Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 18, 2012

Governance: More Of The Same!

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

Poor governance has been the perennial issue at Glen Eira. It continues unabated. We’ve taken the time to compare the Community Plan as accepted by formal Council Resolution on June 26^thand what now appears as part of the formal Community Plan in the Quarterly Report (13^th Nov minutes). The changes are alarming. Further, they have NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY FORMAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION and nor has there been any public statement, officers’ report, or open discussion about these alterations. We allege that these changes represent another failure of transparent and open government in Glen Eira. We are especially concerned about:

Changes in wording from the accepted Community Plan to what is now paraded in the current Community Plan
The removal of certain actions from the original plan
Resolutions relating to Amendments withdrawn without another full council resolution
Measures that are meaningless and do not address either the objectives or the stated measures

There are only two conclusions possible – either unelected bureaucrats made these decisions or, if councillors did have a say then they were made behind closed doors in secret. We find it appalling that unless the public are willing to analyse and compare documents word for word, then such changes remain unknown, hidden, and the public is continually being duped and kept ignorant. The only conclusion possible is that this tactic is deliberate. Important policy decisions are continually buried in the volumes of waffle rather than highlighted and commented upon. The result is the failure of good governance and open, transparent government.

In the June version of the accepted Community Plan there was this ‘action’ item: “investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan”. The ‘measure’ was stated to be – “Report provided to council”. This has now completely disappeared from the September version. We ask: who made this decision? When was it made? Where is the ‘report’ to council?

Next there is the subtle change in language. Another of the ‘action’ items from the June version states “Introduce a Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”. The measure is: “Local Law considered by council” The September version has altered this to read: ‘Local Law adopted by council”. Whilst not earth shattering in itself, the very fact that terms can be changed without formal resolution is a concern. Again, who decided and when was the decision reached? Doesn’t this in fact pre-empt the entire process of community consultation on the Local Law?

We also need to highlight just one of the ludicrous ‘progress reports’ on vital aspects of planning which totally ignore both ‘actions’ and ‘measures’. Here is an example:

Measure – “Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.” The progress reports says: “DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 4 mediation meetings held to date”. We note that:

No report has gone to a formal council meeting
No logical connection between the ‘success’ of a video and ‘mediation’
No statistics that reveal the success or failure of mediation, video, or anything

Also buried in the documentation is the withdrawal of Amendment C90 – ie the ‘Transition Zones Policy”. This came before council on the 30^th August 2011. The resolution to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit the amendment was passed unanimously. Now over a year later we find out that “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”. Once more the question becomes: who decided upon this? When was it decided and why, oh why, did this not go to a formal Council Meeting? Even the language associated with this decision is conflicting and unclear. The Quarterly Report stated the the Amendment will be ‘withdrawn’. The Community Plan Report simply states this is ‘on hold’. Whichever is closer to the truth the fact remains that none of this has ever been highlighted, explained, or discussed in an open forum.

Since a year has now practically passed since the original council resolution we cannot believe that the matter wasn’t referred to the Minister for permission to exhibit. The Amendment has not been advertised as far as we know, nor has it been gazetted as granting permission. Thus we suspect that someone must have contacted the Minister and said ‘hold on’ – again without any formal announcement to the public, nor any formal council resolution.

It would appear that it’s business as usual with this Council – a clear case of the tail continuing to wag the dog! Residents would be well advised to ask their supposed representatives the following questions –

How well do councillors actually read officers’ reports?
Do any of them question the data/information that is provided?
If the above questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then why was nothing said about any of the points we have raised in this post?
Why do these councillors continue to allow what appears to be unelected officials to make crucial decisions on issues that dramatically impact on residents?

November 16, 2012

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.

Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.

Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity, jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”

However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”

Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.

In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.

In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
 Community needs
 Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
 Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
 Government policy on open space contributions
 Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
 Access for all abilities
 Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
 Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
 Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
 and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.

Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
 providing opportunities for participants,
 conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
 exhibiting good governance
 respecting public facilities
 and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.

In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.

Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”

November 15, 2012

Hot Air Galore!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[30] Comments

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz

PILLING: strategy for new policy is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’

MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.

PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.

MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.

SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.

MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.

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

GESAC COURT USAGE

PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.

LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.

DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.

HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.

PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

November 5, 2012

Need We Say More?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[33] Comments

This comment has been sent in by Oscar Lobo –

“Ola Pend…”

GLEN EIRA DEBATES/COMMENTS.

Please do not delete this replay (be fair) as I have disclosed my name and I am not writing under an anonymous burqa.

I have read with interest the various DEROGATORY 82 comments made by people who look down upon others. The gas tank is released before they go home.

This is attributed to lack of education in a proper private schools and top notch universities. I believe a well educated person who has travelled the world will not succumb to such comments and particularly a father or a mother who have dearth of time will not write the pooh material.

I thought the mission statement of the blog was “We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira…. This blog is not a debate but comments as can be shown that 86 comments have been received under the title of “NOT QUIET “TWO UP”! – with 86 comments instead of Debates.

PRIDE AND ENVY CAN CAUSE THE BEST OF MEN TO SUCCUMB TO THEIR INFLUENCE……..

I will respond in seriatim some of the interesting comments (debates?!) that have been posted in the topic under reference.

1. Comment on the blog: Hyams and Lobo! Glen Eira has reached a new low. Good reason to abolish local government.

Ans: Are you a “loco” in spanish? – You would like to abolish local government just because you dislike two people on the council? This shows that you do not put your cranium in gear before putting your fingers on keyboard in motion. You are indeed a Richard Cranium these two words I picked up from the blog. Very educational stuff on this blog!!!!

2. Comment on the blog: Newton is undoubtedly in 7th heaven and Lobo, that good Christian, appears to have once again sold his soul – but for so little!

Ans. In your denomination of religion, how many souls does your teaching say? Your statement “..that good Christian, appears to have once again sold his soul – but for so little. weak in religion.

3. Comment on the blog: Lobo would be a disaster as Mayor. My tip is he’ll make a hash of the Deputy’s role the gang won’t want to know him (By a famous autonomy)

Ans: What do you mean a disaster – is it the same as a disaster when you get divorced by your wife or partner? Are you comparing me with ex Mayor Helen Whiteside and her description that appeared in the Age some 10 days ago. Ms. Whiteside bit the hand that fed her? I do not think I will follow her footsteps if and when my turn comes.

4 Comment on the blog: Lobo you have disappointed so many voters by going with the gang. You could have changed it all with your casting vote.

Ans: Are you one of the voters that is disappointed? Please let me know. I am happy to talk to you and others. You know how to reach me on mobile and e-mail.

5. Comment on the blog: If Lobo is so hard-working why did he miss so many council meetings in 2011/12, including those where the Mayor was elected?

Ans: Did you ask me that question before? I would have told you the real reason; I showed explained my circumstances and showed my sick leave certificate. Did you expect a copy of the certificate to be sent for this blog. If so, let us know.

6. Comment on the blog: Tell that to Cr Lobo who was very disparaging of this forum in his impromptu speech at the swearing in of the new Council

Ans. Read 1 Corinthians 16:11-21 (The Message)

You guys just do not have a clue about Jamie Hyams. Terming him as NAZI is just below the belt. One is sick to stoop so low. Have you met Jamie Hyams before, if not you need to meet him and then comment and hear/see for yourself how decent he is with lots of patients.He uses rationale where required, smart and intelligent,affable, extremely good memory,making things happen rather than waiting for things to happen (principles of late Stephen Covey). Very co-operative, ready to assist residents of Glen Eira not only Tucker ward. I do not have to justify to you why I have proposed him as a Mayor but I will let you in. There are multifarious reasons: He has the required knowledge, he writes well, portrays good true and proper image. Does not assume things like most of you guys. I could go on and on about him and my other colleagues. Just because Jamie belongs to Liberal party, it does not mean that we should hate one another. I work on the methodoligy of observing, investigating, verifying, reporting and then decision making.When a decision is made, it is made on the basis of what is beneficial to the residents who have put us in a trustworthy position. If residents were unhappy, this would reflect in the latest reports on the declarations of the number of votes we all received.

Smart Aleck, D. Evans. Elsternwick need a good holiday!!!!!!

I believe we have many unusually stupid people in this universe. They need to grow up and not succumb to knee jerk re-action. I seize this opportunity to thank other positive anonymous people who wrote in defence of me and I thank them warmly.

A. Comments on November 2, 2012 at 9:27 by an Anonymous.

B. Comment on November 2, 2012 at 10.34 am – Henry Richards. He may have been served by me or been told of my attention to every problem my residents have.

C. Comment on November 2, 2012 at 10.10 and 10.34 am – Thank you.

Hope you enjoyed the foregoing as I thought I would respond with my name. Beware the fury of a patient man.”

November 1, 2012

Not Quite ‘Two-Up’!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[90] Comments

Hyams was elected Mayor tonight by a vote of 5 to 4.

Lobo nominated Hyams and Magee nominated Pilling. The votes in favour of Pilling were:

Delahunty

Pilling

Magee

Sounness

The votes in favour of Hyams were:

Hyams

Lipshutz

Esakoff

Okotel

Lobo

For Deputy Mayor there was only one person nominated by Hyams – Lobo. He was elected unopposed.

All councillors signed the Code of Conduct and 7 councillors were sworn in by Affirmation and 2 via the oath – Okotel and Lobo.

October 31, 2012

Who Will Be Mayor & When?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[19] Comments

We’ve decided to have a closer look at the question of who will be Mayor following some recent comments. We’ve already stated that we believe it would be another case of “indecent haste” if the Mayor were to be elected tomorrow night. Two days following the announcement of the successful candidates is certainly not enough time for these individuals to make rational and long term decisions on the future. When a Mayor can wield so much power (ie gagging councillors, allowing residents to address council and most importantly, determining what can be over-ruled with no option for dissent) then who assumes the title of Mayor is crucial.

We speculate that there are possibly three candidates – Hyams, Pilling, and Lipshutz, with the latter as perhaps Deputy Mayor. We’ve ruled Esakoff out given that she’s been in the role 3 times and making it 4 times would be over the top even for the gang. That leaves room for some major political manoeuvring. We have 3 Labor councillors (Delahunty, Magee and Lobo); 2 Greens (Pilling and Sounness) and 4 Libs (Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel). The possible combinations and permutations are mouth watering.

Will the Greens join forces with Labor to run the roost and elect Pilling? If they do, what does this augur for the rest of the life of this council?
Will Lobo ditch his Labor mates and side with the gang? What would Crean & Staikos think of this?

All in all, it should be a real eye-opener tomorrow night!

October 30, 2012

Cracking The Whip – Already!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[26] Comments

Thursday night (8pm) will see the first meeting of this council. The agenda items make for interesting reading.

Council has generally left the frontispiece on its Agenda and Minute papers for Special Council Meetings blank apart from the date and logo. Not this time! There’s a nice little subliminal ‘message’ reading – “The primary object of a Council is to endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions.” – s3c(1) Local Government Act”.
Councillors, apart from signing the Oath of Office will also be “invited” to sign the Code of Conduct.
There are also 4 options in relation to the Mayoral election – 1. Vote for a 1 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 2. Vote for a 2 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 3. Defer till next Ordinary council meeting or (4) Defer until no later than 30^th November.
There’s also a notice about Councillor Expenses policy and remuneration.

We’ve done a quick search to determine how other councils may be approaching the first meeting of the new councils. Whilst not too many agendas are up as yet on other councils’ websites, we have located the following – none of which make any mention of the election of Mayors, nor of the ‘offer’ to sign the Councillor Code of Conduct. Most councils appear to be taking the sensible option and allowing a couple of weeks for councillors to come together and work out who will nominate, and how they will each vote. (See: Port Phillip, Boroondara, as examples).

The outcomes of Thursday night’s meeting will reveal much about the new dynamics and the power structures within Council. Meanwhile, the administration is still up to its old tricks we feel.

October 25, 2012

Time For Change – NOW!

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

In less than 48 hours the electorate will be voting. The calls for change have been loud and clear from many candidates. We sincerely hope that the new council will signal the beginning of a new era – one of respect for the community and processes of governance that are scrupulously fair, transparent and accountable. The acid test for all councillors will come in the first few months. Residents will then have the opportunity to gauge whether they have been sold empty promises or whether words will finally be matched with action.

We set out below what we believe must eventuate in order for real and lasting change to occur. These are not prioritised in any special order – apart from the first item regarding Meeting Procedures. We welcome your comments and any additions you might like to make to this list of ‘must do’s’.

THE LOCAL LAW AND MEETING PROCEDURES

The entire Local Law needs immediate and speedy amendment. It must include:

Notices of motion
Rescission provisions
Dissenting from Chair
Councillor questions without notice
Rights of reply without notice
Agendas to be set in consultation with Mayor and one other councillor
Advisory committees incorporated into meeting procedures with full agendas and minutes published
All advisory committees (apart from Audit) to have community representation and to be open to the public
Officer reports tabled at advisory committee meetings to be included in minutes of such meetings
Public questions at start of council meetings
Current ‘harassment’ provision removed from public question exclusion criteria
Residents provided with 20 minutes to ask verbal questions of individual councillor, officer, or Council without notice at each Council Meeting
Removal of Clause 326 (‘organised’ sporting groups)
Petitions to be submitted by ward councillors and vetted by ward councillors. Once accepted then obligatory that the petition is forwarded on to relevant department for further action and responded to within the next 2 ordinary council meetings.
Guidelines/policy created to limit the overuse of ‘confidentiality’ ( ie. secrecy)

DELEGATIONS

How and what authority is delegated to officers requires careful consideration. We suggest:

Councillor ‘call-in’ for all planning applications (ie. if one councillor decides that the decision should be made by council rather than officers, then this application will go to a full council meeting)
Planning applications to automatically go to council when 5 objections are submitted
Sporting allocations to be decided by Council resolution

PLANNING & MISCELLANEOUS

The development of structure plans for major activity centres
Creation of Parking Precinct Plans for all Housing Diversity Areas
Insistence on removal of training from Caulfield Racecourse in accordance with 2009 agreement
Revamping, with full consultation, Local Area Traffic Management Plans and adherence to those plans
Reworking of the Community Plan that fully incorporates and addresses resident concerns
Tendering decisions to be tabled at council and to include selection criteria, officers responsible, final grades for each tender
Website that includes capital works program including information on: progress, cost to council, grants from government, projected completion date and final completion date
Delegated planning committee reports to feature in every council meeting and to include ‘user satisfaction surveys’
Audio/video recordings of council meetings to be placed on the web, or available to residents upon request
Revamping of Audit Committee including advertising of external membership for all incumbents
No councillor to serve more than 2 consecutive years on Audit Committee
Councillors be provided with ‘portfolios’ as part of their responsibility
Councillors decision to have their email accounts treated as confidential to be strictly enforced
Officers to be named in all reports (ie authors, and who is ultimately responsible)
Immediate full review of the Planning Scheme and updating of all policy documents. This is to be done with intensive, full community consultation and the establishment of a resident/councillor/officer working party which will report fully and regularly to Council
Publication of grant applications – their success and/or failure
Regular ward meetings and/or the establishment of Village Committees. Council to respond promptly and fully to issues raised
No development which increases or intensifies dwellings per lot to be issued with residential parking permits anywhere in the municipality
Cost benefit analysis to accompany all Officer reports for major projects
Maximum open space levies for all developments in municipality
Revenue from above to be used to only acquire open space
All councillor Requests for Report to be tabled at ordinary Council Meetings

Councillor/Staff Code of Conduct

The Staff Code of Conduct be publicly available on website
Staff/councillor conflict to automatically go to mediation as first step
Removal of ‘gagging’ strictures in the Councillor Code of Conduct

This is a long list but essentially all these ‘reforms’ deal with governance and transparency. That has been the root cause of the ills which have plagued this council for over a decade. The final point we wish to make is that we also believe it is imperative that the CEO position be advertised and that ALL councillors be part of the selection process. What do you think?

October 23, 2012

Headlines: For All The Wrong Reasons!

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

Why bother, asks former Glen Eira mayor

Date October 23, 2012

Melissa Fyfe

HELEN Whiteside considers herself a normal sort of person. She’s political, no doubt – a paid-up Liberal Party member. But her time as Glen Eira mayor left her so disillusioned she wonders why an average community member would bother running for council.

With council elections winding up this week, Mrs Whiteside is calling on residents to scrutinise candidates carefully. As for the troubled Glen Eira councillors – some of whom were sacked in 2005 and are standing for re-election – they all deserve to be thrown out, she says.

Glen Eira – which covers suburbs such as Caulfield, Bentleigh and Elsternwick – consistently outperforms other councils on community satisfaction.

But in the past four years the council has faced the Ombudsman’s scrutiny over 10 separate issues, one Ombudsman’s report revealing Councillor Frank Penhalluriack’s alleged bullying behaviour and failure to declare conflicts of interest, and a critical assessment from the local government watchdog, the third since 1998.

Mrs Whiteside, a popular mayor, resigned in 2010. The council suppressed her letter of resignation. She told The Age she resigned because she felt some councillors were not declaring conflicts of interest and were set against chief executive Andrew Newton, wasting at least $30,000 on extra legal advice during the renegotiation of his contract.

Now that every sitting councillor except one is standing for re-election, the former mayor says residents should think carefully. ”Integrity is fundamental to being a councillor,” she says. ”Transparency, accountability and being objective. I believe councillors should make decisions for the long-term best interests of the entire community.

And her former colleagues? ”I don’t think they should be re-elected,” she says.

Mrs Whiteside said she was particularly disturbed about the 2010 decision to relinquish public open space to the Chabad House synagogue extension at 441-496 Inkerman Street, St Kilda East. She alleged Cr Michael Lipshutz had a conflict of interest because of an association with the synagogue’s benefactor, Jewish community leader Joseph Gutnick.

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside’s revival of this matter was ”anti-Semitism of the worst kind. She is saying that because I am Jewish I am not fair-minded … I have no association with (Mr Gutnick) whatsoever,” he said. (Greens Cr Neil Pilling also voted to hand over the park.)

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside was a ”failed councillor and a hopeless mayor who divided the council”.

Since the last election in 2008, councillors have had several brushes with the state’s integrity agencies and the court system. This year chief executive Mr Newton filed a bullying claim against Cr Penhalluriack. The hardware store owner refused anti-bullying training and is fighting councillor misconduct allegations at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

In a 2010 investigation, Chief Municipal Inspector David Wolf found insufficient evidence to prosecute any councillor, but uncovered councillor behaviour ”at odds” with the council’s objectives and ”underlying issues with regard to transparency and accountability”.

When drafting the chief executive’s contract in 2010, councillors inserted a clause requesting he notify them of any inquiries from the state’s integrity agencies. Mr Wolf found the illegal clause existed in an early draft, but no one owned up to putting it there. ”Despite all the talks and presentations the councillors get on governance, it is still not getting through,” a council source told The Age.

The Glen Eira city council elections are this Saturday.

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

First frisbees, now fitness

23 Oct 12 @ 12:01am by Donna Carton

KILLJOY bureaucrats who pulled the plug on a weekly frisbee game have now told a teen fitness group they can’t play tag in the local park.

Not-for-profit group Humans Vs Zombies was told their tag games were “unsuitable” for Virginia Park Bentleigh.

They had requested permission to take about 30 kids there for a game in which “humans” chase “zombies” with foam dart blasters. o

Humans Vs Zombies Victoria secretary Anthony Osborne said the group’s objective was to get young people “outside, exercising and interacting socially, rather than home behind a computer.”

“We are looking to partner with councils’ youth services and park management as well as grant and funding bodies,” Mr Osborne said.

“We are also looking for parks.”

Some councils have been positive but Glen Eira and Manningham have refused.

Glen Eira council is still reeling from the negative publicity it received after a group of young frisbee players said they were told they needed a permit to play in Caulfield Park.

Councillors have now vowed to review the local law concerning park permits and clarify the definition of “organised sport.”

Council public relations chief Paul Burke told the Leader the council hadn’t recieved Humans vs Zombies’ request – nor any applications “from Clingons, Romulans, Daleks or Goths.”

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

Council is where the sun should shine

2012PRINT EDITION: 23 Oct 2012

Mathew Dunckley

I love a good local council story.

There is something about the grand council chamber which suspends usual standards and leads to pitched battles over potholes.

The gravity of municipal level matters has a certain charm. A personal favourite was the Melbourne municipality that banned cricket teams from hitting sixes. Another Melbourne council threatened to use DNA tracing on dog poo on the beach to find offenders. The publicity seems to have been a deterrent. But the whiff of small-time CSI speaks volumes about local concerns.

Then there are the numerous dust-ups and petty personal political intrigues that have always filled local papers. Perhaps this is why people regard councils as sometimes annoying, sometimes amusing, and, often, irrelevant.

They shouldn’t be regarded this way. In the post-Kennett amalgamation era, Victorian councils are serious entities managing large amounts of public money. In total the 79 councils manage $55 billion worth of assets and spend close to $5 billion a year. They are worthy of scrutiny.

Right now, Victoria is enjoying its four-yearly council campaign carnival, complete with the sight of John Elliott running in the Melbourne lord mayoralty race.

All up more than 2000 hopefuls have put their hats in the ring to contest seats on Victorian councils.

Reporting on councils often falls to local papers.

As a young (or should that be younger) journalist at Leader Newspapers, I had the pleasure of covering Glen Eira Council in Melbourne’s south-east.

Every suburban journalist covers council, but not everyone gets Glen Eira. Councillors were at each others throats (sometimes literally), the chief executive was at war with the councillors, and there was a myriad more misdeeds and mischief.

The council was managing an annual budget of about $100 million a year, but after months of chaos, it was investigated and sacked.

Chalk one up to the local paper, eh? But it was not that simple. As part of the investigation I was required to front municipal inspectors, swear an oath and answer questions. The penalties for refusing to appear, to swear the oath or to answer the questions were thousands of dollars in fines or prison. There is nothing small-time about those powers. The inspectors wanted me to identify sources. I refused, citing my code of ethics. After some scoffing remarks about journalistic ethics, the inspectors made it clear they did not accept my reasons and recommended to the minister that further action be considered against me.

I happened upon that minister at a Christmas party later that year. I offered to do dishes or mow lawns to stay out of the clink. She indicated she did not think putting journalists in prison was a good idea. Lucky me.

Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu’s so-called shield laws should have fixed this problem.

Such laws, taking shape around the country, give journalists a legal right to refuse to divulge their sources. But Baillieu’s pledge went only as far as court cases and he has refused to go any further.

That means Victoria has carved out protection for journalists when dealing with a number of public institutions including council inspectors. Victoria argues it is following other states’ example, but I can’t understand why you would craft shield laws and consciously leave out local government.

Councillors and council workers who leak to journalists almost always commit a breach of the Local Government Act. They risk career-ending prosecutions, fines and even jail for talking to journalists. They warrant protection. Yet, somehow, the right of journalists to protect sources when covering local government is ranked as less important than those covering other levels of government, or crime.

Local government decisions directly affect everyday lives. And as every corruption commission in the country (Victoria’s is not yet established) will tell you, councils are fertile ground for misdeeds.

Inhibiting the ability of local press to cover councils is poor policy.

Baillieu’s attempt to improve the system looks almost as worthy of ridicule as the genetic profiling of dog turds, and equally unable to be polished.

Source: http://afr.com/p/opinion/council_is_where_the_sun_should_vtYMZ9f1triCf9riXuj6KL

October 19, 2012

The ‘Gang’: Are You Proud Of Yourselves?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance
[16] Comments

The latest aerial shots are now available of the labyrinth which now constitutes a public ‘park’ in the centre of the Racecourse. (See slideshow below). There was also a public question asked at Tuesday night’s council meeting as to what Council is doing re Traffic Management Plans for Major Events. The answer suggests that the MRC can do whatever they like, whenever they like!

“Since Council permitted the Melbourne Racing Club to undertake traffic management responsibility for major racecourse events there have been three events held. On all three occasions the information provided to nearby residents was substandard due to either late notification or incorrect information re the timing and closure of roads. Could Council please advise what steps and procedures have been implemented to ensure that the MRC correctly advises residents of the road closures for the Caulfield Cup (20/10/2012) and all future major events. In March, 2012, I asked a public question on traffic management for the caravan and camping show and Council that “ different events have different traffic management requirements” could Council please clarify this statement. Different events have different set-up and dismantling requirements, however, road closures do not occur at these times. Road closures occur when the event is being held. Typically event patrons access all events via vehicles, public transport or walking. I would, therefore, appreciate Council’s clarification.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“It is the responsibility of all major event organisers to undertake appropriate traffic management measures. When traffic management plans are produced by an event organiser, they are referred to Council for review. The consent provided by Council is for the occupation of the roads required to implement a traffic management plan.

Events differ in their intensity, purpose, likely patron profile, and how patrons are likely to travel to the event. It follows that different events will have different traffic management plan requirements.

On 26 September 2012, Council consent was provided for the Spring Racing Carnival Traffic Management Plan. This was on the condition that residents are notified at least two weeks before the events, and the details of the proposed traffic changes are provided in the notification. The Melbourne Racing Club has advised that notification to residents occurred by letter dated 2 October 2012 therefore the MRC did not met the two week notification requirement. Council will be drawing this to the attention of the MRC.”