Glen Eira Debates

We feature 2 more items from Tuesday night’s council meeting – the Delahunty Request for a Report on recording council meetings and the non-answer to a public question. The latter comes from the now published minutes.

DELAHUNTY: said that there had recently been a ‘flurry’ of councils providing recordings and videos of their council meetings. ‘I think it’s a great idea’. If people can’t show up to the meeting then they can watch it at their leisure. It will also help people ‘understand the values we impart’ and ‘how we come to a decision’ and ‘helps with participation’. Not fully supportive of visual recordings but if the issue is to be investigated then ‘might as well’ have all the information up front. ‘What’s said is most important’. It’s ‘moving into the area’ of ‘what other municipalities are doing’ and it’s ‘old fashioned’ to ‘expect people to rock up’ to council meetings all the time.

MAGEE: likes the idea but didn’t at first. Residents often ask ‘what happened at the council meeting?’ and he can’t always remember what was said. Recording would therefore be ‘an opportunity for people to look back at particular items’. Said that he’s been watching the videos of Kingston and Dandenong ‘and they are atrocious’ so ‘we would really have to life our game if we looked like that’. In those council meetings the Mayor tells the gallery that it’s being recorded so there are legal questions that could be added to the report. Since the town hall is a ‘heritage building’ then every ‘infrastructure we put in we have to be very careful of’ and that ‘maybe we can’t facilitate’ the recordings. Thought that in 2013 ‘there is a need’ for recordings.

LOBO: ‘excellent idea’ and it’s like a ‘performance report on a monthly basis from residents’. They can be seen by residents on ‘how we perform’. ‘We should not be scared’. ‘Directors have to be appraised by Andrew Newton’ and for councillors when people want to ‘look how they behave, professional or unprofessional’ then the recordings will tell them.  ‘Even if a mayor acts unprofessional…has to be seen by the residents’. Residents ‘should know’ so when the elections come up they know (hand gestures) who to vote for (the implication).

DELAHUNTY: would be amazed if there was any consequences about heritage. Couldn’t see how placing a tripod with a camera in the corner could be a heritage problem. Hoped that councillors would support the call for a report which was to tell them if they can do this and not the merits of doing it.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PUBLIC QUESTION

Subject: Marara Road Reserve
“Glen Eira Council has a written strategy, as part of the Open Space Strategy 1998, to plant out the Marara Road Reserve with indigenous species so as to form a corridor for native fauna to move to and from the parks of Glen Eira, a strategy
widely accepted by ecologists. Earlier this year, after rows of exotic trees were planted in Marara Road Reserve, the council explained that the 1988 written policy had been superseded.
1. If the 1998 policy is superseded then where is this decision recorded, and
2. who made the decision, and
3. why was the policy superseded, and
4. when was the policy superseded? “
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Since the finalisation of the 1998 Open Space Strategy, Council has completed the trail.
In the recent past Council’s Park Services Department planted shade trees along the shared path in Marara Road Reserve, a combination of Acer platanoides and Fraxinus pennsylvanica both exotics.

Council’s arborist selected these species because:
 They are medium to large trees when mature providing good shade;
 They are suitable for the soil profile in the park;
 They do not have aggressive roots, unsuitable for planting near the path;
 They do not cause excessive leaf litter that may cause a hazard to path users; and
 They are not prone to tree diseases present in the current tree population in the area.

Although the strategy did specify native trees, natives were not appropriate in this instance because the larger native trees:
 Have aggressive root systems that would damage the path over time; and/or
 Have woody fruit litter which may cause the path to become slippery; and/or
 Are susceptible to leaf skeletoniser pests which are current active in the area.”

At this point the following exchange took place –

DELAHUNTY: Wondered if she ‘could ask a question’

HYAMS: ‘You can make a statement’ or give your own answer ‘but you can’t ask a question’

After giving her statement Hyams then said ‘it’s been pointed out to me that’ this isn’t a ‘policy, it’s a strategy’

Delahunty then went on to state – “I don’t feel that the answer given there actually answers the substance of the question which was has the policy been superseded and so in my statement what I will seek to do is ask that question myself and put that through our Councillor request system and see if I can’t get an answer to that question to Mr XXXXXX (omitted)  of Balaclava Road Caulfield North.”

CAULFIELD PARK CONCERTS

Sounness moved motion that Friends of Caulfield Park receive $1000 for promotion, performers, etc. and that receipts be provided and that this is only a ‘once off grant’. Lipshutz seconded.

SOUNNESS: went over history that FOCP had applied for a grant but not all of their application was in line with grant guidelines. Felt that the group’s objectives were directed to the ‘wider community’. Also said that the motion ‘is exceptional’ and that the FOCP have to become ‘sustainable’ and ‘it should not be a continuation of funds’ for them to continue holding these concerts. They should ‘actively’ look for other means of support such as through ‘advertising’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Caulfield Park was our ‘premier park’ and that last year’s concert was ‘very successful’. He ‘liked the idea’ of using the bandstand but council shouldn’t just give community groups this money since ‘if they want to do’ these things then they ‘should raise the money themselves’ and ‘become sustainable’.  Thought the project ‘was good’ in that it’s ‘community based and will be good for the community’. Stated that council was using ‘ward funds to do this’ and that this has ’caused some concern’ in other councils since ward funds are ‘discretionary’ and therefore they can be used in ways that are ‘not so transparent’. Glen Eira in contrast is ‘putting it to the whole council’ so that it is fully transparent and ‘all above board’. He therefore supports the motion but it’s impoortant to ‘recognise quite clearly that this is a one off’ and won’t happen again ‘next year’.

ESAKOFF: stated that she ‘continued to hold the view’ that the Community grants process got it right that the FOCP were funded for the bandstand itself but not the rest. Went on to talk about the Arts and Culture program and how Glen Eira holds a broad range of events ‘which includes entertainment in our parks’. Thought that this bandstand series organised by FOCP ‘duplicates what council does’ and for her wherever the money comes from ‘it is still ratepayer money’ and shouldn’t be used for a ‘duplication of what we do’. She didn’t ‘want to be a killjoy’ but she needs to be convinced that ‘this is not a duplication’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Esakoff raised important governance issues about the use of discretionary ward funds. Didn’t think that this was ‘duplication’ since the bandstand has been ‘underused’ in the past. Said that the concerts achieved what ‘council hasn’t managed to be able to do’ since council does things ‘on a very large scale’ and this is different. Said that it’s ‘fantastic’ that a community group is willing to run with this and ‘do something positive’. She was confident that this would ‘become a self-sustaining event’ and councillors can help with advice and support.

PILLING: said that concerns had been raised but it’s transparent since they’re deciding this ‘tonight’ in open council.

LOBO: ‘I have the floor’. Said that it’s important to encourage people but ‘at the same time we should not eat the flesh on the bone and throw the bone’ to ‘wolves’ or being ‘licked by dogs’.  Said that definition of professional is ‘to behave as one should and not as one feels’ so those who make decisions have to make these decisions ‘with their mind’ and not ‘their heart’. Stated that he ‘wasn’t very happy with this small piece of bone’ and it’s like being a deputy mayor where ‘nothing is given’ but just ‘a bone is thrown’.

HYAMS: defended Esakoff by saying he didn’t think that anyone ‘should be called a killjoy because’ they’re trying to ensure that ‘council funds’ are used properly. He also thought that Esakoff wasn’t referring to the concerts in the park but to the smaller events like spring music series’ and this could be what she was referring to when saying ‘duplication’. Esakoff agreed with his interpretation. Agreed with the motion and stated that last year an individual artist was granted funding to a mosaic and that wasn’t within the guidelines but they still granted her the money. This ‘is similar’ because it ‘does provide benefit to the community’. Asked that the motion be amended to include the wording ‘ward funds’ and this was accepted by mover and seconder.

SOUNNESS: saw this as 2 issues – ward funds and supporting community groups. This is transparent and making good use of the bandstand for the community. Wanted resources to be used better and this was one way of doing it. Went through what the program would be and said he was ‘proud’ to support Friends of Caulfield Park.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. ESAKOFF VOTED AGAINST.

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

URGENT BUSINESS

Lipshutz moved the motion that the Local Law committee make some recommendations regarding the ‘operation’ of Urgent Business. Okotel seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: reminded everyone that the Notice of Motion had been rejected recently because with Urgent Business the ‘system worked very well’. It works now that if something crops up between the issuing of the agenda and council meeting it can have the status of ‘urgent business’. The committee will look at the issue and make recommendations on ‘how best to deal with that’ and then report back to council.

OKOTEL: did not say anything.

SOUNNESS: wanted to ‘clarify’ the ‘nature of urgent business’. Read out the relevant clause from the Local Law and said that there was not ‘great clarity’ as to what could be considered as urgent. Went on to question whether ‘sunshine’ is urgent and wanted more ‘clarity’.

DELAHUNTY: was happy for the committee to ‘have a look at it’ as this might address ‘some of the gaps that were found without having a notice of motion’ but then the logic says if gaps were found then why not have a notice of motion? ‘It doesn’t seem to be necessary to me’ and would involve ‘a lot of work for really no gain’. ‘But then, here we are’ and ‘onward’!

COMMENT: how informative! and what happened to the usual Lipshutz slogan – ‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT’?

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Pilling moved motion and included that public be ‘involved’ in restoration options. Magee seconded.

PILLING: Went over the ‘consultation process’ and how this was ‘thoroughly done’. Hoped that councillors would support his motion.

MAGEE: said that this had come up 5 years ago and that there had been at least 3 decisions on the conservatory in the recent past. Said that it was now ‘very, very clear’ what people wanted. They wanted it maintained, restored and ‘they want to use it’ and that was ‘talked about 5 years ago’. ‘And here we are in 2013’ and he hoped that they were going to vote to ‘restore it’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘that’s the process, that’s how it should happen’ that people are asked. ‘I really want to see the community involved in this’ so that in ‘ten years time’ if it comes up again. Wanted community groups to put forward their ‘great ideas’ and that it ‘encourages interaction’. ‘It’s a very clear outcome now’.

LOBO: ‘yes this is democracy, although we ask again and again and again’. To keep asking again and again is an ‘unnecessary process’. The $600,000 from Centenary Park ‘could be used here’. Referred to a letter he had received which criticised his statement that Australia was not democratic. ‘I disagree with him. Yes there is democracy’ but he’s concerned about the ‘processes’ and ‘they are wrong’. Decmocracy should not ‘be made up as you go’.

SOUNNESS: conservatory is a ‘scrappy piece of plastic’ but it will be nice to see it restored. They’ve now got the results of the survey and ‘I’ve got nothing further to say’.

HYAMS: was pleased that ‘we went through this process’ because previously the results were either ‘in favour of the coffee house or inconclusive’. Also ‘last council did change its mind a bit’ but ‘now we have this survey. It is conclusive’ even though ‘it is not what I thought was best for the community’ but was ‘more than happy top go along’ with these results.

PILLING: acknowledged that there were divergent views from councillors but they were motivated by the desire to use ‘the conservatory better’ and ‘this has been justified by the consultation’. Ultimately ‘this is a win for everyone’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: Many things remain unclear.  The current budget allocated $105,000 for ‘restoration’. Exactly what does ‘restoration’ mean? Is this enough to cover the replacement of rotting timbers, paintwork, plantings? Is an extra sum of money even budgeted for? If not, where will this money come from? And the most vital question – when will this ‘restoration’ start and when will it be finished? We remind readers that many ‘capital projects’ undertaken by this council magically seem to fall behind schedule not by months, but by years! We won’t be holding our breath to see work start on this!

Last but not least, a word on ‘transparency’. When one counts up the number of items which are NEVER TABLED at council then it is fair to say that Glen Eira is far from ‘transparent’. According to the above discussions, ‘transparency’ involved information being laid on the table and discussed openly – as suggested in the ‘ward funds’, and ‘consultation’ results. It’s just a pity that this maxim receives so little coverage from both administrators and their all too complaint councillors on far too many occasions.

Once again all information relating to GESAC is buried in the small print of the financial report in vague and obtuse language designed to reveal as little as possible. Attempting to piece together the various figures becomes an impossibility (deliberately so we believe) when no definitions of terms are provided, and no basic ledger of bottom line accounting on the project exists. Yet, there are still some startling announcements.

Below are some copied extracts. The last two are bolded because of their significance and we draw readers’ attention to the third extract in particular. Calling in bank guarantees is an astonishing move given that the court case is far from settled at this point in time. What happens if council loses? What does this say about the cash flow status if Council has to gamble in this manner for what is really a drop in the ocean of $1.8m in an overall budget? And what is the ‘unbudgeted variance’ of $99k for contractors? Surely not lawyers? Our guess at this stage is that the legal eagles’ costs would by now be triple this amount. Where is this figure in the accounts?

There are a number of issues concerning the building of the centre which are currently in dispute. They include the delay in completion of the centre (liquidated damages), variations, and back charges for use of Council utilities during construction and defects. The matters are the subject of civil proceedings brought by Council. A Directions Hearing on 23 August 2013 set dates for the parties to file documents. The parties are to confer and attempt to agree on a List of Issues. The parties are to hold formal mediation prior to 14 February  2014.

GESAC – Council has received income of $1.8M relating to the release of bank guarantees held by Council under the construction contract. This amount will be reflected in Council’s Income Statement on a progressive basis from August until 30 June 2014. The income recognised as at 31st August is $164K.

GESAC – there are unbudgeted costs associated with the defects and litigations issues relating to GESAC. These expenditure items will be treated as operational and will be offset (in part) by the income received from the release of the bank guarantees mentioned above. The unbudgeted variance in contractors relating to GESAC is $99K. 

Yes, council is in a legal stoush, but this does not mean that residents (and probably councillors) should be kept like mushrooms in the dark as to the financial side of things. The lack of transparency and accountability, throughout this entire project demands a full, independent investigation.