Caulfield Racecourse/C60


CLICK TO ENLARGEPages from 051716-MINUTES_Page_1

Pages from 051716-MINUTES_Page_2Pages from 051716-MINUTES_Page_3

Only 200 voted on Melbourne Racing Club change

Date: May 2, 2016

Patrick Bartley

The board of the Melbourne Racing Club was again under pressure to explain how only 1.5 per cent of its membership voted in last Thursday’s controversial special meeting at Caulfield racecourse to give office bearers a further six-year term

And of the membership of 14,000-plus, only a little more than 200 voting members carried the motion to extend the terms in office and, of that figure, many were postal votes lodged by friends and family of board members.

While outraged members began to form groups to challenge the club, a spokesman for the MRC said there would not be another vote on the issue despite the small number of votes.

A spokesman for the MRC, Jake Norton, said he and his club doubted that the state’s ruling body, Racing Victoria, had jurisdiction over the club, despite being asked for a please explain after last Thursday’s meeting, which was described by members as a “farce”.

He said the club had been in constant communication with Racing Minister Martin Pakula. But Fairfax Media understand RVL has the power to register all clubs in Victoria each year.As well, a core of members is  in talks with a constitutional lawyer in a bid to find a way to have last Thursday’s decision overturned.

Other members on Monday lodged letters of complaint to not only the minister but Premier Daniel Andrews and all federal members within the Caulfield district.

“We will have this changed,” one member said. “It cannot possibly go on. We have 200 members voting on the most important issue the club has faced since the new century.

“And we know now that thousands and thousands of members were not contacted. That’s, of course, unless you were a friend or a family member of a board member. It’s outrageous and the ill feeling within the membership is growing by the day.”

It takes 150 signatures of Melbourne Racing Club members to spill the board, a figure that will easily be gathered by the end of the week, according to those members against the move

Racing Victoria officials confirmed they had received an explanation from the Melbourne Racing Club after last Thursday night. “We will be examining the report over the next few days but at the moment we won’t be commenting,” a spokesman said.

Other members have been outraged because they never knew of the meeting. A doctor from the Mornington Peninsula said: “We have been manipulated. We were told that we’ve got to get onto the website and look up an obscure page to find the most important piece of legislation the club’s ever voted on.

“They have flouted their position of trust and what an outrage – just over 200 votes and the matter swept away.

“If Martin Pakula and the government here can’t do anything, my friends and I will go federally. Many prime ministers have been members of this club and it’s now reduced to a boys’ club.”

Other questions have been raised over how the executive wages bill has jumped from $2 million to $4 million and why a race club needs 50 per cent ownership in a bakery in Collingwood.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/horseracing/only-200-voted-on-melbourne-racing-club-change-20160502-gokcsl.html#ixzz47YTWM5GO

 

Here is a summary of what we know in relation to the Caulfield Racecourse:

  • There are 4 (not 2) Land Management Plans for the racecourse. Two are by the Trustees – one is a plan that includes training and the other plan is designed without training facilities. The third Land Management Plan is from the MRC (with State Government funding). The fourth plan (yet to be completed we understand) comes from the Melbourne Planning Authority (MPA) whose brief is to come up with a ‘precinct plan’ for Caulfield.
  • The role of the MPA and its recommendations are crucial since both Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne Refresh designate ‘Caulfield’ (or what we presume to correlate with the Phoenix Precinct) as a major ‘employment hub’. Issues such as zoning, open space, transport and development are to feature prominently. Whether or not this plan will incorporate parts of Stonnington (as it should) we do not know at this point.
  • So we now appear to have the most farcical situation possible. The MPA as the overarching authority will bring down a ‘precinct plan’ that in all probability is not co-ordinated with the State Government’s review of the zones, or the Better Apartments review, or even the consolidation of Plan Melbourne Refresh.
  • Monash University is closing Berwick campus and seeking to rezone the land and then undoubtedly aims to sell it off for residential/mixed use development. That will provide them with the necessary funds to proceed full bore with their Fusion project for the Caulfield Campus. We remind readers that this involves (at this stage) the development of 800+ student accommodation facilities, plus the development of the entire Plaza area.
  • We also believe that Council were offered the opportunity to be ‘the committee of management’ for the centre of the racecourse but knocked this back. Whether all councillors were made aware of this ‘offer’ is a moot point.
  • The trustees will go, but what will replace them is still to be determined. Apparently the Minister does not have the power to sack them. Legislation has to be rescinded first, and then new legislation introduced.
  • Community groups will be presenting to a parliamentary committee in early April. What influence these presentations will have, and how genuine the intent to listen to community views, remains to be seen.
  • Yesterday (March 19th) there was another concert. Once again, the noise levels were unacceptable and could be heard from a kilometre away!

Some observations on the release of the minutes from 2014 –

  • Why these minutes should appear now (18 months later) is open to speculation. The fact that neither the agenda, nor the minutes from the last meeting were published does not fill us with confidence that things are changing on the Trust. It will be interesting to see whether any agenda and/or minutes will be published for the March 30 meeting.
  • Only one MRC member was highlighted in these minutes in relation to conflict of interest. Given that leases were discussed means, in our view, that ALL MRC members of the trust could be perceived to have a conflict of interest and not just one individual.
  • The alleged 2009 ‘governance’ document has never seen the light of day.
  • The fact that councillor representatives are ‘gagged’ is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is the fact that these same councillors have accepted this situation!

CONCLUSION

  • An all mighty mess that has lasted for 150 years and looks like continuing for some time yet.

PS: the October 2014 minutes are uploaded here

A very strong rumour is making the rounds that Okotel has resigned from Glen Eira Council to pursue her hoped for parliamentary career. We are confident that readers will have a view as to her contribution to this municipality in the three plus years she served as a councillor.

On another issue, last night saw the unanimous vote on the Sounness moved motion regarding ‘noise pollution’ emanating from the Caulfield Racecourse and their ‘music events’. Interestingly, Sounness’ motion was in part for council to ‘liaise with Stonnington’. Subsequent events reveal in glorious technicolor the difference between Glen Eira City Council and Stonnington City Council. The latter has no issue with alerting community groups as to the upcoming events. In Glen Eira, there is silence. Thus residents have to find out for themselves, or from their neighbouring contacts.

Below is the email sent from the MRC’s ‘consultants’ to Glen Eira officers. We have also uploaded their flyer for this event. Questions galore need answering – what will council do to ensure this event is within EPA noise guidelines? Will officers be attending? Will council ensure that traffic wardens are available at 10pm so that attendees can leave the grounds in an orderly fashion? Will they be pursuing this issue with the Minister, the police, the Trustees, or as per normal, keep passing the buck onto everyone else?

From: Dartmoor Consulting Group [mailto:a.young@tpg.com.au]

Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:07 AM

To: John Bordignon; shane.cashman@police.vic.gov.au;

SEMRCommunityResilienceCommanders@mfb.vic.gov.au; Keith Franklyn; Ron Torres

Subject: RE: PUBLIC EVENT NOTIFICATION FOR THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE – NOVEL CONCERT – SATURDAY 19 MARCH 2016

To Whom It May Concern,

Please find attached relevant details pertaining to the above forthcoming public event to be conducted at the Caulfield Racecourse on Saturday 19th March 2016.

Should you have any queries or require any additional information in relation to the scheduled event prior to or during please don?t hesitate to contact me directly at your convenience.

Best Regards

Andrew Young

DIRECTOR

DARTMOOR CONSULTING GROUP PTY LTD

Public Event Compliance/Management Consultants

Project Facilitators

Private Building Surveyors

Postal Address: P.O.BOX 165 : GLEN IRIS VICTORIA : 3146 AUSTRALIA.

Mobile Number: 0412 118 337

Email Address:

a.young@tpg.com.au

PUBLIC EVENT NOTIFICATION  NOVEL CONCERT -  SATURDAY 19 MARCH 2016 @ CAULFIELD RACECOURSE.-3_Page_1

cr

Government, Trustees, and Council should hang their heads in shame for repeatedly turning a blind eye to the continued reprehensible behaviour of the Melbourne Racing Club. We know that the Department, Council, and the Police were inundated with complaints from residents near and far over the recent ‘rave’ concert at the racecourse. And not a word (of course) from Glen Eira City Council nor its trustee representatives.

rave

rad

Instead of the usual practice of merely ‘noting’ and accepting the records of assembly, Magee moved an alternate motion and was seconded by Delahunty. Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. The motion reads –

That the record of the above assemblies be received and noted and that council writes to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and asks if the code of conduct adopted at the most recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust meets the compliance standards outlined in the Auditor General’s recommendations. Specifically recommendation 2 which deals with the governance framework and the need for contemporary and public reporting. And recommendation 7 which challenges the Trust to address their community engagement obligations.

MAGEE: said that the Auditor General in September 2014 released ‘an absolute scathing’ report on the trustees and the department. ‘It showed that the community were ignored’ and that ‘the land was almost totally utilised for racing’. On 21st November before the election Lisa Neville wrote to Magee (and he quoted) that Labor supports the Auditor General recommendations and that they would ‘implement the recommendations’ if elected. The records of assembly show that Delahunty asked the councillor trustees to ‘report on the latest’ trustee meeting. They said that a ‘new code of governance was voted in’ which set down that ‘no trustee is allowed to speak outside the trust’ and nor can they ‘say what is happening inside the trust meetings’. The Auditor General was ‘scathing on this’ and his recommendations were ‘that this was not to continue’. Magee then quoted Greg Sword from September 2014 where ‘the trust welcomes the Auditor General’s report’. He then said that what is ‘disturbing’ about the code is that it ‘gags, silences’ and stops trustees from ‘saying what happens on a $2 billion community asset’. This asset ‘has seen over 400 children’ from Glen Eira ‘having nowhere to play sport’. ‘What’s most upsetting’ is that the code of conduct was ‘written by the Victorian Government Solicitor’. Didn’t think that Neville was even ‘aware of this’. Said he’s ‘drafted a letter’ and will be telling her that the Government Solicitor has drafted this code in ‘total contradiction’ to the Auditor General’s report. Went on to say that the ‘last time’ the trust even produced minutes was in February 2014 – 7 months before the report and since then ‘they have met once’. So ’14 months’ after the report the ‘trustees decide to have a meeting’. And the ‘first thing they do’ is pass this code of governance ‘gagging all trustees’. So ‘you, I don’t know what’s happening with a $2 billion asset’. Said his letter will be asking that they ‘dismiss’ this ‘anti-social, dysfunctional, secretive organisationwhich has ‘no place in contemporary Australia’ and a ‘framework of governance’. ‘There is no standards within this board of trustees’ that recognises the community’s use. Said the trustees had this ‘little consultation about the new plan’. ‘No one has seen the plan’ or heard of it. So when the trustees are talking to the community about what they want, ‘one-third of the trustees have actually produced their own plan’ and this was ‘to lock everybody out’ and from what they’ve heard ‘night racing’ is part of the proposed plan. Said that the trustees at the first opportunity have chosen to ‘reverse, go backwards’ and they are ‘now back in the 1800 hundreds where we should be seen but not heard’. They see the racecourse ‘as theirs’ and the activities on this land as ‘making money for them’ – their Tabaret makes $12 million ‘off crown land and very little of that finds its way back to the community’. Ajax footy club ‘train and play outside Glen Eira because there’s no space’. Games are ‘cancelled’ because of no space. ‘I can’t handle that. I can’t take that. I can’t allow that to continue’. He will continue to write ‘letter after letter’ and when they say ‘they will do something’ ‘nothing has been done’. Quoted Andrews on the Auditor General’s report welcoming the recommendations and said that it was not ‘worth the paper it was written on’. (Melodramatically) tore the sheets of paper in half!

DELAHUNTY: said it was hard to follow Magee because he speaks with ‘such passion’. Said they don’t know what’s going on. Also that there is a ‘theme’ running through the first two items on the agenda tonight – ‘an open and transparent body should be the only body’ that is acceptable. Said this arose because of her question to the councillor trustees asking for an update from the trustee meeting and ‘they provided it as best as they could’. Said that the motion is relevant to ‘us’ because it seeks to know how ‘constraining and blocking and gagging code of conduct’ meets any of the Auditor General’s recommendations. And ‘how you are going to adopt a governance framework that is consistent with contemporary standards’. Said that they thought they ‘had some tractions’ with the Auditor General’s report and whilst hundreds are being turned away from sporting activities ‘is heartbreaking and we won’t rest’ until this is resolved.

OKOTEL: endorsed Magee and said that a year ago ‘we were all pleased and optimistic’ about the report and they had hoped that ‘some real action’ would be taken. Now when ‘not one single recommendation’ has been implemented ‘it is devastating’ for ‘those sporting clubs’. Thanked Magee for the motion and ‘encouraged’ him to ‘continue advocate on this issue’.

LOBO: can ‘go on an on playing the broken record’ but nothing will change unless they lose the backing of the Minister and unless ‘we all go to VCAT’. ‘Don’t waste our time. Fight for the residential codes rather’ than this ‘which will not come to you’.

PILLING: also ‘endorsed’ the ‘long’ issue and both sides of politics are involved. ‘We need more sports ovals’ and for the MRC ‘to consider the community far more’. Things can be done but just needs ‘the political will from the State Government’.

MAGEE: the Government Solicitor also gave ‘advice’ that the trustees ‘should adopt the committee of management guidelines’ . These ‘guidelines state very clearly that all meetings should be open publically’ and that ‘minutes should be made public’. He also ‘recommended that 6 of the trustees have conflicts of interest’ and shouldn’t vote on ‘matters’ dealing with the MRC. ‘those 6 trustees agreed that they would disagree’ and ‘they voted that down’. ‘They have said that they will vote on anything that relates to them’. Spoke about leases and how the MRC writes the leases and then ‘sublets’ to members of the trust. ‘If this is not an absolute travesty of justice’ he is tired of writing to politicians and ‘everyone says ‘ugggh’ ‘not touching that!’ Finished by ‘surmising’ that the councillor reps on the trustees were ‘very disappointed’ by the code of governance and that ‘they cannot tell us, they cannot communicate with us’. ‘this is not their fault’. Nothing will change until ‘this group united (15 trustees) will stand up for residents’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENTS

  • We do not disagree with any of Magee’s criticisms of the trustees as stated above. However, we do find it terribly ironic and hypocritical that not 5 minutes previous, Magee, Pilling and Okotel were part of the successful gagging and silencing of Delahunty’s motion. Their votes helped cement the ‘secrecy’ and dysfunctional council that we now have. We suggest that all of the criticisms levelled at the MRC and the trustees would appear to apply equally to the vast majority of Glen Eira City councillors and council’s total disregard for good governance and open, transparent government!
  • If our trustees are so ‘desperately disappointed’ then why don’t they resign? Given that their presence is totally ineffectual, then surely a mass resignation will achieve far more in terms of publicity and condemnation of the trustees?

When it comes to the MRC, Council turns a blind eye again and again.

Two days ago the CMFEU had their annual picnic day at the racecourse. Contrary to the so called ‘agreement’ –

  • Cars were parked in the centre of the racecourse – a definite ‘no-no’
  • No traffic wardens to manage the mayhem – although radio reports kept warning motorists to stay clear of the area
  • No warning to residents
  • No clarity as to whether this constitutes a ‘major’ event or not?
  • In short, council simply lets the MRC do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

029

The Caulfield Village is now really taking shape along Station St and residents should not be surprised to find that what was supposed to be a 5 storey building (according to the Incorporated Plan of 2011) became a 6 storey building with the Development Plan. Please also note how balconies are now allowed to intrude as far as they like into the setbacks – courtesy of another Amendment that was gleefully promoted by council. We can hardly wait for all the other cave-ins to occur when the next set of Development plans come in for the remaining two precincts. Well done council for selling out residents completely!

005

True to form, the MRC continues with its money making ventures to the detriment of local residents – ably supported by council, by government, and by the pen pushers in the department. The latest outrages are:

  • Another rock concert in early December
  • This in combination with the month long circus
  • Another appeal by the MRC to VCAT over council’s refusal on the 30 plus radio towers
  • The department’s (and government’s) collusion in more compliance with MRC wishes
  • The failure to publish agenda items and minutes for the last Trustee meeting – despite the Auditor General’s report
  • The failure of council reps to utter a single word about what is going on
  • More than a year down the track since the Auditor General’s report and no visible signs of improvement in governance, access to the course, and the MRC giving a damn about the local community
  • Years down the track and not a whisper about the removal of training and the removal of fences as per original ‘agreement’.
  • And now we have Chanukah in the park with the prospect of fireworks. So much for the argument that ‘noise’ and horses don’t mix, therefore we have to keep the fences up to avoid horses bolting.

Thankfully divine providence may have intervened in blowing down the ramshackle fences along Queen’s Avenue – those very fences that were supposed to be removed ages ago and with council sharing the cost! See photos below.

Of far greater significance is this response to a complaint to the Minister in relation to the department’s removing all previous conditions it imposed on the granting of a permit for the outdoor cinema – namely – (a) trustee approval (b) land used to be under lease agreements and (c) current lease agreement in place. At the subsequent VCAT hearing which was appealed by a resident, the MRC magically pulled a new and undated letter from the department out of its bag of tricks. This new letter simply removed all of the earlier imposed conditions, making the granting of the permit a certainty. How convenient! How timely and how disgusting!

A complaint was then sent off to Minister Neville asking:

  • Why earlier conditions had been removed
  • Why an official letter was undated
  • Whether this was granted with ministerial approval
  • What was government doing in relation to the Auditor General’s report which was now over a year old

The full response is published here plus the pdf version

minletter_Page_1minletter_Page_2minletter_Page_3

Readers might also like to envisage what their land could look like once the decrepit, never maintained fences are permanently removed.

IMG_4984d

IMG_4985d

IMG_4988d

Item 9.1 – MRC application for 30+ radio towers

Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz all declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Magee moved to accept the motion to refuse, plus that council write to the Minister & Department, plus all relevant MPs seeking permission to create 6 sporting ovals in the centre of the racecourse. Seconded by Delahunty.

MAGEE: stated that the application ‘in itself’ was fairly ‘innocuous’ but ‘far reaching’ since it ‘encroaches further and further’ onto crown land. For years there has been this encroachment by the MRC – ie ‘training track after training track being developed’, ‘large screens being built’ and application to ‘increase the size of the Tabaret’. There are 3 purposes for the racecourse (park, racing, etc) and that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’. Said that this application is to set up a ‘permanent structure on usable crown land’. Went over the lack of open space, the number of kids unable to play sport because of lack of grounds, and that ‘teams are capped’ turning away stacks of kids. There is a master plan being done and all the sporting clubs are saying this is a ‘great opportunity’ to have this open space for sport in the centre. Now council has the ‘opportunity’ to apply for use of the land. The MRC writes to the ‘authority’ and council is now wanting to do the same. Claimed that it ‘would be very hard’ for the Minister and Department to ‘actually refuse us’ given that they have approved the screens, etc. ‘We have waited far too long’ and ‘this open space belongs to you’. Said with this motion council will see who opposes them so they will have ‘someone to talk to’.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s a ‘hard act’ to follow Magee since he is so ‘passionate’ and speaks so ‘eloquently’. Racing is already ‘well catered for’ so ‘this doesn’t meet the objectives of’ the Crown Land Grant. Council takes the Open Space Strategy ‘very seriously’ and the application ‘flies in the face of those strategic objectives’ so it behoves council to refuse the application. The motion is moving forward towards achieving sporting fields and open space.

SOUNNESS: said he wasn’t speaking against the spirit of the refusal but thought that the bit about the ‘tipping point is weak’. If this went to VCAT it would ‘prove to be a less than successful’ outcome. Endorsed the other part of the motion and there should be the opportunity for the ‘public to enjoy’ the course. Repeated that he has got ‘reservations’ about the ‘tipping point’ since there have been ‘other applications’ that were equally the ‘tipping point’.

PILLING: endorsed part 2 of the motion but on the refusal said that while he understands Sounness’ points he doesn’t agree since there will be visual impact to Queen’s Avenue since the land is already raised and did think that council ‘can justify’ the motion.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because this would create a ‘visual impact’ and park users ‘aren’t being adequately catered for at the moment’. Said that ‘at the moment’ access is ‘restricted’ and ‘what’s pleasing’ is that ‘now action is taken’ in the attempt to ‘move forward’ and ‘discover who might be responsible for that blockage’ to permission. The motion ‘will weed out’ those responsible ‘for the blockage’.

LOBO: all applications are about ‘horse racing, horse racing’ and they ‘don’t regard’ the community. They have ‘denied the rights of the community’. There is a lack of sports grounds and council even had to hire ‘independent consultants’ to work out what sporting grounds are needed. The MRC has ‘done nothing but given grief to the community’. The lease ‘has expired’ and hasn’t been ‘renewed for years’; the Auditor General delivered his report and ‘caulfield racecourse does not seem to care’. Council ‘doesn’t get a cent from huge earnings of Caulfield racecourse’ in fact they pay reduced rates.

MAGEE: said that the 2008 report from the parliamentary committee was ‘scathing’ and so was the VEAC report and then the Auditor General’s report. A year down the track and none of his recommendations ‘are yet to be implemented’. Stated that ‘in his heart’ he thought there would be ‘changes’ and that the new Minister would do her best to make things change. Said that the motion means that council is ‘moving forward’ and they can see if there is anyone who is trying to ‘stop us’. The MRC do ‘look after the racecourse very well’ and is one of the best courses in the world and council wants racing to stay but they also want to ‘share the ground’.

MOTION PUT. ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST – SOUNNESS

COMMENTS

  • We commend Cr Sounness for being the only councillor to take the officer’s report to task – however mildly and for his attempt to refer to ‘planning law’ rather than grandstanding.
  • This is a planning application, yet the only comment made in relation to planning was the dubious claim about ‘visual amenity’. For a council that continually rams down residents’ throats the idea that ‘planning law’ must apply – this so called ‘debate’ illustrates how little ‘planning law’ has been dredged up to support the officer’s recommendation and the subsequent motion. In our view, councillors, for whatever reason are going through the motions, doing as they are told, and literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything of substance to say.
  • Question – why has council waited for nearly a decade before moving the motion to seek permission for sporting fields? Surely this could have been done eons ago?
  • Musical chairs on Esakoff, Hyams, and Lipshutz’s ‘conflict of interest’ continues. When it suits, there is a conflict of interest. When it doesn’t suit, this goes out the window! Consistency is definitely not a strong point within council!
  • If the Open Space Strategy is so important, then where was council when it either granted permits, or caved in, over the removal of fences, access, leases, financial payments, etc – not to mention the C60, outdoor screen, cinema, etc. etc.
  • In typical contradictory manner, council now seeks permission and then a permit to create six sporting fields – without knowing the cost. Funnily enough other items on the agenda included the arguments that council can’t do something because they either haven’t got the money and don’t know the cost so the accepted recommendation was the usual – ‘let’s do nothing’ (ie pavilions, rose gardens, depot removal from Caulfield Park).

« Previous PageNext Page »