Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 16, 2012

Censorship, Mistruths, and Spin: The Hallmarks of Glen Eira Council

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

Magee was taken ill just before the start of the council meeting and hence was an ‘apology’. We wish him a speedy recovery.

LIPSHUTZ – moved that the minutes of the Local Laws committee be deferred until next council meeting. Pilling seconded. Reason was the the minutes in the agenda weren’t ‘as full as they should be’ and that they didn’t reflect what occured, so more ‘fulsome’ minutes are required. Did say that the committee has been looking at Local Law 326 (organised sport). Said that there had been plenty of press coverage on the frisbee story and that they’d been told that kids had ‘been fined’. That then became a ‘story not that they were fined but that they would have to get an allocation’. Said he asked officers what happened and they told him that a complaint had been made that about ’30 or 40′ people were playing with ‘football boots’ across cricket pitches. A ranger investigated and found that this wasn’t true – there wasn’t any football boots and nothing about cricket pitches. In the end ‘Yoav Silverstein contacted Council’ to ask about an allocation. ‘He was told that a one off allocation cost $120 or a 6 month allocation cost $300’. Said that this is the same for eveyrone if they wanted a barbecue. Said that the ‘whole purpose’ of allocations was to provide ‘certainty’ and paying ‘means they have priority’ but it ‘doesn’t mean’ that if kids want to play frisbee they need an allocation. Claimed that there had been a ‘total blowup by the press’. Said that the ‘truth is that no-one was warned off…..welcome to play….no fine….. Went on to say that the law should be reviewed and the reason it hasn’t been dealt with as yet is because ‘our corporate counsel has been involved idn other matters’ such as the VCAT ‘which has kept her quite busy’. In the next council the ‘whole local law will be reviewed’ which is ‘far better’ than doing it piecemeal and so ‘do the whole local law as one’. assured everyone that no permit is required if they want to play ‘catchy’, football. ‘but if you are an organised sport’ then you do need a permit. Went on to say that council has ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’ and in this instance the law has been ‘enforced reasonably’ and ‘no-one has been fined’.

PENHALLURIACK – said he was pleased that no one was fined. Said that this issue with the local law 326 had been going on for quite a whiile. Said that Mr Varvodic was fined and then the fine withdrawn and they organised a permit. The definition of ‘organised’ has been something that he’s tried to get the Local Law Committee to look at for a long time and clarify because ‘it’s fine for Cr Lipshutz to say reasonable laws reasonably enforced but sometimes the law is not reasonable’ . Said a law is only ‘reasonable’ when it can be understood by the public. this law can’t be easily interpreted. Said he doesn’t know what ‘organised’ means any more than Lipshutz does. Said he was pleased that the ‘ex-chairman (Lipshutz)’ of the Local Laws Committee was ‘now going to be working on it’ because ‘it is long overdue’.

HYAMS – when the Local Laws Committee gets together in the new council he hoped that ‘they would get around to looking at the Alcohol free area’ in Bentleigh as ‘has been agreed they should’.

TANG: said that the meeting discussed the Tree register and there was discussion about how the laws could be enforced and there were ‘sub-issues’ that should be ‘captured in any subsequent minutes’. Admitted that the issue of organised sport has been around from even before he was on council – schleppers football team – but they were more ‘frequent’. Didn’t think this was about one individual but how to interpret what ‘organised sport’ means. Problems not about the law but ‘how you interpret it’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it was a ‘definitional problem’ and that the Local Laws Committee ‘would deal with that’. Said that he didn’t believe it was ‘coincidence’ that the issue has come up ‘two weeks’ before the election in order to ’embarrass council’ and that the reports in the media are ‘totally wrong’ and that journalists should have made ‘proper enquiry’ when the ‘allegation is simply not true’.

Public questions

At least 15 questions that we know of were declared invalid on the excuse of the electoral act and hence were not read out, much less answered. This is reprehensible since none of the questions had anything to do with ‘electoral matters’ – in short, it was another instance of avoiding accountability and responding to residents’ concerns. Even those questions which were responded to, failed to answer the question asked, or basically indulged in semantics and dissembling.

Question 1: asked if Council’s submission on the Planned Zoning Reforms would be made public. The answer stated that the ‘submission’ was already available on council’s website. Untrue and incorrect. What is available on council’s website is not the actual submission, but the Akehurst ‘report’ which was tabled at council on the 4th September 2012! The public has not seen what went in to the department! So much for transparency and answering public questions honestly!

Question 3 – asked for the results of the ‘monitoring’ of Frisbee games in Caulfield Park. The response said that there’s a “regular gathering’ in Caulfield Park by people playing ‘what appears to be’ Frisbee!

Question 4 – asked about the traffic management plans for major events at Caulfield Racecourse saying that for the past 3 events this had been substandard – either they notices went out too late, or they were incorrect. Wanted to know what Council had done about this. The response went into the need for traffic management plans to be provided and that in September Council had received from the MRC the plan for the spring racing carnival. It said that residents would be notified ‘at least 2 weeks’ prior to the events. The MRC provided notice after the 2 week deadline so that they ‘didn’t meet’ the requirements and ‘council will be drawing this to the attention of the MRC’. Big deal we say! The second part of the question remains unanswered, and as with the Camping and Caravan show, council has done nothing but a little tap on the wrist!

At this point Penhalluriack rose and said that he notified Hyams about the situation on Saturday morning – and wanted to ask Burke if any officer had gone out to ‘look at the barriers’. Also said that ‘this seems to be a consistent complaint’ from residents living in the area.

Hyams then said that this wasn’t the time to ask officers questions because that should have been done at Item 11.3 of the agenda!

Penhalluriack then said that he hadn’t ‘had the time to formalise my own response’ to the public question and that he was commenting on the answer that had been given. Since he told Hyams about this on Saturday morning he’d ‘like to think that council went out and did something about it’ because the barriers ‘were in the wrong place’ and the ‘wrong times’

Question 5 – asked about the now out of date Road Safety Strategy and why even the old one isn’t on the website and when the latest one will be prepared. The response was that the 2007-2012 strategy ‘was at an end’ and that a new one was ‘being developed’ and that when the new one is adopted it will be up on the website. Terrific! We didn’t know that ‘strategies’ disappear into the ether!

Question 6 asked about ‘advocacy’ for rail separation and whether council would table the documents related to its ‘advocacy’. The response was merely a listing of ‘submissions’ to various departments, and meetings attended by officers and councillors. Residents are obviously not going to get a look at these ‘submissions’, nor reports back from most of these meetings!

BURKE THEN STATED THAT ‘A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ‘HAVE BEEN RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE CHAIR AS THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL’S CARETAKER POLICY’ REGARDING ‘ELECTORAL MATTERS’!!!!! CENSORSHIP REIGNS SUPREME ONCE AGAIN! 

PS: we’ve just broken another record – 1,335 hits for the day!

 

October 16, 2012

A National Laughing Stock!

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

Sporting groups support Caulfield park frisbee teens

16 Oct 12 @ 05:00am by Jessica Bennett

Glen Eira Council told teens they could no longer play Frisbee in Caulfield Park without a permit.

SPORTING groups have pledged support for a group of frisbee-loving teens forced to halt their weekly game in Caulfield Park unless they pay the council $120 for a permit.

They gathered casually most Fridays to play frisbee in the park, until a council officer told them to stop until they had a permit for their “organised” sport.

Simon Talbot, president of Ultimate Victoria – the state’s ultimate frisbee-governing body – said it had unsuccessfully tried in the past to set up a formal arrangement with the council for frisbee players at Caulfield Park.

“We heard about this group (being kicked off) and are more than happy to help them deal with the council,” Mr Talbot said.

Heads of State Frisbee League president Matthew Hill offered the group a free place in their men’s league at Alma Park.

Tal Silverstein, the mother of one of the players, said they communicated who would play via Facebook, but that was the only organisation. “They don’t all go every week, they have no coach, no uniform and no league – how is that organised?”

Glen Eira Council did not return Leader’s requests for comment.

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

Letters to the Editor: Land is for public use

Crown land is public land, to be provided for the enjoyment and benefit of Victorians.

There are several types of management arrangements for Crown land, including trusts, local government control, Parks Victoria and so on.

But with each management type, it must be maintained for a range of community uses. Is this the case with the current board of trustees at the Caulfield Racecourse?

What is the harm in opening their meetings to the public? Surely, this is in the spirit of the trust’s responsibilities?

Kate Dempsey, Independent candidate, Camden Ward, Glen Eira

 +++++++++++++++++++

Caulfield project monstrous

Regarding “Caulfield Racecourse Reserve chairman told to resign” (Leader, October 8), I hope they also ask whoever voted for the Caufield Racecourse development.

This highly controversial 20-storey monster will change the face of once-wonderful Caulfield forever.

Congestion and pollution will be the new norm. I certainly won’t be voting for the councillors who imposed this on an angry community.

Christian Stewart

 

PS: LATE NEWS ITEM

Footy group demands answers on use of Glen Eira parks

16 Oct 12 @  01:21pm by Donna Carton

GLEN Eira councillors will be grilled tonight on the issue of unathorised games in local parks.

Following last week’s furore, when teenage frisbee players were told to stop their weekly game unless they paid $120 for a permit, a local soccer-playing group said the issue needed to be clarified.

The Caulfield Park Social Soccer Club says it has  been paying for a permit for years, despite being just a weekly group of players and not an official organisation.

Spokesman Nick Varvodic said he would ask 15 questions of councillors at tonight’s meeting.

“Does our informal, once a week, gathering of friends to play a casual sports game in Caulfield Park require a permit?” he has written to Cr Michael Lipshutz.

“We are still confused after six years. So, for clarification and no ambiguity on either side could you please answer with a simple, Yes or No?”

Mr Varvodic said some councillors responded to the news of the frisbee ban with suggestions the local law concerning unathorised games be overhauled.

He said he hoped his “informal group” would be treated the same as the frisbee group in any law change.

Last week East Bentleigh mum Tal Silverstein revealed her 18-year-old son and his friends played frisbee in Caulfield Park most Friday afternoons until “someone from Glen Eira Council made them stop the game.”

“They said it was an organised sport and that they couldn’t play without a permit,” she said.

The council is now in caretaker period because of the October 27 election, and the council’s caretaker policy states: “Public questions at council meetings, which would normally be recorded in the minutes, should avoid ‘electoral matter’ and a question may be ruled out of order on that ground.”

Tonight’s Glen Eira council meeting is at 7.30pm at the Glen Eira Town Hall, Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield.

 

October 13, 2012

MRC & Council: Three Strikes & You’re Out!!!!!!

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

We’ve received the following information from an alert resident. It highlights what can only be regarded as either sheer incompetence on the part of either, or both, the MRC and Council, or the continued utter disregard for local residents. Traffic management plans to handle “major events” at the Racecourse are nothing short of a disgrace. Over to you Councillors! What ‘punishment’ will be meted out to the MRC? Did our wonderful Glen Eira Traffic Management Department actually clap eyes on any plan and did they in fact okay it? Are they now supervising and overseeing this traffic mayhem?

Here’s part of the email and other info:

The road closures around the Caulfield Racecourse associated with the last two “major” events held at the Racecourse (Spring Racing Carnival – October, 2011 and the Caravan and Camping Show – March, 2012) were severaly criticised because there was less than 24 hour notice given to residents.

Today, the start of the 2012 Spring Racing Carnival, residents should be even more angry at the inability of the MRC and Council to properly inform them of the road closures – this time the advice might have been sent out early enough, but it’s totally useless IF IT’S WRONG – WHICH IT WAS!

Here’s the notice

What’s important here is the following:

The Caravan and Camping show notice stated “The following streets will be closed to all traffic from Kambrook Road:

  • Eskdale Road, Newington Grove and Hudson Street at Kambrook Road; and
  • Entry for residents will be via Bambra Road Only”

The closures took place at around 12 noon.

The above Spring Racing Carnival notification states “Residents of Hudson St., Payne St., Eskdale Rd., Newington Gve. and Redan Rd. should avoid using Glen Eira Road to return to their homes after 2.30 p.m.”   

No mention of blocking the road but blocking commenced at 8.30 a.m. ( what happened to 2.30 p.m?)

No mention of Wyuna Road to Redan Road exit being blocked.

Redan Road is not blocked.

What impact does Glen Eira Road have on accessing these streets – should it be Bambra Road?

After the Caravan and Camping Show notification, Council stated “The recent notification provided by Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to residents for the Caravan and Camping Show was disappointing and unacceptable and the MRC has been so advised.”  This is the third consecutive time the MRC has stuffed it up – time for the three strikes you are out rule to be applied. It’s just not good enough that the information sent out to residents is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh and by the way, they need to change the configuration of the road blocks or have a Police presence at the Smith Street Roundabout –  cars are mounting the nature strip and footpath to gain access to Bambra Road from Eskdale Road.

Here is the photographic ‘evidence’.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

 

October 11, 2012

Once More With Feeling!

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

When will this Council ever learn from its past and ongoing bloopers? That history has not taught this lot a thing was made clear this morning when a Mr Michael Silverstein rang Jon Faine’s breakfast show to complain about his kids being warned off for playing Frisbee (yes! that dreaded word again) in an East Bentleigh park without a permit.

To refresh readers’ memories, we‘ve had the headlining farces of ‘kids in the park’; the footy ‘schleppers’, and Michael Lipshutz’s son’s group playing regular, advertised Frisbee games in Caulfield Park for years on end – the latter without a permit! Remember, the situation has been ‘monitored’ for year after year after year!

When will common sense prevail and the infamous Local Laws Committee, chaired by none other than Lipshutz, wake up and do something about this ridiculous law and its far from even handed implementation? That this issue has been allowed to simmer since at least 2005 is unbelievable.

Our sympathies go to Mr Silverstein in that none of these kids happen to be related to, or friends with sitting councillors!

PS: From the Caulfield Leader, PLUS 10 comments already up.

Caulfield Park Frisbee ban

11 Oct 12 @  11:11am by Jessica Bennett

FRISBEE loving teens have told to stop their weekly game unless they pay $120 for a permit.

East Bentleigh mum Tal Silverstein said her 18-year-old son and his friends played frisbee in Caulfield Park most Friday afternoons.

“Last Friday someone from Glen Eira Council made them stop the game,” she said.

“They said it was an organised sport and that they couldn’t play without a permit.”

Ms Silverstein said the group of teenagers were told they would need to obtain a permit at a cost of $120 to continue playing.

She said the teens organised who would be turning up to play via a Facebook page, but that was their only form of organisation.

“The have the Facebook page, but that is just how they communicate these days,” she said.

“They don’t all go every week, they have no coach, no uniform and no league – how is that organised?

“I thank God that instead of going out drinking or hanging around in the streets they are playing sport.

“But they can’t afford to pay $120 every time they want to throw the frisbee around.”

Glen Eira Council has been approached for comment.

COMMENTS:

Andre writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:33pm

As a father of one of the boys, I thougt he was playing tricks with me. With so little time on their hands due to school commitments, these boys are getting some healthy exercise for an hour a a week Shame on you Glen Eira.

Park user. writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:21pm

Agroup of kids took over Ardrie park every Saturday about 2 years ago.  Put their markers out and played soccer in it for about 2 hours.  This is a leash-free park for our dogs and they are only allowed on the oval area.  Quite rightly, the kids were told to go to one of the other many ovals in the area to play, or indeed, play on their school oval.  I agree with Council in this instance.  If the park they’re talking about is for off-leash dogs, then it is a nightmare for the animals, who naturally want to chase anything that is thrown.

Rosemary Balfour writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:21pm

Bureaucracy has become a business in its own right. How utterly nonsensical!! Leave them alone. They are having harmless, healthy fun. Crawl back under your rocks, Local Councils!!

Mel writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:16pm

Welcome to Australia! It’s becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute! Considering the amount of permits and restrictions it’s coming surprisingly close to the Stasi in Eastern Germany but in a different way. What do you need next? A permit to fart????

Bill Bartlett writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:15pm

Another case of the councils weilding there big sticks, they can’t handle anyone having and if you do you’ll be fined for it.

Janine writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  01:13pm

What an appalling display of money grabbing behaviour by Glen Eira Council. They should be encouring these teenagers to exercise and enjoy sport socailly; not pouring cold water on there plans to enjoy Caulfield’s parks and open areas.  Shame on your Glen Eira Council. I do not sanity prevails on this one.

Mick Of Ferntree Gully writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  12:44pm

Typical local government beauracracy. Unfortunately a number of local councils are being taken over by a bunch of pea brains

Kate writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  12:36pm

I heard this story on ABC radio this morning. On the face of it, it does seem ridiculous. I will be interested to see Council’s response. On radio Mr Silverstein said the kids were also required to have public liability insurance. As a business person, I need that insurance and it doesn’t come cheap! This seems to be an example of Local Laws that may need a good review.

I have seen the young people playing frisbee in Caulfield Park where I walk my dog every day. It certainly doesn’t bother me and seems like a harmless, healthy and fun activity! Is Council that short of money?

Dr. Kate Dempsey Independent Candidate for Camden Ward

Helen writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  12:28pm

How ridiculous, kids playing frisbee! Shame on the money grabbing council!

Peter writes: Posted on 11 Oct 12 at  12:25pm

As long as they wear the mandatory helmets, and body protection devices there is no reason why people should not be entitled to play such an extreme sport in a public area

 

October 10, 2012

The Annual Report

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

The usual sales pitch that constitutes the Annual Report is now available on Council’s website. Once again readers will require a magnifying glass to read the very fine print that is practically on every single page! We’ve only had a very cursory glance at the contents, but these figures leapt out at us:

  • Staff increase  – in 2010/11 the total no. was 980. In 2011/12 this figure hit 1,204!!
  • Drains cleaned – in 2010/11 the total was 32km. In 2011/12 a bare 10.93km!!!!

We must also wonder why on earth Council has Advisory Committees. The following lists the number of times these committees met throughout the year –

Roads Special Committee – No meetings

Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee – 1 meeting

Animal Management Advisory Committee – No meetings

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Advisory Committee – No meetings

Local Laws Advisory Committee – 1 meeting

Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee – No meetings

Pools Steering Committee – 8 meetings

The only committees that seemed to get a regular guernsey were the Audit Committee (4 – legislative requirement); Arts and Culture Advisory Committee (7 meetings); Environment  4 meetings and Community Grants – 4 meetings.  Hence we have a situation where the most important committees exist in name only – or that this council sees no need to report on any such meetings (ie Local Law Committee meetings which in the past have been called ‘workshops’ rather than formal meetings. This of course provides the excuse of not having to table minutes of any such ‘workshops’).

Then there’s this on the GESAC saga: “Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) construction contract was awarded for the sum of $41.2m. As at end June 2012, Council had paid $36.99m. Council officers are still assessing contractor’s claims for variations and the contractor is still attending to minor defects and omissions. The defects liability period is due to end in May 2013.

Council has deducted $2,355,000 in liquidated damage against the contract. Recently, Hansen Yuncken applied for an adjudication pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) for $4,207,478.21.

It has also reserved its right to seek a further $950,950.06 (plus GST). Council has engaged legal advisors to prepare a response to Hansen Yuncken’s application. Regardless of the outcome of the adjudication, either party is still entitled to pursue damages and cost recovery through civil proceedings.”

We urge readers to cut through the cant and really analyse the figures. Then they should ask themselves:

  • Are services being cut, maintained or improved?
  • Are the ‘measures’ really indicative of performance as set out in the so called community plan?
  • Are residents getting real value for money?
 

October 9, 2012

Same Old, Same Old….

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

Caulfield Racecourse chairman told to resign

Racecourse board votes to maintain secrecy

 Oct 12 @ 05:00am by Andrea Kellett

A DECISION that could end more than a century of perceived secrecy surrounding management of Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse has been voted down.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve board of trustees has met for the first time under new chairman and Glen Eira councillor Jim Magee.

He put forward a motion to change the board’s governance arrangements, but the majority of trustees voted against it.

Those arrangements would have thrown board meetings open to the public for the first time in 150 years and required minutes to be made publicly available.

The trustees called for Cr Magee’s resignation as chairman, but he declined.

He will instead be replaced at 6am on October 27, council election day.

He is standing for re-election in Tucker Ward.

After the meeting Cr Magee said it was “inappropriate” to comment while he waited for the Premier to reply to concerns he had raised about the board.

Fellow trustee, Cr Cheryl Forge, said Cr Magee had come under “enormous pressure” at the meeting to resign.

Council candidate Mary Delahunty called for a review into the operations and structure of the board.

Other items on the board’s agenda included the grandstand lease with the MRC and a “land swap” between the MRC and the Minister for Innovation.

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Big task on racecourse

THE development of the Caulfield racecourse area will be one of the biggest challenges to face new and re-elected councillors.

There is much a strong council can achieve to protect the amenity for all Glen Eira residents, to ensure infrastructure is minimally impacted and to provide an accessible open space for our enjoyment.

Governance must be resolved for the project to be successful. The current trust structure which delegates the day-to-day management of crown land is not the appropriate vehicle. A properly authorised committee of management will provide a stronger voice for the residents and clearer accountability. Glen Eira Council has an important role in the future of the racecourse. Strong, consultative representation will deliver the right outcomes for the City of Glen Eira.

Mary Delahunty, Candidate for Camden Ward

 

September 27, 2012

Lest We Forget! Sorry, We Don’t!

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

Carrying out Council resolutions in a timely fashion is obviously not high on Glen Eira Council’s priority list. Dissembling, distortions, and straight out fibbing characterise much of what has been going on – especially in regard to public questions and their deliberately deceptive answers! The latest outrage involves the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone in Centre Road, Bentleigh.

The following public question was asked on Monday night –

“Why has Bentleigh’s shopping strip not received the same attention as Caulfield Race Days in establishing an Alcohol Free Zone and when is Council due to consider such controls around Bentleigh’s Centre Road?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“It would be unfortunate for the reputation of the Bentleigh Shopping Centre if people were to infer that the shopping centre suffers the same extent of problems with alcohol affected persons that the area around the Caulfield Racecourse suffers on the twenty or so race days per year that are held there. There is no comparison between the two sites. Council’s Local Law Advisory Committee is looking at the matter following it being raised by the former President of the Bentleigh Traders Association.”

We’ve done a bit of checking and find that at the Council Meeting of 12th October 2010, the following resolution was passed –

“Crs Hyams/Magee

‘As moved, except that in relation to Item M of the Minutes of the Local Laws Advisory Committee meeting that the Local Laws Advisory Committee drafts an amendment to the Local Law to provide for the provision of an alcohol free zone in the Centre Road Bentleigh shopping strip. The amendment is to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages in the shopping centre apart from within areas owned or controlled by licensed premises and is to be enforceable by the Police 

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED.” 

This amendment was the result of a Local Laws Advisory Committee Meeting of the 13th September 2010 which included the following: “Alcohol Free Zones: Discussed issue associated with declaring and enforcing such zones. Determined police should be requested to utilise their move-on powers”.

Glen Eira Debates at the time reported on the ‘debate’ for the amendment. We then wrote: “Hyams moved an amendment to the Local Law Review committee’s recommendations that Centre Rd be considered for potential naming as an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’. This was opposed by Lipshutz with the argument that we don’t need it; that the police don’t want more work, they will do nothing to enforce it and hence the job will fall on the already overworked council officers. The amendment was eventually passed with the acknowledgement that council isn’t committing itself to anything but that by putting it on the agenda for future discussions all options are left open. (October 13th, 2010)

 

COMMENT:  

  • What’s the point of passing resolutions if they are never carried out? There is no equivocation in this resolution. The ‘order’ was to prepare an Amendment. This has never come to Council!
  • How can Hyams now read and thereby endorse this response to Monday night’s public question when he in fact moved the Amendment 2 years ago?
  • Why has the Local Laws committee been so derelict in both the frequency of meetings, and more importantly, providing minutes for (all) of those meetings?
  • Why should discussion on a public safety issue be allowed to drag on for over 2 years?
  • It couldn’t simply be could it, that this administration is opposed to introducing an Alcohol Ban and therefore certain councillors once again fall meekly into line?
 

September 26, 2012

Desperate Despots?

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

From Monday night’s Council Meeting.

QUESTIONS TO OFFICERS

PENHALLURIACK: “I ask Mr Burke when allocations are likely to be made for the Koornang Park oval for the 2013 football season, and similarly for the main oval at Princes Park.   Further, are the Caulfield Bears F.C. and the Ajax Seniors F.C. being considered for ground allocations at these grounds for the 2013 season?  Finally will councillors be advised of the details of your considerations well in advance of the allocations being made, and given an opportunity to contribute from their local knowledge and experience in these matters before your decision is confirmed to the successful clubs.”

BURKE: Read out a prepared answer. He began by saying that 3 weeks ago there was a report to council about ground allocations for winter and that this involved over 200 teams and that ‘allocations need to be managed as a whole’ and that because of ground conditions ‘this may involve changes for a season’ and sometimes with ‘short notice….summer season is just getting underway’ and the winter allocations will be looked at in ‘late February 2013’. So, winter allocations ‘aren’t being considered at this time’ then ‘it follows’ that these clubs that Penhalluriack mentioned are also not being considered now. Allocations are ‘managed by the Recreation Department’ and ‘councillors have been advised on several occasions’ that the system used in Glen Eira is followed by other councils. He then went on and said that the Local Government Act ‘prohibits councillors’ from directing officers in carrying out their duties but that ‘there are no prohibitions on councillors commenting on’ anything and that ‘such comments will be welcomed’.

PENHALLURIACK: began with ‘the greatest respect to Mr Burke, he didn’t answer the question’ since he had asked for dates and that Burke had ‘skirted around the issues’ and included ‘generalities’ and that ‘he has not answered the question’.

HYAMS: said that Burke did say that allocations would be done in late February.

BURKE: ‘For the record I object to the term ‘skirting around’.

 

September 26, 2012

MRC & Clayton’s ‘Agreement’

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

A public question was asked at Monday night’s council meeting regarding the MRC and Council ‘agreement’. We report here on what occurred.

“This question pertains to the ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC.

1.     Why are the fences in the centre of the Racecourse not in accordance with the original application in that they far exceed what was presented in the plan?

2.     Why have the terms of the agreement in regard to removal of sections of fencing within one year not been adhered to?

3. What has council done to seek compliance with the ‘agreement’?

4. Why has this council not uttered a single word to the community on these issues for the past year?”

Hyams read out Council’s/Burke’s (?) response where Hyams began by stating that the ‘land is not owned by Council’. Much of what followed then focused on the ‘single objector’ and her withdrawal of the objection on May 28th. Hyams also stated that officers had ‘carried out a number of inspections’ to ‘verify compliance’ with the permit – the ‘latest’ being in July 2012. ‘This inspection confirmed that the works were in accordance with the permit’…’there is no requirement to remove sections of fencing beyond’ what has been ‘provisioned’. Went on to state that the State Government’s planning laws are ‘complex’ and lead to ‘confusion’ and that not everything ‘requires council permission’. Hyams then said that if there is ‘deviation’ from the permit that council and the community can ‘initiate’ proceedings if they so wish.

‘The MRC views the agreement as a whole project ….(and sees the project as starting only from when the permits have been issued) ‘the MRC has the view that the starting point …is the date that VCAT issued the permit’ (which had been held up by the objector). The objector ‘denied the MRC the opportunity to commence the works….deny the community an early use of the new park’. Repeated that this is an MRC project on their land and not council’s. Hyams then went on to state how council had for years been advocating for greater public use of the land and that they now ‘looked forward to completion of the works at the earliest possible time’.

Penhalluriack then said: ‘I would like to submit an alternative response’. Penhalluriack then read out the following:

“I refer to and dissent from the Mayor’s reply to your letter. I express my concern that he does not respond to the removal of the perimeter fencing, which has nothing to do with the planning permit, and I urge council to write to the MRC asking them to honour their commitment in this regard.

Regarding the new “park”, Council Officers have on several occasions tried to explain what is, and what is not, included in a “buildings and works” permit.  My understanding is that when the objector knew the concrete paths were not part of the planning permit, and therefore her objection was not able to succeed, she immediately withdrew her objection.  However those who did know remained silent for six months.

Under those circumstances we can safely assume that the MRC knew at all times that the objection was without any legal foundation, and had they wished to they could have proceeded with the work.  

This is a “Claytons” park, with its restricted access times and ingress passage.  It has the potential to be beautiful, but it seems to lack motivation by all of the involved parties to work towards that common goal.

The original suggestion was that the new park would be ready and opened for the Spring Carnival.  I visited last week to find a buzz of construction activity, but the entry tunnel is smelly and dusty, and the fence dividing the vehicles from the mothers with their prams is claustrophobic.  As you point out, there are white plastic fences everywhere – far more than originally on the planning permit drawings.  However I understand the fences are also not part of the “building and works” permit, so the MRC can put them up literally anywhere they chose.  

During the carnival it will look wonderful from the vantage point of the grandstands.  There are many rolls of fresh, green new turf ready to be rolled out.  But from ground level the folly is only too obvious.  

It is a disappointing park, but it is all we have been offered by the MRC, and as the Mayor correctly points out, it is on “land that is not owned or controlled by council”.  We need to rectify that last point as soon as possible, and I congratulate Cr Jim Magee for the fine work he and Crs Cheryl Forge and Steven Tang are doing as Council’s Trustee representatives.  May they succeed where Council’s negotiators failed miserably.

 

September 24, 2012

Time For A Change: #3

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

Tonight’s council meeting exemplified in spades why change is desperately needed in Glen Eira. The most persuasive argument for change comes from the ludicrous statements and arguments put up by Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang. This was most evident in his comments on Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report and in the ‘debate’ on the financial report. We will concentrate on the latter for this post.

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that the financial report is ‘appropriate’ and again shows how well council is going. On GESAC there were some ‘ill informed’ people who by claiming that council had to hand over $3 million ‘should have known’ that this is all part of the adjudication process and that council was still ‘confident’ that it would be ‘successful’ in getting its liquidated damages – but this would take time. Went on to speak about the superannuation fund stating that the ‘shortfall’ can be ‘paid off over 15 years’. On council debt he said that there ‘are some who say it is disturbing – I’m not sure why’ since treasury has given a ‘clear marker on how to manage it’. Council has also been ‘commended’ on ‘how we’ve handled our financies’ ….’cash balances are healthy’. Swabey and team should be ‘commended’.

COMMENT: Amazing how a current debt of over $23 million dollars – one of the highest in the state – is not ‘disturbing’!!!!!

TANG: echoed the 3 issues and said that ‘we’ve tracking ahead of schedule’  in terms of surplus but this doesn’t mean ‘we can do any more in terms of capital works’  Council’s approach is to ‘accelerate capital works’ when there’s a greater than expected surplus. ‘I know there’s a bit of argey-bargey’ as to whether debt repayments should be accelerated or capital works. Spoke about the next council starting on one more pavilion if the surplus continues. Said that GESAC is going better than forecast in that they thought that residents would be paying ‘interest and borrowings’ off rates but the money is coming in from ‘door takings’. Magee had mentioned earlier that he expected usage to be ‘dropping’ , but Tang corrected him by calling it ‘usage stabilising’. So if it stays at 7000 members then it will be ‘less of a call on ratepayers’.

COMMENT: have we missed something here? If door takings are covering costs, then how can there still be a ‘call on ratepayers’?

PENHALLURIACK: Started off by saying that debt on GESAC is ‘a long term debt’. Said that the interest rate is 8.06% and council is stuck paying this rate when over the past year interest rates have dropped dramatically – yet Glen Eira is still paying this for the next 15 years. ‘The cost in this first financial year is almost $3 million’. This will be a ‘burden’ on ratepayers ‘which we can’t do anything at all about’. As a result ‘we need to take a fresh look at where we can save money’. Like any business, if ‘we spend more than our income we’re going to go broke’….’I look at council as a business and as a business I think we can do better’. Claimed that he was confident that rates could be ‘kept to a zero increase’ . Said that council needed to look at its overall expenditure and ask ‘is this good value’ for money? ‘Have we got a cost benefit?’

PILLING: Said he disagreed with Penhalluriack because council wasn’t ‘just a business’ but also services and facilities. Said they could approach it as a business but run it for the community.

PENHALLURIACK: wanted to answer this.

HYAMS: ‘are you saying that your comments were taken out of context or misinterpreted?’

PENHALLURIACK: yes. Hyams then permitted the comments where Penhalluriack said ‘business for the social benefit of the community’.

HYAMS: said he wanted to make a ‘few comments’ about Penhalluriack’s comments. Claimed that cost for council go up around 4% per year because of material costs. Glen Eira also has an ‘infrastructure gap that we need to keep on spending to close that gap’ because if we don’t it will end up costing more. So, ‘bearing in mind that we have the third lowest rates in Melbourne’ Hyams said ‘that our policies are actually very sound and responsible’ and that to say there can be a zero rate increase ‘would be completely irresponsible…..result in far fewer services’. Gave example of deferring Murrumbeena park development. Currently this is costing $750,000 but if put back it would then cost $1 million because there wouldn’t be the government grant. Said that the call for zero rate increase was a ‘nice election gimick’ and Hyams would ‘like to think that our public isn’t likely to fall for that one’. Rephrased and said that the public would realise that this wouldn’t result in ‘council providing goods and services…that it should’.’

FORGE: ‘took exception’ to the statement that zero rates is an ‘election gimick’. Said that there were plenty of things that council can spend ‘less money on’ and gave example of the concrete plinthing in Caulfield park where as Camden councillors they didn’t want this, but rest of councillors voted for it. Went on to say that some works ‘needn’t be large but they all add up’ . Glen Eira might be one of the ‘best performing councils’…’but there’s no reason why we can’t do better’.

TANG: Said that he wasn’t standing for election, but he’d like to ask the question of Penhalluriack that if he were campaigning on a zero percent rate rise  that like the Republicans did in the US, ‘surely you would put together an alternate budget’? Asked Forge and Penhalluriack ‘Have you put together an alternate budget that goes through…how you would’ achieve a zero rate increase….rather than making motherhood statements?

PENHALLURIACK: Said that he was the ‘only councillor’ who presented a right of reply to the budget. Said that he had ‘set out a number of areas and they certainly weren’t motherhood statements…..achieve a zero rate increase’. Most important was ‘that we don’t employ any new staff’. Said that there are many good staff. They’re getting 3.7% increase and rest of community is getting about 2% wage increase. Said that state and federal governments are laying off staff. Said that the figures he produced showed ‘clearly’ that it was ‘quite easy’ to save many millions of dollars by ‘not increasing the staff allocation’. Also claimed that it wasn’t true that we need more staff to run GESAC. ‘we’ve already taken on a lot of staff to run gesac’ and don’t need to increase like ‘we’ve been doing for the last 3 years by some 30%….it’s scandalous, it’s not necessary….it should not be done and if we were running a genuine business we would be out of work….’

FORGE: said that it was ‘far too early’ to be that specific and that it can be looked at over the next 4 to 6 months and see ‘where we can delay things’ ….we know there are many ways we can reduce spending and delay spending’.

PENHALLURIACK : withdrew his use of the word ‘scandalous’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘we are one of the lowest councils’ for rates. Said that saving money and having a zero rate increase by not having staff ‘begs the question’ since COUNCIL DOES NOT EMPLOY STAFF ‘WE ONLY EMPLOY ONE PERSON, THE CEO’. Said it was ‘beyond our capacity as councillors to determine what staff should be employed’. Admitted there had been a ‘significant staff increase’ but that was due to GESAC and it is necessary because of the ‘issue of safety’. Said that council has been ‘commended’ on how it manages risk. Also have ‘one of the lowest expenditure on assessment ratios’. Went on to say that at budget time ‘every councillor comes along with their pet projects’…..’we as council prioritise those issues’. Said that people like Forge and Penhalluriack can talk about rate cuts but with the 4% increase anyway this will mean cuts in ‘services’. Agreed that council should be run in a ‘business like way’ and it is because of external and internal auditors so it is ‘being run like a business’…’what we have been doing is remedying the infrastructure gap’. Said that he and others when they came on council were told of this gap and that this is a city where ‘drains are over 100 years old (so the report) demonstrates that council is on the right track’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: Lipshutz’s claim that it is ‘beyond our capacity to determine what staff should be employed’ is not only laughable, but symptomatic of the cow towing culture and legal mumbo jumbo that so befuddles most of these individuals. Councillors do not only appoint the CEO – they also set policy, strategic direction and yes, even budgets via a formal vote that becomes a council resolution and makes it incumbent on the CEO to carry out those resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion. The CEO is the SERVANT of councillors. He has the right to appoint staff but only within the parameters set by councillors. For example:Council has the power to pass any resolution it likes, including one which says ‘no funding will be made available for new staff for the next two years’. How the CEO then decides to deploy the existing staff to cover services is up to him.

It’s also quite fascinating that Lipshutz mentions 100 year old drains and the ‘infrastructure gap’. We’ve already put up posts which clearly show that spending on drains has in fact not kept up with inflation and this is after the disastrous floods of last year. Other infrastructure is obviously more important to Newton and the gang!

A comment also needs to be made on Tang’s attempted mischief. Councillors do NOT prepare budgets. That is the role of officers. Councillors role is to analyse, dissect, question, and make decisions on the proposals put before them and make some proposals themselves and receive comprehensive advice and accurate figures. To therefore ask Penhalluriack and Forge whether they have prepared an alternate budget is like asking Obama (since he’s used the American analogy) whether he has written every word of his election speech. The nuts and bolts belong to the underlings – in this case the speech writers and in Glen Eira’s case the officers. BUT it is for councillors to make the final decisions on whether or not to accept, adopt, amend, question, refute, suggest, and pass the relevant documents and budgets. In Glen Eira critical analyses by councillors is, we believe, non-existent on most occasions. Everything is ceded to those who were not elected by residents yet who evidently control every facet of what happens in this council. This can only happen because of the willing or unwilling compliance of 5 councillors. That’s why it’s definitely time for a change! We are firmly of the opinion that residents clearly want councillors who will work with and for the community and not for unelected bureaucrats that are not directly accountable to those who pay their very, very handsome wages.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »