Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 5, 2012

GESAC, Hansen & Yuncken & Lawyers Galore!

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

The black hole of GESAC is clearly getting bigger and bigger – despite all the assurances from Lipshutz and the other financial whiz kids on council. After enduring a quite nauseating performance by Lipshutz on the audit committee minutes and how much the Auditor General had praised council for its performance and how it is an example to other councils, some of the truth finally emerged about the Hansen and Yuncken call for their money through another report by the auditor general which highlighted the call for ‘adjudication’ by Hansen & Yuncken.

The past few financial reports have consistently stated that Council is withholding over $4 million dollars as part of the ‘liquidated damages’. The building contract was $41.2 million and up til last month council had only handed over approximately $37 million. We now learn that the adjudication has in fact forced council to cough up $3 million of the money it was holding back. But, there’s much, much more to this as we report below.

LIPSHUTZ: on the Audit Committee minutes –  ‘we were praised for the transparent way we went about GESAC’….(Auditor General gave council) ‘profusive praise’ in how ‘we managed our finances’…’I was particularly chuffed and enthused’ as he said ‘we were an example to other councils’. …’leader in the field’…..

PILLING: reported on community grants and claimed that over $300,000 was given out (OUR COMMENT: note that this amount also includes government grants!!!!!)

PENHALLURIACK: said that he went to the Audit Committee meeting and that the Auditor General did praise Glen Eira but ‘it was in a non specific way’. Referred to a ‘report that the Auditor General has commissioned’ about GESAC and that there’s ‘an adjudication of almost $5 million dollars to be heard against Council…and that was in a separate report to the meeting’.

MAGEE: said he attended the meeting. Stated that council oversees a budget of over $100 million and over 130,000 residents. Council ‘very adequately allocates those funds’. Went on to explain about the external auditors and kept reassuring residents that the finances are being well handled. Stated that those in the gallery should be ‘well assured’ that the rates are ‘being well administered, well spent’. If money was being wasted then auditors would pick that up and ‘that’s not the case’.

HYAMS: asked Penhalluriack whether he said that ‘the Auditor General commissioned a report into GESAC’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not into GESAC. He commissioned his own report’.

HYAMS: asked Newton whether the Auditor General ‘commissioned a report as described by Cr Penhalluriack’?

NEWTON: ‘Not into GESAC, no’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was present and ‘did not hear anything of that nature’. Said that council’s got the money in the bank and that it then becomes ‘an issue between the builder and ourselves’. Claimed that none of this ‘comes as a surprise’ that it was ‘expected’. Went on again about the Auditor General and how council had a good ‘business plan’.

Towards the end of the meeting Hyams requested a report on the state of the basketball allocations at GESAC. Said that since GESAC opened in mid season that by the next meeting this situation should be ‘resolved’ and that the courts should be ‘in full operation’. Pilling seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

There was then one Public Question that asked ‘what proportion’ (of court time allocated to the Warriors from Friday to Sunday are actually) ‘being utilised’? Also wanted to know how interested parties would be advised about next years’ allocations since the Warrior one was for only 12 months.

The response was a wonderful sales job on what GESAC caters for; problems with builders, etc. Claimed that next season would see full use and that the warriors use of the courts was currently 57.5 hours instead of 80+ hours.

PENHALLURICK: SAID THAT ‘WE DIDN’T GET EARLY NOTICE OF THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS’ and that he would like to say something in ‘response to some of them’. Asked if the 57.5 hours ‘is being paid for’?

HYAMS: mumbled and fumbled his way through in response saying that the Local Law lets councillors put in individual responses but doesn’t allow ‘supplementary questions’ from councillors.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he would have provided his own answer ‘if I had notice of the question’. Went on to say that he was asking a question about the answer given.

HYAMS: ‘The Local Law doesn’t allow that’. Said that it could be a question on notice for next meeting.

PENHALLURIACK: claimed it was a silly local law. Hyams came back with you ‘probably voted for it’. Penhalluriack agreed.

Next public question asked about the liquidated damages and why council was withholding 10% of the money it owes to the builder. Hyams then read out the answer quoting the financial report which says that council has paid 36.99 million. Contractor had gone to adjudication for 4.2 million and that ‘it has been completed’. Said that council has now paid 39.99 million. Went on to say that the contract allows for these matters in dispute to be settled and that there are processes which could end up with council receiving money or facing ‘additional payments’….these processes are underway’. 

COMMENT: These exchanges certainly make a mockery of Lipshutz’s claim that council has been ‘transparent’ in its dealings over GESAC. Further, we wonder if:

  • Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the Hansen & Yuncken adjudication whether anything at all would have been stated
  • If Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the issue would the public question have been asked and some form of answer supplied.
  • As far as the answer goes we still have major concerns. The door is still open for further penalties paid by council. Will Hansen and Yuncken claim interest on their money owed? Will they claim legal expenses? Will they sue for more money as Hyams indicated is a real possibility? Penhalluriack spoke about $5 million we remind readers.
  • What has this handover of $3 million done to the budget/cash flow especially when there’s another 3.1 million due for super top ups?
  • Have the Warriors actually paid a cent to council or have they been granted free access? What impact has this had on proposed income at GESAC?

There are countless questions that require straight forward answers. No spin, no obfuscation, and no porkies, and certainly no deft sleight of hand as evidenced by Lipshutz’s claim that he does not remember the Auditor General’s commissioned report being ‘discussed’ at the Audit Committee. We point out that perhaps this wasn’t DISCUSSED but presented in a pile of papers and reports that few councillors actually bothered to read?!!!!! We suspect that this is standard practice for this administration!

Finally we can only highlight again the tactics of withholding public questions until too late to respond and the recourse to gagging tactics via the lame excuse that the local law does not carry a provision for councillors to ask questions when they like! So much for open, transparent and accountable governance! Lawyers must be jumping up and down and rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of unending work!

 

September 5, 2012

Patronising, Paternalistic & Pathetic!

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

Tonight’s council meeting was an absolute marathon. For this first report on the evening we will concentrate on only 1 item – the Akehurst report on the new Planning Zones. We’ve chosen to highlight this agenda item because it epitomises fully what is wrong with our council and the majority of its councillors. As per usual, the evening descended into grand farce revealing incompetence, spin, unbelievable arrogance and an attitude that was both patronising and insulting to residents. This is what happened.

Esakoff moved to accept the report plus the addition of the point that the motion only relates to the potential Council submission to the Minister’s review. Seconded by Pilling. Esakoff began by stating how fortunate this council was by already having in place the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change area zones. Her address was basically a regurgitation of the Akehurst report (verbatim in parts). There was no real mention of the loss of third party rights to object but the jargon of ‘as of rights’ and repeated verbatim the party line that ‘third party rights are not changing’.

PILLING: thought that there are a ‘lot of good points’ in that there will be surety about ‘height’ and that with council’s current policy there will be ‘a reasonable good fit’ with the government’s proposals. Emphasised the ‘similarities’ between the proposed zones and council’s planning policies and that ‘it can be made to work’.

MAGEE: spoke about the mixed use zone and that ‘the devil will be in the detail as to what’s allowed’….’can turn into being a 6, 7, or eight storey development in those zones’….’that’s where this council needs to be very careful’. Wondered why the government put the deadline date for submissions at 21st September and the results will be available after the election. Said he saw both ‘good points’ and ‘concerns’ but detail is lacking but ‘all in all I think it’s welcomed’.

TANG: called it a ‘double edged sword’ in that it did involve a loss of third party rights and council rights. Said that places of worship up to 250 square metres could now go in without third party rights. Said these are ‘quite drastic changes’ but the good points are that these are ‘cutting through angst, bureaucracy’ and therefore not dealing with uncertainty anymore. Now there’s also mandatory height limit and ‘that’s something that council has been crying out about for years’. Said that all councils around Victoria have been asking for mandatory height controls (OUR COMMENT – EXCEPT GLEN EIRA!!!!!). Thought that residents would also ‘appreciate having that certainty as well’.Spoke about the commercial zones claiming that Glen Eira has graduated zones but this introduces just one zone for everything and ‘high density as of right’ which means that ‘you could be in Mackie Road and faced with high density’ …..’of 5 or 7 storieys in one of these local centres’. Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’. Froesahdowed that this be put on council’s website and invite submissions from residents and alerting them to the government website and that submissions close on 21st September. (OUR COMMENT: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER COUNCILS HAVE BEEN HOLDING RESIDENTS’ MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR WEEKS NOW!)‘ No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.

HYAMS: ‘lot about this which is good’…’lot about this which does raise concerns’. VCAT will now have to apply zones and not only consider them ‘it will give us a lot more certainty’. Said that there’s uncertainty whether the government will apply the commericial zones immediately. Said he attended a mayoral and ceo forum last week and the Minister was present to take questions which he dealt with. Hyams asked Minister about high density being allowed in commercial zones. Said that the MInister responded by saying that it would still need ‘to go through the permit process’  but that Hyams then made the point that where there’s higher density allowed that would be what vcat would apply. Stated that the Minister ‘suggested that we have a chat about it afterwards’ and that they’re trying to tee up a meeting. So none of this should be seen ‘as a done deal’. Thought that this was the ‘basis of a good submission’.

TANG: moved amendment that this be published on council’s website and promoting a link to the department’s website with contact details.

Hyams then asked Esakoff if this amendment was ‘acceptable. She then asked a question of Akehurst

ESAKOFF: ‘given the time structures here’ whether the amendment is feasible?

AKEHURST: Said that time is an ‘issue’ because that only leaves 17 days. Said that he had ‘waded through the new zones’ himself and that he was pretty familiar with the proposals  ‘it does take a little getting over the top of what is in the zones’. If this was going out to the general public then he wasn’t sure ‘whether there is going to be adequate time to get across the substance’. Repeated that a ‘zone is really a tool’ and isn’t important until it’s applied and ‘we’re not at that stage yet, we’re not at stage 2’. So if there’s to be public involvement ‘it wouldn’t be at stage 1’. Public should only be involved ‘when you apply the zones’.

Tang then asked about a point of order whether you can put questions before seconding  an amendment. Hyams responded that this isn’t covered by the local law. Penhallurick then offered to second the amendment. Esakoff then removed her seconding of the amendment and said that she would take this to ‘a wider discussion of all councillors’. Penhalluriack then seconded.

TANG: said that we’ve ‘got 2 weeks’ and that with the new website it should be pretty simple to put up the links and the Akehurst paper. Said that he didn’t expect ‘all residents to be across the technicalities of the zones’ but residents could use the paper itself in order to understand the zones. Said the jargon has been translated for councillors anyway so residents should also be able to understand it. Foresahdowed another question about the ability of the Minister to implement some of the zones without ‘recourse to council’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not difficult to put on the website’…’knowledge is power’ and even if there are only 2 people who are interested ‘why should we withhold’ this?

TANG: asked Akehurst if he knew whether it was within the power of the Minister to implement the zones without further recourse to council and further consultation?

AKEHURST: said that ‘the issue of implementation has great lack of detail’. Said that he’d spoken with senior people and no-one knew how this would be done and thought the minister was waiting for results from submissions. Thought that government ‘is keen to advance commercial zones’ and that ‘they may come in without consultation’. On the residential zones he thought that ‘councils would be given some time’ and that ‘Glen Eira has got a head start’ on implementing these because of its housing diversity/minimal change zones.

LIPSHUTZ: said that after listening to Akehurst he realised that these zones are something ‘that is still very much up in the air’ and that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.

ESAKOFF: also had ‘concerns’ and thought that only a very small percentage of the community ‘would look at our website on a regular basis’….’it could look a little bit mischievous on our part’ if we consulted with the community on something that isn’t consultable (ie if the minister brings in the commercial zones without consulting councils). Doubted ‘very much’ if the time to consult ‘is now’.

Hyams asked Akehurst if the submissions to government are only from councils or also from the public.

AKEHURST: ‘That’s a good question. They’re on the website….but I’m not sure’ whether people are aware. Hyams again asked if the public are invited to make submissions. Akehurst didn’t know. A member of the gallery informed them ‘it does’!

HYAMS: said that the amendment should be supported because if the government is taking submissions then ‘we should be facilitating that’….’I certainly don’t think there’s any harm to that’. Also said that if the government was going to bring in the zones ‘straight away’ then ‘this is the only opportunity’ to have a say. Whilst not everyone looks at the website those who do are ‘more likely to make a submission’.

ESAKOFF: asked the question that if the vote is in favour that this be ‘inserted on our electronic consultation letter – if that’s the right name for it'(!!!!!!!)

HYAMS: asked that this be an amendment. Tang seconded and was carried unanimously.

TANG: moved another amendment that this be advertised in both Leader newspapers. Pilling seconded.

PENHALLURIACK: said that the next Leader comes out on the 11th and that would be ‘insufficenct time’ and that council would be wasting its money.

ESAKOFF: asked when the next edition was coming out and the deadline for advertising.

BURKE: Thursday

HYAMS: asked Burke if the community column in the Leader had already been finalised?

Amendment was put and carried. The motion with the 3 amendments was then put and carried unanimously

COMMENT: It’s quite staggering that after years and years as councillors and the lauding of the ‘consultation/engagement policy’ that the difference between information provision and consultation seems to be lost on most of these individuals. Other councils obviously saw no problem with ALERTING their residents to what is happening. This is the first stage of any consultation – accurate, timely, and comprehensive information provision. Glen Eira showed no interest in doing any of this. Now at the 11th hour we suddenly have several pangs of conscience. Even this though is tinged with a paternalistic and patronising hue – ie. we poor residents will be incapable of understanding such a complex matter. It will only ‘frighten’ us! For this residents should read – we don’t want community involvement. Lipshutz and Esakoff in particular should be ashamed of themselves in our view! As for the rest of the councillors, why didn’t they insist that this occur way back in July?

 

September 2, 2012

Crystal Ball Gazing!

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

It is quite clear that this administration and its lackey councillors have absolutely no intention of either listening to residents or changing the direction of its planning policy. Item after item for Tuesday night’s council meeting confirms this. It will be more of the same – no consultation, no up-to-date local analysis, and certainly no let up in over development. We come to this conclusion based on the following:

Akehurst’s ‘review’ of the proposed VicSmart legislative changes is overwhelmingly supportive and even self-congratulatory in that the current Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change Areas as practised in Glen Eira will easily be reconfigured into VicSmart. In other words – no change is necessary in Glen Eira –  “It is assumed that there will be an expectation on behalf of the State Government that the new zones will be applied in as neutral way as possible having regard to our existing zones and policies. The strongest likelihood is that this transition from our one existing residential zone (Residential 1 Zone) and policies (Minimal Change/Housing Diversity) to three new residential zones which incorporate our policy intents will be able to occur via a Ministerial (fast track) amendment. If this can be achieved it will occur relatively smoothly and ultimately with an improved outcome”. Of course, what this ‘improved outcome’ will be is not clarified, much less justified and proven. The message however is inescapable – much, much more of the same.

Whereas other councils (Manningham, Boroodara, Kingston to name just a few) can hold information sessions and urge their residents to become involved and put in submissions, all Glen Eira can do is present a self serving report that barely questions the removal of third party rights and other major drawbacks. What we get are nonsense paragraphs such as – “Third party rights (the involvement of neighbours) are not changing. It must be acknowledged however that the flip side of greater land use opportunities for land owner applicants is less involvement by others.”

Next, there’s the C87 Amendment where residents were excluded from having any say prior to the drafting of the Amendment and hence their voices and protests were ruled out of order. Even when the Panel report recommends that Heritage reviews be undertaken PRIOR to removing several properties from Minimal Change Areas and placing them in Housing Diversity, the response is:

This recommendation is not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that a heritage control in a Housing Diversity Area may be perceived as a mixed (stop and go) town planning message, a heritage control would take precedence over potential development opportunities. It is considered that the two planning controls (i.e. heritage and housing diversity) can co-exist. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate for this area along Balaclava Road to change to a Housing Diversity Area(as exhibited). This policy should not impact on the potential for this area to have heritage protection in the future.”

We should also note that the Panel’s urging for Heritage reviews and other Amendments are barely mentioned. No time lines are provided, no sense of urgency detected. In the end, residents shouldn’t hold their breaths. What they can be certain about is that unless most of these councillors are voted out, then this municipality will continue to bend over backwards to support (over) development anywhere. This is the legacy of Newton and his toadies.

 

August 31, 2012

Trust Me – I’m A Councillor!

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

The Panel Report on the C87 Amendment is now out (uploaded here). No surprises as to what the recommendations are. But that’s not the end of the story. The story itself would appear to be one of back room manipulation on the part of administrators and councillors. The only plausible excuse that councillors may have is that they are just plain ignorant or stupid, but ultimately compliant with the questionable agendas implemented by this administration. Here is what we know:

  1. Every important draft amendment has been subject to a Council Resolution to forward it on to the Minister for permission to exhibit. Following permission for exhibition, there is the compulsory ‘consultation’ phase, a potential Panel hearing if objections are raised and then the final Council Resolution as to accepting, adapting, or rejecting the Panel report.
  2. With c87 no such formal resolution to seek permission to exhibit from the Minister has ever been passed. The Minister’s approval was however gained in June 2011- we presume under officer delegated powers with no clear, open council resolution supporting it. In other words, residents did not get to see the proposed Amendment until it had already gone off to the Minister – far too late to change anything!
  3. Following the consultation period and the number of objections, both Lipshutz and Hyams encouraged residents who wished to add properties to the list to put in submissions in the hope that the Panel would listen to their objections. Utter nonsense as we stated in previous posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/c87-crocodile-tears/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/move-over-sir-humphrey/). No panel was ever going to exceed its terms of reference, and those terms were set solely by the officers. Hence, we need to ask how honest were both Lipshutz and Hyams in their encouragement of residents to waste their time in writing submissions that would without a shadow of a doubt be ignored? Or perhaps we should ask whether Lipshutz and Hyams were just plain stupid and didn’t know any better? Or were they simply indulging in some political face-saving in order to take the heat off themselves and their colleagues for once again dropping the ball and not exercising their duty to set policy that involved the community at the outset? Or finally, as the examples keep piling up, supporting the administration to the hilt at the expense of residents?
  4. The proposed amendment NEVER gave councillors and residents the right to have any input at the most crucial stage – that is, which properties might be added, removed, etc. The officers’ report in fact stated clearly that once an amendment was exhibited it could not be changed and if properties were to be included then this would involve ANOTHER amendment! Yet Lipshutz and Hyams persisted in telling residents that they should put in their submissions to the very Panel that would reject them. If they did not know that this was a useless exercise, then they should have known. If they did know, and continued to perpetrate this myth, then they should be hauled before a code of conduct panel for deliberately misleading the public!
  5. The upshot is that the community has been duped; councillors have either been duped, or been fully complicit in perpetrating this deceit. It once again illustrates exactly what goes on in this council and how the normal and expected processes are abused, distorted, and manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes that do not in any shape or form benefit the vast majority of residents. In Glen Eira, residents are personae non gratis. Their views do not count, their objections do not count, and their aspirations do not count. All residents are good for is to continue forking out higher and higher rates to cover up poorly managed projects (ie GESAC) that do nothing except serve the gigantic egos and current power structures.

Come election time we urge all residents to take these issues into account when they cast their votes.

 

August 30, 2012

More Lawyers!

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

Rebel Penhalluriack’s hostel charge

SUNDAY trading rebel and Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has been charged by his own council for allegedly running an illegal backpacker hostel.

Cr Penhalluriack could be fined up to $42,000 if convicted.

He yesterday claimed the court action was part of a vendetta by Glen Eira to get him.

The council is also taking a separate action against Cr Penhalluriack in VCAT over alleged misconduct.

It has accused him of bullying the council’s chief executive and community services director, failing to declare a conflict of interest, misusing his position and failing to attend anti-bullying training.

The VCAT hearing was adjourned last week after senior VCAT member Robert Davis disqualified himself from hearing the case because of his association with one of the witnesses.

Cr Penhalluriack was initially fined $1221 by the council over the alleged illegal backpacker hostel. The fine was recently withdrawn and a summons to attend court was issued because the fine wasn’t paid in the specified period.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams yesterday said the council had given Cr Penhalluriack every opportunity to pay the fine.

“He will be treated exactly the same way as any other person … in the same situation,” Cr Hyams said.

“We take these matters very seriously and we have successfully prosecuted others for the same infringement.

“These places are potentially death traps.”

Cr Penhalluriack yesterday denied all of the allegations being made against him in VCAT and also denied he had been running an illegal backpacker hostel.

He recently demolished the building, which was between his hardware store and garden centre in Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield.

He is due to face Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court on the hostel charge on October 10.

Protests by Cr Penhalluriack against a ban on Sunday trading – which saw him jailed for 19 days in 1984 – helped influence changes to weekend trading in 1996.

 

August 29, 2012

News Flash: The Alma Club

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

A huge crowd witnessed the sale of The Alma Club for $7.94 million this afternoon. The buyer will have the opportunity to deduct $330,000 if he wishes to retain the telecommunications pole which is presently sitting on the property. The terms of sale were the handing over of $1 million upon purchase and the rest in June 2013.

Council has once again let the community down badly. Not only has it forsaken an absolute real estate bargain when the asking price was basically $3 million, but they have again shown what a sham the continual cry of lack of open space means to these decision makers – absolutely nothing! Residents need to be asking some very serious questions –

  • why were no real discussions entered into?
  • who made the decision to say ‘no’?
  • why wasn’t this conducted in an open council meeting?
  • is council that cash strapped because of its poor financial management? If so, then how much credence should residents place in the financial statements and budgets?
  • when will these councillors really start taking charge of this municipality and perform their mandated duties instead of leaving practically everything to unelected ‘fat cats’?
 

August 28, 2012

From The Horse’s Mouth

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[13] Comments 

Last post we identified what we consider to be some of the most important issues that have come up for decision in the past year or so, as well as the associated voting patterns. This post, we wish to remind readers of some of the statements that these councillors made in justifying their votes. Readers can judge the logic and the outcomes of such statements for themselves.

THE C60/Centre of the Racecourse

PILLING – ‘our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’

HYAMS – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done..…..compromise……”

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

LIPSHUTZ – Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’.

NOTICE OF MOTION

TANG: ‘I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.

LIPSHUTZ – ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’…. I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.

HYAMS – I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions…. ‘as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything…. (COMMENT – READERS SHOULD REMEMBER HERE HYAMS SUBMISSION ON A COUNCIL PLAN WHERE HE ARGUED STRENUOUSLY AGAINST BINDING NEW COUNCILS TO POLICIES ENACTED UNDER PREVIOUS COUNCILS!)

ESAKOFF ; if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….

 

August 27, 2012

Lest We Forget!

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

ISSUE

VOTING
    C60 Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling – FOR
    Centre of   Racecourse Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling – FOR
    500+   resident petition to advertise CEO position Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff – AGAINST accepting petition
    Budget   & 6.5% rate rise Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Tang, Lobo, Magee
   Reappointment   of Newton We guess –   Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang & Lobo voted for reappointment
   Extension   of GESAC carpark Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Magee
   Warriors   over McKinnon Basketball Lipshutz,   Hyams, Tang, Forge (won on Hyams’ casting vote)
   Notice of   Motion Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Tang – Against. Esakoff casting vote.
   10 storey   application in Glen Huntly Rd – cut down to 8 storeys by amendment Lipshutz,   Pilling, Hyams, Magee
 

August 24, 2012

Are We Living In The Dark Ages?

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

We thought it time to have a close look at how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours on up-to-date planning and forward thinking. True to form, most of the central planning policies in Glen Eira date back to the mid or late nineties. Even the promise to include all central policies on council’s website has never materialised. Basically the agenda is ‘business as usual’, with no real updated local analyses, no up-to-date long term articulated vision and certainly no ‘improvements’.

Below we feature the Incorporated/Reference Documents that are listed in the various council planning schemes. We’ve focused on open space, urban design/land use, and heritage. We ask that readers pay particular attention to:

  • The various dates, and
  • The Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009. This is supposedly the document upon which the Amendment removing the child care centres from the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’ was largely founded upon. Yet, it was never mentioned in the officer’s report and has certainly never been placed into the public domain! Another ‘mystery report’ that remains secret and unaccountable.

GLEN EIRA

Glen Eira Long Term Open Space Strategy, City of Glen Eira, 1998

Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan, 1996

Glen Eira Retail / Commercial Strategy, Essential Economics, 1998

Urban Village Structure Plan, Glen Eira City Council, June 1999

Economic Overview, Henshall Hansen & Associates, 1997

City of Glen Eira Business Development Strategy, 1998

Glen Eira 2020, 1996

Housing and Residential Development Strategy, Glen Eira City Council, 2002

Urban Character Study, Anne Cunningham & Anne Keddie, 1996

Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009.

KINGSTON

Retail and Commercial Development Strategy 2006

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage One Report”, Living Histories, 2000

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage Two”, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, 2004

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006 

STONNINGTON

Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007- 2031, City of Stonnington, December 2007.

City of Stonnington, Public Realm Strategy, October 2010

Commercial Strategy: Stonnington City Council, 1999

Forrest Hill Structure Plan; Stonnington City Council, 2005

Heritage Guidelines; Stonnington City Council, 2002

Heritage Overlay Citations; Stonnington City Council (various dates)

Late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: measuring the saturation levels Research Paper, April 2010

Prahran Conservation Study: Conservation Controls; Nigel Lewis, 1983

Prahran Data Base: Prahran Conservation Study Listing; Nigel Lewis, 1992

Prahran Character and Conservation Study; Prahran City Council, 1992

Review of Policies and Controls for the Yarra River Corridor – Punt Road to Burke Road; Consultant Report, June 2005

Stonnington Open Space Strategy; Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd, 2000

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History, 2006

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History: Update 1 Addendum, March 2009

City of Stonnington Heritage Overlay Gap Study, Heritage Overlay Precincts Final Report, March 2009

Urban Design Strategy; Stonnington City Council, 1998

Waverley Road Urban Design Framework Plan, 2008

PORT PHILLIP

Sustainable Design Policy (2006)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Implementation Plan (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Strategy (2006)

Port Phillip Industry and Business Strategy (2003)

Open Space Strategy (2006, Revised 2009)

Open Space Strategy Implementation Plan Framework (2009)

Foreshore Management Plan (2004)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Design Manual (2000)

South Melbourne Central Structure Plan (2007)

South Melbourne Central Urban Design Framework (2007)

Ormond Road Urban Design Guidelines (2007)

Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2010 (SJB Urban, 2010)

Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2009)

Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework (2009)

 

August 23, 2012

‘The Gang’ In Action!

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

The following comes from the in camera meeting minutes of 20th September 2011. We wish to draw readers’ attention to the following:

  • The mover of each motion
  • The seconder of each motion

We then ask readers to contemplate how it was possible for the Senior VCAT member not to declare himself ineligible much, much earlier, (in fact Day 1) given that Lipshutz’s name is undoubtedly scattered throughout countless documents involved in this VCAT hearing. And as some readers have already commented, since it was Council and not Newton, who laid the charges against Penhalluriack it beggars belief that the member would not know that his social acquaintance, Lipshutz, also just happened to be a councillor in the very municipality which laid the charges!

C. Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

In accordance with the O’Neill Recommendation (a) to further protect the Health and Safety of staff in City Management, Cr. Penhalluriack’s access to this work area be suspended and the Director of Community services be authorised to send the attachment letter to Cr Penhalluriack (Attachment B)

DIVISION

Cr Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                                        AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                                             Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Hyams                                             Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                                           Cr Magee

Cr Tang                                                  Cr Pilling

Cr Lobo

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST

[PS: Lobo should be recorded as voting against in the above. For some reason WordPress will not allow this alignment]

D. Crs Lipshutz/Tang

That Cr Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards the CEO (in accordance with the allegations made) and Officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality, his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2 and 5.11 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and his failure to declare a conflict of interest when such a conflict existed.

A Divison on the voting of the Motion was called.

FOR                                                                 AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                                                       Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lobo                                                           Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                                                    Cr Magee

Cr Tang

Cr Hyams

Cr Pilling

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED

E. Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

“That Council now consider the creation of a Special Committee to deal with all matters involving the Chief Executive Officer’s Contract of Employment including but not limited to his performance review and exercise of Council’s option to renew his Contract of Employment……”

This motion then went on to list the membership (excluding Penhalluriack) and schedule. It lasted a bare 3 weeks until rescinded and replaced by a new Special Committee which now included OH & S within its terms of reference. The order of motions as presented above is exactly what is in the minutes. We believe this tells a tale in itself! Then there’s that old thorny question of record keeping itself and overall consistency. On one division Esakoff is named. On the very next division call, no-one is named. Such is the nature of record-keeping and minutes in this Council it would seem!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »