Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 19, 2013

Agenda & Audit Committee

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

Below are some extracts from the minutes of the February Audit Committee Meeting. We think they speak for themselves!

“Mr McLean requested that the Audit Committee be kept updated with respect to the dispute resolution process between Council and Hansen and Yuncken”.

“Financial Sustainability Risk matrix

The meeting was advised that on the basis of the Council’s existing accounting policies for Aged Care Bonds, Council’s liquidity ratio is projected to exceed 100%. If accounting policies were changed, ratios could be impacted. The Chairman asked that management review Council’s options around the liquidity ratio, including deferral of payments of the Defined Benefits Superannuation Fund liability shortfall.

Mr McLean raised the question for follow up as to whether any liquidity covenants existed around the borrowings for GESAC”.

March 18, 2013

The Leader’s View!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments

Decision on use of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve likely to rule out racehorse training

Andrea Kellett
March 18, 2013 2:17PM

Cr Jim Magee is hoping there will be support for the statement on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Picture: Jason Sammon Leader

GLEN Eira councillors will tomorrow night be asked to adopt an explosive position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The nine-point statement will push for massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

It comes just a week before the reserve’s governing body the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust is due to meet.

The State Government has appointed three new Glen Eira councillors to the trust. Mayor Jamie Hyams, Cr Michael Lipshutz and Cr Margaret Esakoff’s appointments were gazetted last Wednesday. Former trustee chairman Cr Jim Magee was not reappointed.

Cr Magee will call on all councillors to support the statement.

“It’s one of the most significant statements council has ever made regarding the racecourse,” he said.

If the statement is adopted, the council will be committed to advocate for:

Equal land for community sport and racetracks
Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses
Horse training to be phased out
Public use to take precedence over car parking
Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities
Governance by committee of management

View the full statement at gleneira.vic.gov.au.

Read next week’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader for the council’s decision and the community’s reaction or email andrea.kellett@news.com.au with your thoughts.

March 17, 2013

Agenda & Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments

Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!

The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.

A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –

‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.

We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.

March 16, 2013

Mushrooms, Mushrooms, Mushrooms……

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

A public question was asked at the 5^th February Council Meeting. It read:

“Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward.

Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

Since then there has been no public disclosure, and no further mention of this important issue. Even worse, the fact that councillors were ‘informed’ does not feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly for this period. Conclusion? Either the Records of Assembly are a total (censored) joke, the ‘informing’ was a brief verbal aside, or perhaps did not even take place?

We’re getting mightily sick of revealing how often this council is out of step with the majority of its neighbours. This is not the first time that submissions to various committees or government have not been ratified by council resolution first off (as done in other municipalities) much less made public. Residents have no idea as to how this council votes at MAV conferences; what positions will be taken, or much about anything. We even wonder if councillors get a look in, or have a say on anything. Yet they do nothing! They allow residents to be treated like mushrooms and the disease of inaccurate reporting and secrecy continues unabated.

The development contributions is a vital issue for any municipality that is experiencing the unprecedented growth that Glen Eira is. Given that this council has REMOVED the contributions from its planning scheme it becomes even more important that residents know what council’s position is. Will Newton and his cohorts meekly accept the pro-development agenda, or will there be some insistence that ratepayers stop subsidising greed?

Below are the views of our neighbours – all made public and above board – not like Glen Eira City Council!

1. PORT PHILLIP EXTRACTS

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_-_Submission_to_Standard_Development_Contributions_Advisory_Committee.pdf

There remains a bias in the design of the proposed development contributions framework towards the establishment of development contributions in growth areas. This translates into some gaps in the frameworks application in established areas where project delivery can be much more complex and expensive that broad acre green field development. These gaps include:

• Assumptions about spare capacity in existing infrastructure to cope with development.

• The suggestion that a “25% discount” be applied to standard leviesin established areas compared to growth areas.

• Failure to recognise the complexities and additional costs associated with development in established urban areas.

• The significant land cost component in the provision of new infrastructure in established areas.

Project contingencies cost allowance set at 10% of project cost. A contingency set at a standard 10 % is very low for projects, particularly in inner urban areas. This should be scaled across a range in accordance with industry best practice and be project specific.

There is no recognition in the proposed framework that additional growth in established urban areas can create “tipping points”, exceeding infrastructure capacity and rendering some types of existing infrastructure redundant. This in turn will necessitate complete replacement in order to upgrade the capacity.

The framework proposes that historical capital works expenditure and population growth over time be used as a basis to set the contribution for new development. This approach is not supported as it:

• has no direct relationship to actual need for infrastructure generated by additional growth relies on historical spending that may not be an accurate indication of either infrastructure cost or infrastructure need

• takes no account of the nature of the population increases and subsequent infrastructure needs

• does not allow for consideration of current standards and costs of infrastructure provision

• is contrary to the basic tests of need and nexus that have long been established in setting development contributions.

2. BAYSIDE

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/5_March_2013_Councillor_Briefing.pdf

in the councillor briefing notes under – ‘proposed submission’

3. STONNINGTON (uploaded in full here)

The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.

That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment

March 13, 2013

GESAC & Letters To The Editor

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

March 11, 2013

We Are Biased!

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

Several comments on the GESAC issue have prompted this response. We freely and proudly admit that we are biased. Our bias is always towards open, accountable and transparent government. These features are sadly lacking in Glen Eira Council and nowhere moreso than in the dealings over the development of GESAC and the sporting allocations for the basketball courts. It is certainly time that this Council ‘comes clean’ in disclosing exactly how ratepayer funds are being spent. It is certainly time that fact replaced spin, and that secrecy was put to bed.

Here are the ‘facts’ and questions –

Council continually talks about the $41.2 million CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Figures on total costs (including oufittings, higher purchase agreements, road restructuring, electricity substations, and countless other items) have never been fully itemised, nor added up into one single figure and made public in a manner that clearly shows the precise amount that this has cost.
How many staff are currently employed by Council? 50 or 250 and how much is this costing?
Did council pay any GESAC hired staff throughout the duration of the 5 month delayed opening? How much did this cost?
How on earth can council sign itself up to a 15 year fixed loan on 8.04% and which would now cost $4 million to convert to a fixed and variable rate? The argument of course is that council had the ‘best consultants’ – was there no contrary official legal/financial advice proffered?
How good are these ‘consultants’ when well over $1 million unbudgeted funds have been spent on car park extensions and relocation of playgrounds?
Why has there been no ‘consultation’ with local residents and why oh why were there no traffic studies undertaken prior to the Gardener’s Rd debacle? How safe is this latest encroachment into public space?
Why, if it exists, is the sport allocation policy, and its criteria not in the public domain?
Why were the Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes a total joke in terms of actually informing the public as to what was going on?
How many GESAC members have not renewed their memberships? How many complaints and/or negative comments has council received regarding entrance prices and general high costs?
How much does daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cost – ie insurance, cleaning, chemicals, heating/cooling etc?
How detailed and frequent were/are reports back to councillors on operations?
Why have councillors not honoured their public statements that an EOI process would be undertaken in 2012 – that is a year following the Warriors allocation?
Why have councillors allowed employees to consistently run the show?
Why are teams for individual sporting grounds no longer on the website?
How many NON-LOCAL teams does Glen Eira house on its sporting fields?
How many locals are members of both the Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association?
How much has already been spent on lawyers on the ‘liquidated damages’ issue and is Council facing the prospect of a huge pay-out if they lose the case?

There are probably countless other questions that need to be asked. We do not hold out much hope that this lot of councillors will have the nous, or courage to ask them – especially not in public! Again, this stands in stark contrast to what is happening with the Pool in the Mornington Shire. For those interested we ask them to peruse this Notice of Motion (verboten in Glen Eira!) from one of their councillors. It makes for fascinating reading. See: http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/Governance_Agendas/131203ca_add_41_NOM127.pdf

March 10, 2013

Would Our Lot Ask These Questions?

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

Councillors have been away for their ‘budget retreat’ recently. No doubt they have been ‘nursed’ along in the process of determining their ‘priorities’ for the budget. They’ve undoubtedly also wrestled with how to pay off GESAC at the fixed rate of 8.04% for the next 15 years. On top of this there’s the $7.1 million superannuation liability that also has to be paid off. Whilst other councils are contemplating paying this in one lump sum to avoid the high interest repayment, we suspect that Glen Eira does not have this option. Imagine borrowing another $4 million or so – that’s if anyone would even lend them this amount! We’re also pretty confident that the question of a top heavy and extremely well paid administration, plus consultants galore, and an unprecedented and constant staff increase with the advent of Newton, would not have figured prominently in these deliberations! It’s therefore really refreshing to read the following from a Monash City Councillor and makes us contemplate the question – would our councillors dare ask these questions? More importantly, would they ever get the answers?

Source: http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/news/bulletin2013/february/councillor.htm

March 8, 2013

Who Runs The Show?

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

We have commented numerous times on the significance of delegations and the implications of handing over total control to unelected employees. This is not to say that we expect councillors to do the work of 1000 employees – that is an impossibility and nor is it desirable. However, we do expect that the elected representatives of the people fulfil their function in proper oversight and strategic decision making. Recent controversies over sporting allocations are a case in point. Planning delegations are another instance where councillors literally do not know what is going on since most planning decisions are made by these employees with no input from councillors.

The mantra that has continually been used by this administration to intimidate and ward off councillor involvement comes from Section 76E of the Local Government Act. It reads as follows:

76E. Improper direction and improper influence

(1) A Councillor must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.

(2) A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff-

(a) in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or

(b) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act; or

(c) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function the member exercises or performs in an office or position the member holds under another Act; or

(d) in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice in a report to the Council or special committee.

(3) This section does not apply to a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act.”

In a nutshell we are told in part 3, that Council has the power to decide what is delegated and what is not. In other words councillors have the legal authority to determine every single delegation.

The Act goes on to specify what ‘delegations’ actually are –

Delegations

(1) A Council may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of its staff any power, duty or function of a Council under this Act or any other Act other than-

(a) this power of delegation; and

(b) the power to declare a rate or charge; and

(d) the power to approve any expenditure not contained in a budget approved by the Council; and

(e) any power, duty or function of the Council under section 223; and

(f) any prescribed power.

(2) The Chief Executive Officer may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of the Council staff any power, duty or function of his or her office other than this power of delegation unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) The instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer may empower the Chief Executive Officer to delegate a power, duty or function of the Council other than the power of delegation to a member of the Council staff.

(4) The Council must keep a register of delegations to members of Council staff”.

One other section of the Act, (114) refers to the Local Law, yet there is nothing that we can identify which delegates authority to officers in regard to sporting allocations. It is also high time that planning delegations were totally revamped and processes put in place that ensured councillors had a say in DPC decision making. So, the questions must then become:

When will councillors show some backbone and assert their mandated authority?
When will this council actually be run by elected representatives rather than employees?
When will councillors fulfil their rightful role in representing the interests of residents?
When will councillors ensure that open, transparent and accountable government occurs in Glen Eira?

March 7, 2013

Residents Are Expendable

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

We’ve featured the Gardener’s Rd conversion into a GESAC car park previously. A comment from a resident’s relative has prompted us to revisit the issue. What is clear is that when it comes to fixing up council’s howlers residents do not matter. They are expendable, irrelevant, and not even worthy of “consulting” with, despite the chaos that is about to descend on their doorsteps. There has been no traffic investigation before the decision was made; no real accounting for why the original design got it so horribly wrong and no problems in suddenly finding $600,000 that is not budgeted for from a council that is cash strapped!

Here’s the comment and some updated photos.

“My parents live on Gardeners Rd, and I grew up there. My grandfather had the house built in 1952, and my Mum has lived there since then, since she was 9 years old. She was given the house by her parents, after she and Dad got married. I and my 4 siblings lived there till we grew up and moved out. I now live in East Bentleigh not far away with my family. We had the best environment as kids. Beautiful Bailey reserve across the road, and “the pools” in summer. I used to take my kids to the pools and the park too, until recently. We were all devastated when we finally lost the 15 year fight to save the pools and GESAC was built. I hate it. I will never go there, and neither will my kids. We call it BALLSAC. We watched in horror as it was built, half the reserve was turned into a carpark, and the playground was removed and replaced with the junk that’s there now. It’s been devastating to see this happen. And now…NOW… they’re carving up the whole street and turning it into a carpark!!! Right in our street, right outside our house. Mum and Dad, and all of us, and all the neighbours, are devastated. Mum and Dad say they are going to sell up and move, out of sadness and disgust. They were never consulted, no-one in Gardeners Rd was. I’d like to ask the councillors, “How would you like this done to YOUR street? Outside YOUR house?”. What a bunch of (MODERATORS: word deleted). I’m so upset but feel powerless to do anything. Is there ANYTHING that can be done? Can we stop it, get an injunction? Does anybody know? We need legal help. I really can’t believe it and I’m so so sad. This is breaking the hearts of so many people and the Council doesn’t give a shit. What has the world come to? If anyone has any ideas or some legal skill please reply.”

March 6, 2013

Planning: ‘Reformed’ Zones

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

The committee appointed to ‘investigate’ the proposed new zones has had its report finally made public – together with the government’s response. A quick perusal of the documents indicates that nothing major has changed. What is unique about this ‘consultation’ is that there were 2,083 SUBMISSIONS – surely a record! It’s also worth noting that at the last parliamentary sitting the government promised to table ALL submissions by February 5th. Yesterday’s Hansard records a letter from Matthew Guy which states in part: “Regrettably, the Government is not able to respond to the Council’s resolution within the time period requested by the Council. The Government will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.”!!!

We urge all residents to read the documents contained in the Media Release below since it is a foregone conclusion that Glen Eira Council’s mandatory ‘consultation’ process will be the typical rubber stamping process that has occurred time and time again.

Reformed residential zones bringing new certainty to Melbourne’s neighbourhoods

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

From the Minister for Planning

Sweeping reforms of residential planning zones are one step closer as Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the Victorian Coalition Government’s final details on the reform of Victoria’s residential planning zones.

After a detailed consultation process with over 2,000 submissions from individuals, businesses, councils and community groups, the Coalition Government will now establish the three reformed residential zones on 1 July this year.

A key feature will be the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone which will be the strictest planning zone in Australia, aimed at protecting existing suburbs’ neighbourhood character.

“The Coalition Government’s reforms to residential zones reflect what communities have been calling for, for many years – certainty for neighbourhoods and protection from inappropriate development,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what Melburnians love about Melbourne. Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability which are too valuable to ignore.

“At the same time the new zones will clearly define the appropriate locations where growth and density should occur,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) on zone reform has suggested a number of improvements to the residential zones as initially proposed last year, to ensure the protection of community amenity and provide clearer rules and greater certainty for the community.

“The improvements recommended by the MAC further protect residential amenity and neighbourhood character and are supported by the Coalition Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Today’s announcement is about the right development in the right locations and the package of residential zones will deliver this for local communities.”

The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will provide the strongest protections for local neighbourhood character for the first time in Victoria’s planning history. Key features of the zone include:

implementing local neighbourhood character policy to provide increased weight to local planning policy;
limiting increased residential development through lot size restrictions; and
providing an eight metre mandatory height limit.

In contrast, the Residential Growth Zone will be applied in areas determined appropriate for increased growth and density and provide for medium density developments.

Minor commercial uses will be permitted in the Residential Growth Zone to provide additional local services to the population, subject to strict conditions.

“Local communities will now know and clearly understand where growth can and will occur, unlike the previous haphazard approach that was allowed to foster under the previous Labor Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.”

The Coalition Government will work with local councils between March and May to further develop the implementation procedures and criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Development will also provide technical assistance to local council’s in implementing the residential zones.

Implementation of the residential zones will commence on 1 July 2013 and will be completed over a 12 month period.

A copy of the MAC report and the Coalition Government’s response can be found at: www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/reszones

PS: An email from a reader –

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates