Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 11, 2013

Drains, Flooding & Spin Galore!

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

There’s one item from the last council meeting that we have not as yet commented upon – the Stormwater Harvesting/Flood Mitigation at Boyd Park. This item has a long and convoluted history, culminating in the unbelievable ‘debate’ that occurred in the chamber last December. Here’s some background:

The item first surfaced in December 2010 and its stated purpose was “For Council to consider a proposal to harvest stormwater for park and street tree irrigation from a Council drain in the Outer Circle Linear Park, Murrumbeena.”. A huge underground tank would supposedly hold 1.5 million litres of water. Flood mitigation was an ‘add on’ and certainly not the prime objective. The report noted that Council had been ‘offered’ a government grant of $529,000 but the entire project would cost approximately $1.1 million.  Mention was made of ‘soil contamination’ but considered ‘unlikely’. The recommendation requested council’s approval of the expenditure to match the grant and that this would come from the allocated, budgeted funds for drainage. The project was required to be completed by June 2013.

Pilling and Lipshutz moved the motion for the project to go ahead, PLUS that there be an “on-site” session with residents to “explain” the project. Penhalluriack, Forge and Magee voted against. They argued that a huge water tank would not necessarily prevent flooding (ie. what happens once it’s full; where does the water go?) plus that councillors had not been provided with enough facts and figures to justify the expenditure. Even Lobo (although he voted for) argued that it was a “big waste of money” and that a “cost-benefit analysis” was required.
The final vote was 6 to 3 in favour of accepting.

A year later on December 13th 2011, there was this request for a report –

Crs Penhalluriack/Forge

Please provide a report at the next Council Meeting on the Boyd Park underground water storage and holding tank which council passed on the 14th December last year, and for which council has budgeted some $600k and is expecting a Federal Government Grant of $529k. Councillors were under considerable pressure to approve this project at that Council Meeting since confirmation was required by the end of the December. Has the expected cost of the facility escalated, and what is the currently expected cost? When will the public consultation occur and when will the project commence?

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The ensuing report (February 2012) had only one paragraph of relevance – the remainder was a regurgitation of the December 2010 report. This solitary paragraph read: “The feasibility was the subject of the 14 December 2010 report. With funding available this financial year, officers plan to complete Stage (b) works by the end of June 2012. Council can then complete the balance of the work by June 2013 in-line with the funding agreement with the Government.”

We note that 14 months down the track there is:

  • No comment on potential soil contamination
  • Part (b) (ie concept planning & design) is still not complete
  • No facts, figures to ‘prove’ any of the claims made a year ago or now.

Then suddenly at the last council meeting (ie 10 months further on) the project rears its ugly head again! This time however, we find:

  • Major pollution which it is claimed will blow the budget completely
  • A new addition to the original objectives – “Help reduce the amount of gross pollutants and sediment entering Port Phillip Bay by trapping materials from the Council drain in Nangana Road”
  • A revisiting of Penhalluriack’s argument that the drought has broken. In the end the report argued: “it is difficult justify the full scope of works as originally envisaged. Instead, officers recommend that Council delete the stormwater harvesting component (it could be retrofitted later if necessary) and consider the following options….” The options were: improving storm water & flood mitigation by the building of a pollutant trap at the estimated cost of $290k to $350K or just flood mitigation. Cost – $190k – $230k!

Of course, Option B was carried with Sounness, Delahunty and Magee voting against.

COMMENTS

This entire project, now over 2 years in duration, has been a total balls up from what we can see! Not once has any statistic of real import been provided to the public or councillors. Not once has there been any explanation as to why the thorough soil testing was not done immediately. Not once has any attempt been made to quantify the extent to which flooding will be reduced. It’s all been on a wing and a prayer and compliant councillors for the most part accepting whatever is put before them!

The debate of December last year is extraodinary for its sheer spin and smoke and mirrors and telling over 200 families who live in the area that they aren’t worth spending any extra money on! Here’s the gist of what was said!

Lipshutz: council had funding but now with discovered contamination this changed things. The minimum that council can do is flood mitigation. Said that the other option of trapping debris would affect 200 houses but this won’t have any real effect throughout the whole municipality.

Esakoff talked about “changed circumstances” and the “relatively small benefit’ versus cost therefore she supported option B.

Sounness said he realised that there were issues and that the storm water authority had to ensure that run off was disposed of safely. Said that he didn’t think the cost to do it properly is that much and if you don’t address debris then more flooding happens. Need option A because it will last for a long time and improve the quality of storm water and reduce flooding and this will improve the park itself.

Delahunty said that there’s an obligation to the wider community and here’s the opportunity to remove ‘gross pollutants from the storm water drainage system. Said that the argument was nonsensical’ to say that because the trap doesn’t do enough we shouldn’t do anything. Said that they’ll soon be hearing about the fantastic financial report ‘so the financial argument doesn’t stack up either’. Hoped that in the years to come they do make decisions that serve the wider community.

Magee: he doesn’t like to spend money ‘recklessly’ but to argue that we won’t do it is not an argument. For $120,000 council has a responsibility to do something. It might only make a small difference but if every council did it then there would be vast improvement. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Okotel- Magee’s suggestion was good but we can’t ‘in all good conscience’ do option A, ‘one drain, in one council’ when a lot of the drains are the problem. Won’t have any benefit. Better to advocate on behalf of residents to state government to fix the problem.

Hyams – question of degree, everyone agrees that money not spent recklessly. Small area, small difference it would make. Have to spend money on ‘things that would benefit them all’. Hoped that Delahunty wasn’t suggesting that just because the financial performance was good that council can now be less vigilant in how it spends its money.

Lipshutz – people have to make a decision. This is going to be a ‘drop in the ocean’ and won’t make much difference. Large downpours cause flooding everywhere and money can be used better in other areas. ‘Let’s do it overall, let’s do it all rather than one”.

 

January 10, 2013

Shifting Goal Posts!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

“The Melbourne Racing Club and the Beck Probuild Consortium are pleased to announce that they have concluded an agreement to develop 5 hectares of land adjacent to the Caulfield Racecourse, Caulfield Train Station and Monash University.

The winning consortium is a joint venture between the Beck Property Group and Probuild Constructions.

Caulfield village will create a thriving, integrated, mixed use community with access to major transport routes, shopping and recreation designed to integrate with the character and facilities of the surrounding community.

The development is expected to take up to 15 years to complete and include in excess of 1,500 dwellings of varying product mix and configuration, office and retail offerings including a full line supermarket, pharmacy, cafes, restaurants and lifestyle health and gym facilities.

Source: http://www.beckpropertygroup.com.au/beck-caulfield-village

COMMENTS:

  • 1000 – 1200 originally cited dwellings has now ballooned out to ‘in excess of 1500’! Will this mean 28 storeys?
  • The Panel in its wisdom stated: “The scale of the amendment area and its location is that development will occur over an extended time period, the Panel expects up to 10 years.” We’re now looking at 15 years! Terrific news for locals!

PS: We’ve received an email with the following link. It features the Moonee Valley Council’s response on open space to their racecourse proposals. Once again, the contrast with how this council works to protect its residents in contrast with our illustrious lot is simply staggering. We urge readers to at least look at the Executive Summary and note the work that has gone into this.

 

January 6, 2013

Open Space

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

Council is about to embark on a revamped Open Space Strategy. That’s great but, we have to wonder whether this will simply be another exercise in spin judging by the actions that have failed to be implemented from the 1998 strategy. Below are some extracts from this 1998 version. Please consider how many of the following objectives/statements/promises have been translated into concrete actions and how many that were mooted 15 years ago are still to be realised!

Where open space contributions are required for multi-unit developments, Council impose the maximum monetary open space contribution about of 5% wherever possible.

A 50% split between acquisition and improvement is suggested.

Constantly review opportunities to expand open space, particularly where sites may become available adjacent to existing parks in the precinct and allow opportunities to increase the size of these parks.

Retain a Public Acquisition Overlay to no 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale to complete the concept plan for Gardenvale Park (shown in the City of Caulfield Local Parks Strategy, 1987) and purchase the property when it becomes available, subject to current budget priorities

Changing recreation trends and an aging population indicate that informal open space is an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system

There is community support to get involved in the planning development and management of open space

Encourage government authorities ie schools to make their open space available for community use (especially where there are identified open space deficiencies) and investigate opportunities to provide additional open space if school sites are redeveloped

There is a community perception that there is a lack of unstructured open space in Glen Eira and changing recreation trends and an ageing population indicate that informal open space will be an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system.

The general community ‘feeling ‘ is that there is adequate provision of active open space that that future strategies should focus on ensuring a balance between active and informal recreational pursuits

Some sports require additional expanded facilties but generally the provision of improved maintenance and/or upgrades to existing facilities would satisfy current and future sporting demands

Concern for traffic management within and around various parks to ensure safety for users of open space.

Investigate opportunities to expand existing open space in the Gardenvale neighbourhood of the West precinct

Increase outdoor events in Glen Eira’s open space system, ie jazz festivals, open-air movies, art/sculpture displays of local artists work, flora and fauna displays

Organise community events in Caulfield Park to coincide with and complement the Spring Racing Carnival

Capitalise on the amphitheatre in Caulfield Park for a wide range of outdoor community events

Through the statutory planning permit process support and encourage the provision of open style fencing for new residential development that directly abuts open space

Review the provision of buildings in open spaces, including the provision of scout halls and other affiliated groups, and determine their possible rationalisation/reduction as part of the process of preparing park Masterplans.

Encourage and generate ‘friends”/community groups and school children to be involved in the development and on-going maintenance of parks.

Ensure that existing informal open space is not encroached on, inhibited or placed with any further restrictions, unless some form of compensation is negotiated ie land swaps

Design playgrounds to include fences, paths, seats, shade trees/shelter to provide comfort for parents supervising children

Build on the educational programs run by Council’s Park Services unit and develop an education centre in Caulfield Park to complement the native bushland reserve and bird aviary where education programs can be run with interactive facilities provided for community members to learn about Glen Eira’s natural heritage

Work closely with the Glen Eira Environment Group and the Society for Growing Australian Plants and utilise their knowledge and expertise to continue to enhance and maintain environmental open space in the city.

Negotiate with the National Trust to allow some form o community access into the gardens of Rippon Lea ie residents could be issued with a ticket to allow them 10 free passes per year into Rippon Lea

80% of open space system functions as outdoor sports/local parks combined

Develop a Masterplan for Elsternwick Plaza keeping in mind this park potentially forms an important recreational element to the Elsternwick urban village concept. The Masterplan should open the park up to invite pedestrian activity and integrate with Glen Huntly road

Work with the Society for Growing Australian plants to develop the original route of the old Elster Creek trail into a native vegetation corridor/nature walk with interpretative signage and encourage private property owners along the route to plant appropriate native vegetation to increase havitat potential.

A dominant portion of open space in each precinct is restricted at certain periods by sports activities, with the North-East and South-East precincts having the larger proportions of their open spaces used for organised sports at certain periods.

The dominant landscape setting in all precincts is sporting which ranges between 55% in the South-West to 88% in the South East

 

January 3, 2013

Silence Is Golden!

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

Readers will remember the 12 storey, 173 dwelling application for Dandenong Rd. that went to council on November 13th 2012. Lipshutz, Magee, Sounness and Pilling all thought that 12 storeys was fine but the rest of the councillors reduced this to 8 storeys and 90+ dwellings. The officer’s report had the following to say about traffic –

“The proposal is considered to activate the Dandenong Road Frontage

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channeling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.”

We’ve since come across a Youtube video created by a Monash student (see below). What is most striking about the video is the sound. Listen carefully and ask yourselves, is this really a ‘significant advantage for this development site’.

 

January 2, 2013

GESAC: What’s Really Going On?

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

GESAC and its costs remain a mystery. We would bet that it is even a mystery to councillors. There is the incredible spin of success after success – 7,000 members, then 8,000 members, now 9,000 members (all in the space of 3 months) and the forecast of 10,000 members by the end of the month. All remains talk as far as we’re concerned. Not once has this council published a full and comprehensive list of expenses versus income. Nothing about memberships has been put in writing, such as what do these 9000 alleged members currently consist of? Are they FULL memberships? Part memberships? How many people have NOT renewed memberships? How much money has had to be refunded? How much is staff costing? How much is maintenance costing per week or month or even year?

Nor has there been any update on legal costs and the liquidated damages bills with Hansen and Yuncken. The same repetitious blurb has appeared in the monthly financial reports for the past 3 months. Hardly an ‘update’ to inform residents as to what is going on!

Nor has there been any murmur about the basketball court allocations. Burke’s report shows that the Warriors aren’t fulfilling their terms of contract as to hourly court hire. How much have ratepayers therefore subsidised the under-usage of the courts by the warriors? How much longer will this continue? What is happening now that the contract is due for re-appraisal? What are the criteria? Will councillors have the guts to insist that sport allocations become open and transparent rather than left in the hands of public servants?

All we know about GESAC are the incredible claims and the spread of bitumen and concrete for more and more car parking. Our questions are therefore quite simple –

  • If GESAC is such a raging success, then why is this council continuing to splurge money on full paid colour ads in all the local papers?
  • Why is council now offering to waive registration fees for new members if numbers are going through the roof as they claim?
  • When will these councillors insist on a full and comprehensive ledger which shows every dollar of income and every single expense?

The spin must stop and be replaced with facts, figures, and open transparent governance. Here’s the latest extravagance:

gesac

 

December 29, 2012

Some Standout Quotes

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

The year is rapidly drawing to a close, so we thought it would be fascinating to review what ‘progress’ has been made in the past 18 months on some of the major issues which have confronted this council. These include: C60 and the centre of the racecourse; GESAC basketball allocations, Notice of Motion. There are many others that will feature in future posts.

December 2011 Pilling (from his blog) – “In the aftermath of this year’s Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.”

29th April, 2011- Media Release Headline – “Council places limits on C60”

Pilling on centre of racecourse – Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…”

Hyams on centre of racecourse – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’.”

Esakoff on centre of racecourse – The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

May 2011 – Council response to submissions on local law – ““A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

Southwick, Hansard, May 3rd 2011 – “This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement”.

June 2011 – Dropping the Development contributions levy – officer report – ““It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”

Friends of Caulfield Park submission – “We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

Lipshutz on Heritage expert advice on Seaview property – .‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’

Lipshutz on Notice of Motion – “‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’….I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that…..the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.”

 

 

December 27, 2012

More Do Nothing Reports

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

Another example of councillors doing nothing is evidenced by their resolution on the car sharing item from last Council meeting. Please note that the issue itself is not our focus. What is our focus is the process that this council adopts in the attempt to get anything done. Here’s the recommendation and the ensuing resolution

That Council:

i) Notes the report.

ii) Notes that car share systems could be used within new developments in the future.

 Crs Sounness/Lipshutz

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(iii) That a further report be provided on how car sharing policies operate in other Victorian Councils (eg Cities of Melbourne, Stonnington and Port Phillip), and the effectiveness of these policies in improving public and private sustainable transport options.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

So, here we go again. Another report, another time lag, another example of inefficiency, added cost, and temerity. The inefficiency relates to both councillors and officers. The supposed objective of this first report was to outline the “benefits/impact’ of car sharing. What we ended up with in the Akehurst version was waffle, generalities, and the predicted recommendation to look to the ‘future’. The only other council mentioned, as we’ve already noted was Melbourne City Council. Surely any report attempting to fulfill the terms of ‘benefits/impact’ would provide a far more extensive analysis than simply looking at one council? Why didn’t Akehurst include commentary/analyses from these other councils to begin with? How about some real statistics? Our take is that when you’re trying to push a particular line you never give too much away – especially if the ‘findings’ of the analysis are all ‘positive’ and your position is one of ‘do nothing’.

Councillors should not escape unscathed either. So they’ll get another report which will undoubtedly say that although there are some positives in these councils’ plans it will cost too much; nothing is budgeted for and hence Glen Eira needs to delay until funds are available. The hidden issue of course is what this might mean for the entire parking allocation system in the municipality. When development after development is allowed to get away with waiving car parking spaces and nearby streets are permitted as surrogates, then to create car share spaces could be a major problem. Instead of looking at the entire system, we have another tinkering with the periphery and thus not even coming close to addressing the real issues.

The ‘report’ will come in at some stage and given past history councillors will meekly accept whatever recommendation is put before them. End of story!

 

December 22, 2012

Be Alarmed, Not Just Alert!

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

As one of our final posts for the year we thought it would be helpful to emphasise again how the governance of this council is totally out of step with the vast majority of its neighbours. Last council meeting featured the incredible spectacle of several councillors attempting to justify why Gibbs and McLean have repeatedly been reappointed to their posts as ‘independent’ members of the Audit committee.

At its last council meeting Port Phillip just happened to appoint totally new members to their committee. We quote from the officers’ report:

“3.3.6 External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.

3.4 Council is reminded that as the Charter states that ….. “External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.” Mr Densem’s term is for an additional 3 years with no further option to renew.”

Please also note that this is tabled at an open council meeting. NO IN CAMERA SECRECY!

By sheer serendipity, Port Phillip also considered Amendment C97 – Energy Efficient Design which proposes to “include a Local Planning Policy relating to environmental sustainable design’ and to request permission from the Minister to exhibit. Readers will remember that at the last Glen Eira council meeting, the Akehurst report had stated : “Building approval is universally required for all developments. This point alone places building in front of town planning for applying any ESD standards. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) currently sets energy efficiency standards that both residential and commercial developments need to meet. These provisions were reviewed in 2011 and have been increased to require a 6 Star Energy Rating for new residential buildings and a significant increase in energy efficiency requirements for all new commercial buildings.”

Here is the Port Phillip ‘answer’ to this position:

Currently the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is limited to setting minimum standards for energy efficiency of new buildings, as opposed to the holistic elements of best practice sustainable design, which typically includes water, stormwater, transport, waste and landscape. It is considered that leaving sustainable design requirements to the building approvals stage is too late in the design process after important design decisions, such as siting, have already been made through planning approvals.”

Diametrically opposed points of view it seems! Whom would you believe?

Sadly, our Glen Eira representatives merely delayed things once again. Another report! Another do nothing action! Their resolution read:

Crs Sounness/Okotel

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(d) requests a report on the status of Environmental Sustainable Design principles being developed for incorporation into the Building Code of Australia by the Australian Building Codes Board.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Also of real interest is the BAYSIDE SUBMISSION to  a KINGSTON PLANNING AMENDMENT! Kingston has put out for consultation its proposed Structure Planning Amendment for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre. Bayside, as the neighbouring council, has some concerns over height limits, and the need for ‘negotiation’ between these councils – AND GLEN EIRA. Strange, that we have not heard a single whisper from our planners. Even Stonnington, in one of its planning applications raised concerns about what is happening in Glen Eira along Dandenong Rd and how it will impact on its municipality. When all is said and done, our glorious council remains the lone ranger – unwilling to publicise anything, and perhaps even unwilling to work in collaboration with other councils to achieve the optimum outcome for residents. What a sad state of affairs!

In the light of what is happening in other councils, Glen Eira’s inactivity is deplorable. The status quo of open slather for inappropriate development, the lack of structure planning, and real environmental initiatives are the legacy that future generations will continue to bear.

The coming 10 months are vital for the future of this municipality. We will see:

  • Decisions on CEO appointment
  • Planning zone reforms
  • Community plan
  • Local law and probably the attempt to maintain the current abhorrent meeting procedures
  • Open space strategy

Watch this space – and be alarmed not merely alert! 2013 is certainly not going to be dull.

 

December 22, 2012

More Perfection!

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

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: ‘excellent result’. Said that Delahunty had asked that the reports be more ‘intensive’ and they’ve now included a few additional items as a result. “Council has got a work strategy’; capital works is ‘slightly behind forecast’ and they’ll catch up by the ‘end of the year’. “Council liquidity is tracking well’ and although council has to be ‘careful’ all is going well.

DELAHUNTY: ‘great’ that there is more detail in the report and ‘helps us do our job’ so that councillors can get a ‘greater picture of the finances’. There are 1.3 billion dollars of assets so the ‘big picture’ is needed. ‘Peter’ is right about cash flow in that ‘there is a definite need for caution’. ‘Our position is strong, the balance sheet position is strong’ and GESAC is ‘an absolute standout’ and because membership is growing ‘we may not see a dip’.

LOBO: said the report ‘really shows the financial strength of this council’ and not the things ‘that come on Glen Eira Debates’. There are ‘doubting Thomases’ writing ‘day in and day out’ and they write and ‘hide’ under the ‘name of anonymity’. Said that if people really believe that ‘there is a problem put your name and address’. Went on to say that being ‘negative will not keep you in good health’ because ‘negativity doesn’t give good health of mind and body’. Concluded with the hope that ‘you can take a new leaf from this’ as well as ‘stop your Glen Eira Debates’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

COMMENT

  • Caution has been urged month after month yet Lipshutz still refers to  $600,000 as ‘little’!
  • No real explanation of why capital works and other projects are so far behind schedule? It couldn’t be anything with ‘saving money’ and managing the cash flow, could it?
  • We note that $529,000 is now to be returned to the government as a result of the decision on Boyd Park water harvesting. Another ‘cash flow’ problem?
  • Previously Hyams saw no problem in calling certain councillors to account when their comments were totally irrelevant to the item under discussion. We wonder why this was not done in the case of Lobo’s comments? There was a 5 second statement about the financial report and the remainder of his ‘speech’ addressed ourselves. We are indeed flattered by the attention.
 

December 21, 2012

Ain’t We Perfect?

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

AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: started off by explaining the function of the committee and its duty to report annually to council. “The Audit committee does a great job’. Not an ‘oversight committee’ but ensures that risks ‘are looked at’. The ‘auditors identify areas that can be improved’ so it’s not a question of sitting on one’s laurels and officers implement the suggestions.

MAGEE: stated that Gibbs & McLean have been on the committee for ‘many, many years’ and they are ‘very, very capable and very, very professional’. Gibbs asks ‘pointed’ questions of officers. He’s ‘very straight’ and ‘takes no nonsense’ and if people saw how he operated they’d be very happy. McLean is a ‘very astute accountant’. They’ve been on the committee a long time but that ‘benefits our council’ because they ‘know our history’ and ‘they certainly know where council wants to head’. Magee is ‘very comfortable in working with those two’.

HYAMS: endorsed Magee’s comments since he’s ‘sat in’ on 4 meetings. Said that there had been suggestions that ‘external members had been there for too long’ and ‘getting a too comfortable relationship with our officers’ but if people could see what happens then they would never be ‘under that misapprehension’ because they ‘rigorously examine our officers’. ‘You replace someone if they’re not doing a good enough job….’or if you think’ there’s someone out there who is better. Hyams finished by saying ‘I’m very pleased with the audit committee performance’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he’s been on the committee since 2005 and that both Gibbs and Mclean have a terrific knowledge of council and ‘add value’. They’re ‘doing the job’ and respected and ‘should remain for some time; they are a bonus to council’

COMMENT

When the Minister issues guidelines, 99.9% of councils treat such guidelines as the Holy Bible. Not so in Glen Eira. Even council’s own charter is ignored when it comes to the continual re-appointment of Audit Committee members. Both the charter and the guidelines (plus best practice) recommend that there be a fixed term for members and that regular rotation of members is essential. Gibbs and McLean have been appointed and reappointed numerous times since at least 1998. Lipshutz has been on the committee for what will now be 8 years straight.

Other councils routinely advertise the positions. Glen Eira hides behind the veil of secrecy. These reappointments are made in camera with no public announcements. Why? Could it be that full public disclosure of what is going on might be a tad embarrassing given that the obvious intent of LGA is thus continually abused and perverted? When other councils see nothing wrong in tabling their deliberations on independent membership, then questions need to be asked as to why Glen Eira treats the issue the way it does.

We are not in any way doubting the qualifications, experience, nor professionalism of these members. We do however insist that when guidelines are promulgated they should be adhered to. Secrecy and the perception of cronyism undermines the very principles embedded in the guidelines and the committee’s own charter.

Finally we wish to note that this year at least Council has decided to adhere to the charter by tabling the Committee’s Annual Report at a council meeting. Last year this did not happen and when questioned about it the ‘answer’ was that the report was published in Council’s Annual Report. It had never been presented at a formal council meeting!

AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: reported on the Auditor General’s visit that not only is Glen Eira the ‘template’ for other councils but in terms of ‘best practice’ it is fabulous. ‘We are outstanding….doesn’t mean we can’t improve’ but Glen Eira is probably the ‘leading council in Victoria’ on issues. Said that council went through a rigorous process on the borrowings for GESAC and council was commended by the Auditor General. The issue of ‘reserves’ doesn’t give ‘any rise for concerns’. Glen Eira is the ‘leading exponent in terms of risk’. About ‘liquidity’ Glen Eira is ‘low risk’. The previous council said ‘we’re high risk’….’problems’…’that’s all poppycock’. Said that ‘this council is doing very well’. A ‘fantastic result’. Other councils come to Glen Eira to see how it’s done and great staff are responsible. ‘We are at the top’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘a fantastic report’ and commented on Lipshutz’s statement on risk and said that when she attended the Audit Committee and saw the Operational Risk Framework that had been done by officers she thought it was ‘exceptional’, ‘I’ve never seen anything as quite as detailed’….’something to behold’

HYAMS: congratulated officers and ‘decisions’ taken by previous councils. ‘Good news…..for all the residents of Glen Eira’. People should be happy that ‘their council is regarded so highly by the Auditor General’. Unable to help himself, Hyams then said that some people would ‘scuttle off home after this meeting and portray this as negatively as they can’ but for everyone else who really cares about ‘how the council is perceived and performs’ then this is great news.

COMMENT

Corporate memory, or Lipshutz’s memory is indeed a worry. Particularly so when less than a month ago Delahunty herself referred to the Auditor General’s classification of Glen Eira as ‘high risk’! Yes, council is now deemed ‘low risk’ but the initial grading did happen. ‘Risk’ is still risk, isn’t it?

We also raise the question that why shouldn’t this ‘exceptional’ Operational Risk Framework’ be public? If it is indeed ‘something to behold’, then shouldn’t the public see it? After all, it is only a ‘framework’ – figures, names, etc. could be removed and thus confidentiality maintained.

Our final comment pertains to the efforts that go into self-promotion and self congratulations. If a fraction of the time and expense that was expended on such exercises was actually put into listening and responding to residents’ concerns then we have no doubt that this municipality would be a far better place and organisation.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »