closely for 5 years took objection to my questioning of these matters of principle and their standards of ethical behaviour. In the interests of transparency I am willing to send the text of my resignation letter to anyone who contacts me by email hmwhiteside@bigpond.com

Yours sincerely

Helen Whiteside

31 October 2010

Geelong Advertiser – November 3rd, 2010 

“FUNNY how some city councillors simply don’t get it. Their closed-door briefings should be open to the public and they could do themselves a great service in the process.

New rules means they have to publish an agenda but the public gets to know nothing else. And as this newspaper has revealed, the briefings have been used for straw polls, to change officer recommendations and to make decisions later rubber-stamped in open council.

The agenda rule was enacted after State Ombudsman George Brouwer warned of the patent scope for corruption. But the new agenda rule don’t go far enough.

Cr Bruce Harwood, a former mayor, insists there’s nothing untoward in the briefings. He claims that in his eight years as a councillor he’s not seen nor had any knowledge or even any suggestion of illegal or improper behaviour, secret deals done or changing of recommendations from officers.

Three years ago, ratepayers will remember, Cr Harwood, then a police detective, was investigated but cleared by the Office of Police Integrity over his role chairing a meeting that approved a nightclub extension for Home House owner Darryn Lyons; this, after holidaying on his yacht on the French Riviera.

He acknowledged in this paper yesterday that the council had abided with the Ombudsman, VCAT and other like government statutory body decisions.

What we don’t understand is why he or the council aren’t interested in sharing what they know with the ratepayers who voted them to office – and who may be affected by the decisions made from information and recommendations offered, garnered or changed at these briefings.

The State Government has offered lip service only with the new agenda rule and the council is similarly reluctant to engage the public. Again, we have ask, what is there to hide?”

We at glen Eira would take this even further and suggest that on the evidence of the records of ‘assembly of councillors’, the public is kept totally in the dark. For example: the minutes of last meeting record an item from the assembly of councillors as ‘exchange of emails’. Yet Lobo felt it necessary to oppose the acceptance of minutes (he got confused over council/special committee minutes and assembly reports) and asserted that this phrase should be retitled ‘racism’. So, we the poor suffering public only get a glimpse of what is really going on. But it’s even worse when one considers the fact that not only are such meetings closed to the public, but even advisory committee meetings are also conducted in secret. Only the environment advisory committee has external community members – all the rest are a closed shop. All of this is unfortunately ‘legal’ – it depends on the ethos, culture, and mentality of each individual council as to how they will interpret and implement the legislation. This is where our councillors have been a total failure in allowing the continual erosion of democracy in this council.

Judging by the report tabled at last Wednesday night’s council meeting regarding the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between the MRC and Glen Eira, we can only conclude that the role and involvement of councillors has been practically non-existent. The report makes two things pretty obvious –

  • The real responsibility in these discussions lies with Newton and the CEO of the MRC – yet there has never been a formal public resolution by councillors to cede such authority to Newton
  • Councillors have been relegated to superficial issues such as deciding on toilets, playgrounds and whether these should have a place in the centre of the racecourse!!!!

Did anyone complain?

Did anyone suggest that councillors should be an integral part of ALL strategic discussions especially in something as important as this piece of land and the C60?

Were they denied access to these discussions? If so, why and by whom?

Were they even informed that such discussions were taking place?

Were they informed as to the outcomes of each discussion? If they were, then why did Penhalluriack see the need for this ‘request for a report’? Was it only to ‘report’ to the community or to councillors themselves?

Why have the public been kept in the dark? What, if any, cosy little arrangements have been determined?

How many phone calls, emails, etc. have flowed between the two CEO’s or their direct subordinates? This of course is not listed in the report!

Don’t people find it strange that according to the report Newton and the MRC CEO met on 7 occasions without councillors or officers present? That officers were present in other meetings between the CEOs on two occasions? Where were councillors (apart from the Mayor on two occasions)in all this?

Once again, councillors (and by extension the public) have been neatly hobbled and excluded from  important ‘negotiations’ and strategic planning. All the important bits have been left to Newton! Is this ‘democracy’ at work we ask?

Front Page – Whitehorse Leader – October 27th, 2010

City fails its people

Residents want independent audit

WHITEHORSE ratepayers have slammed the council over a lack of transparency, excessive rates and wasteful programs. At a heated public meeting last week residents demanded an independent audit into council conduct for ‘‘failing the community’’. The three-hour forum saw residents pack into Manchester Unity Hall in Blackburn.

Among issues raised were inappropriate developments, executive salaries, protection of open space and community consultation. All 10 councillors were invited to to present the council’s case but none attended. Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association president Bill Bennett blasted the council’s performance.

‘‘A lot of people here feel they don’t have a voice and that’s a real shame in this so-called democracy,’’ he said.

‘‘The council is a stumbling block and they are not wanting to hear what the community has to say.’’

Mr Bennett attacked the rate rise of a set 6 per cent over five years as residents struggle with the soaring cost of living.

‘‘We looked long and hard as to why this rate increase was justified and we haven’t been able to find any reasons,’’ he said.

Blackburn resident Roy Lloyd said an independent review of CEO Noelene Duff’s performance and council’s management was crucial to restoring ratepayer trust. ‘‘It requires a total change in attitude – unless something like this happens we will just be hitting our heads against a brick wall,’’ he said.

Whitehorse Mayor Bill Pemberton said the association claims were unfounded.

‘‘We spend a lot of time providing detailed responses, which means officers are taken away from other roles,’’ he said. ‘‘We work very hard to make things available as required under law for us to be transparent when it comes to costings and accountings.’’

Cr Pemberton said Whitehorse had less general managers on high salaries than most of the neighbouring councils. He said the past two budgets had been the best deal struck for residents. ‘‘We try to engage the community as best as possible.’’