Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 15, 2012

The Witch Hunt: Day #3

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

Glen Eira councillor’s VCAT case aborted

15 Aug 12 @  05:07pm by Andrea Kellett

Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

 THE MISCONDUCT hearing against Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has been abruptly halted. 

Cr Penhalluriack was at the tribunal answering a series of misconduct allegations. VCAT senior member Robert Davis disqualified himself at 4pm today after it was revealed he was friends with another Glen Eira councillor, Cr Michael Lipshutz.

“I’ve known him for years,” Mr Davis said. “I have a social acquaintance with him.”
The hearing heard Cr Lipshutz was not expected to be a witness in the case, but that changed when Cr Penhalluriack amended his witness statement last night.Glen Eira Council’s legal team spoke with Cr Lipshutz during today’s lunch break, when his connection to the senior tribunal member was raised.

Cr Penhalluriack said he was very disappointed. “It’s cost the council a lot of money and it’s cost me a lot of stress and time,” he said. 

Mr Davis has adjourned the matter to a directions hearing on September 6.

 

August 15, 2012

Back To The Circus!

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

This is an exceedingly long post but, we believe that residents should have some knowledge of what goes on in Council chambers. Tonight had all the hallmarks of a classic farce – ludicrous, stage-managed, confusing, and full of sound and fury but achieving bugger all! The most important items on the agenda (the two development applications) were brushed off in the space of 20 minutes, yet item 9.5 (Agreement between Ajax & Caulfield Bears footy clubs) went on and on and on interminably. It’s really good to know that these councillors have really worked out their priorities. When developments which impact so severely on people’s lives can only receive the minimum of attention and a garbled talkfest so dominates, then residents are in real trouble.

It should also be noted that Magee in his request for a report to move the skate park at Bailey Reserve (right next door to GESAC) to another part of the park, also suggested that this area be turned into additional car parking space. We suggest that perhaps Council can forget the whole idea of Bailey Reserve being a mini-park and turn the whole area into a car park. That should service GESAC sufficiently!

Item 9.5

Readers will remember that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum by council and involved Ajax’s alleged financial offer to the Bears to vacate Princes Park so that Ajaz Seniors would receive the ground allocation.

Moved Magee, seconded Pilling

That the clubs give council a copy of the agreement and that when council receives it it will be treated as confidential

MAGEE: Started off by saying that this is really ‘to get all the facts straight’ and to ‘move on’. Said that he had some doubts ‘in my mind’ as to what the agreement ‘had in it’. He wanted to ‘move on’ as well so the clubs should provide this agreement ‘in its actual true form’….’so we can digest it’….’and make decisions’ once we have ‘all the knowledge of what happened in the past’. Saw this as an ‘opportunity to clear the air’ and to answer the questions of whether this is ‘all above board’. This is then the chance for everyone to ‘say of course it is’.

PILLING: Said that this is the opportunity to ‘put in place a transparent process’. Said that the confidentiality clause should allay the clubs concerns about the agreement being made public so that it will be ‘seen within Council’. Reiterated that council has to be ‘transparent’…’it does things the proper way’. This will lead back to a ‘good working relationship’ with the clubs.

LIPSHUTZ: Saw no need for council to have the document ‘whatsoever’. Said that the clubs are ‘moving on’; that they are ‘tenants’ and that ‘whatever tenants do between themselves is none of our business’ if there’s no impact on Council. Since the clubs can’t sell anything like allocations because it’s council that decides this, therefore they don’t have an impact on Council. Said that rumours had got out about one club ‘refurbishing’ the pavilion and said that this can’t be done ‘because council does that’. He didn’t see ‘where this is going to go’. If they had acted improperly then he saw this as ‘an issue for their own league’…..’if council policy’ then have to find this out. Clubs have now cancelled the agreement and therefore ‘we have nowhere to go’….this…’leads nowhere’. Said that if the motion is passed then this could apply to every club every agreement and that’s ‘ridiculous’. Said that the ‘good working relationship’ could be ‘damaged by this motion’. Said that if the motion gets up that it should be confidential under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act. If the motion is lost then he’s got an alternate motion.

 

PENHALLURIACK:  Said that the clubs have confirmed in writing that the ‘agreement has been cancelled, null and void, no longer exists’ ….’so what are we seeking?……’personal vendetta against the Caulfield Bears or against the Ajax Football Club’. Said that the paper ‘won’t tell us anything except a little bit of history’. Stated that there had been a meeting at council last night and the paper was read by three councillors and 2 other councillors refused to read it. Couldn’t understand this and said that ‘we’re simply muckraking’….’why council should dredge through history like this….’there is no advantage to anybody’. No one will benefit from seeing the paper but maybe the ‘ego of somebody will be boosted’. The paper is ‘null and void’ and hasn’t got anything at all to do ‘with council’. Went on to say that ‘confidentiality means nothing’. It can be overcome via an FOI application and leaks. Said that if the motion is lost he will move a motion that ‘council takes no further action’

 

FORGE: Said that she attended last night’s meeting and read the agreement and that ‘there was absolutely nothing wrong with it’. Agreed with Penhalluriack and that there’s ‘no suspicion’ about the parties involved.

TANG: Said that he had letters from the clubs that were given to councillors at last night’s meeting and wanted to quote from them. Asked Hyams whether the letters were intended to be given to all councillors. Hyams answered ‘yes’. Read out bits from the letters. First was from Ajax which said that the agreement was from the 27th January about ground allocations and that ‘at all times’ this was subject to council’s approval. Admitted that the club acknowledge that ‘at this point in time’ that council wouldn’t agree to their allocation to Princes Park as a result of the agreement. The Bears were ‘also suffering’ in their relationship with council. The letter then went on to state that the clubs were ‘terminating the agreement’. The second letter said that they were willing to ‘provide a copy of that agreement’ as long as it remained confidential. The letter went on to say that all ‘allocations are subject to Council’s approval’. The letter also stated that Koornang park required some work and that Ajaz was ‘prepared to assist’ but only if council approved. Finally the letter affirmed that ‘no payments had been made’. (time extension) Tang said that the dates were important because it was the 4th November that the Bears let council know that the facilities needed upgrading and that Ajax was willing to pay. Tang said that this is a ‘significant point’ that hadn’t been considered previously by councillors and he didn’t know why they hadn’t received this information.  As a result he thought that it was important that the agreement now be ‘seen in a different light’ and that council should ‘discourage clubs from entering’ into such agreements. Admitted that clubs have their own ‘motivations’ in getting the best grounds, or even allocations, and they’re doing thej right thing if they ‘bring it to council’s attention’. It is now ‘moving from a sinister event to an unfortunate agreement’. So council needs to ‘fully understand’ and therefore they need to see the agreement and supports Magee’s motion. Accepted the need for confidentiality and suggested that Magee amend his motion so that it conforms with the specific clauses of the Local Government Act on this area.

LOBO: said that they already had a resolution at last council meeting to see the agreement. Said he was ‘surprised why that agreement was not shown to all councillors’ so they could ‘study’ it and then ‘ask our officers for a report’.

HYAMS: Hyams admitted that he ‘chose not to read the document’. Said this was because of the previous motion asking clubs for the agreement and that he and Pilling were uncomfortable since the agreement ‘hadn’t been given (to them) in accordance with the resolution’. Since he was ‘representing council’ it was important that he only accepts it ‘under the terms that council had asked for it’. Agreed with Tang that ‘it’s not sinister….but something we would seek to discourage’. Understood why clubs wanted confidentiality especially since there was no ‘context’ and ‘might be used against them’ since there had already been ‘negative posts’ on a sporting blog and he also ‘understood why it may not have been appropriate to offer money to upgrade council facilities’ even though it goes on in other municipalities. Said that even in Glen Eira one cycling club had put money in to ‘upgrade’ the veladrome but ‘we at the moment prefer that we don’t do anything’ because it might create the impression that they could have greater tenure if they put money in. admitted that ‘we roll over the allocations regularly but we don’t want clubs to take that for granted’. Supported the motion and that it be kept confidential but that the motion ‘needs a bit of work before I can support it’.

BURKE READ OUT THE MOTION

Hyams asked for extension of time. Said that the question now was whether the letter read by Tang ‘should be incorporated’ into the minutes. Asked Magee if he would accept this amendment that the clubs hand over the agreement ‘for council to retain’ and it would be confidential under section 89 (2)(h) and that the letters be incorporated into the minutes.

MAGEE said that he wanted the word Senior put in. Said he was happy.

FORGE: started by saying that at yesterday’s meeting

HYAMS interrupted saying she’d already spoken to the motion. Forge then said that she’s got a question.

FORGE asked whether the copy of the agreement would be ‘retained’ by council ‘or given back’ to the clubs? Said that they were ‘quite adamant that they wanted that document back’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he wanted to move an amendment. Tang said that there wasn’t an amendment on the floor. Hyams said he asked Magee a question and Magee agreed to the amendment. Lipshutz said that his amendment would be that instead of the word ‘retain’ the word ‘sight’ be used.

Magee ‘couldn’t accept that’. Penhalluriack seconded Lipshutz’s amendment.

LIIPSHUTZ: Said the clubs were worried that the agreement would ‘go out in the public domain’ through FOI or leaked. Went on to say that if council is worried then the first thing that has to happen is that council ‘look at the agreement’ and see if it is ‘sinister, or unfortunate, or something else’. If it’s ‘sighted by council’ and they decide that nothing’s to be done then ‘that’s the end of it’. If council decides that the ‘agreement is inappropriate’ and sanctions should be applied council can do that. Was worried for the welfare of the 2 clubs ‘and their reputations’.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he doesn’t like the whole thing and that as a council they are trying ‘to destroy the 2 presidents’ and the clubs. ‘there is no need for us to see it’…it’s not an agreement anymore, it’s been cancelled….it doesn’t exist’. ‘People who are supporting this motion haven’t even seen it’. It’s going to be in the minutes and lengthy and ‘other muck-raking as well which is just not necessary’…’a storm in a teacup’. Didn’t know why council is debating this ‘when we’ve got a budget of over $100 million’….’we’re running a big business’ and spent so much time on this over sporting clubs who either don’t want to give us the agreement or are ‘embarrassed’ by the agreement and who ‘don’t trust us to keep it confidential’…I don’t blame them’ because the council ‘does tend sometime to leak’. Reiterated the argument about FOI. Said it’s like a business transaction and therefore council shouldn’t be asking for it. ‘What temerity we have’ to go to clubs and ask for a ‘private agreement’…’I am disgusted’. Went on to say that ‘no-one has given me a good reason to see this document’.

PILLING: ‘this is about transparency…..proper process’…’we’re a thorough transparent council’ and this shouldn’t ‘be tolerated’. ‘This is about proper process, proper transparency’.

HYAMS: said that he didn’t suggest the letters go in the minutes ‘to damage the clubs in anyway’ and that the letters ‘set the record straight’ that there is no agreement now.

PENHALLURIACK interrupted and said that he had said that the letters would only add to the turmoil. Didn’t think there was ‘anything wrong with the letters themselves’

HYAMS: thanked him and said that ‘normally you wait for someone to finish talking before you interrupt them’. Asked Lipshutz that if council ‘sights’ the document whether this refers to councillors and officers or just councillors.

LIPSHUTZ: answered councillors and officers

HYAMS: asked Newton that if council receives the agreement whether under the Public Records Act, council ‘is obliged to retain the document’?

NEWTON: Basically stated that the resolution from last council meeting was not a resolution of officers but of council. There is a resolution and if council wants to ‘retain this document’ then a resolution is required.

Hyams then began to study the Local Law to see if Lipshutz can sum up on an amendment.

MAGEE then asked for the amendment to be read out again.

THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST

Hyams then went back to study the Local Law to see if a division could be called on an amendment after Lipshutz asked for one. The answer was ‘no’.

The original motion was back on the agenda.

MAGEE: Said he doesn’t know a thing about the Caulfield Bears and had received emails from one club and talked to presidents. He wasn’t interested in muckraking and that wasn’t his intention. His intention  was to ‘look at this as an auditor’ and how could council ‘make decisions on a letter they hadn’t sighted’. Can’t ignore the fact that clubs are aware that ‘one club offered another club $170,000 to vacate’ a ground ‘we owe it to both Ajax and the Caulfield Bears to set this record straight’ but ‘by keeping all this quiet’….’the document will be retained by council’ as a council document. Said he’d never leak the document and that he wants to see it and ‘would like an officers’ report’. Neither club has acted ‘inappropriately’. They acted ‘silly’. ‘Grants in Glen Eira are not up for sale’. ‘we don’t know what that $170,000 was for; we haven’t seen the agreement’. It mightn’t say this and be merely a cash offer. Said that ‘thousands and thousands’ of clubs and kids don’t have allocations and that ‘allocations need to go to clubs that are already there’. (time extension). ‘Not about being vincictive…..it’s about transparency’. Ajax has got their community day and another team were ‘denied because they went through the right process….they asked….wasn’t an allocation available’. Yet this team accepted the decision. ‘If we see the document then I…would be able to make a decision’.

LIPSHUTZ: had a question for Magee. Not allowed.

MOTION PUT.

FOR – MAGEE, PILLING, TANG, HYAMS, LOBO

AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, FORGE, PENHALLURIACK

THIS ITEM LASTED ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF AN HOUR!

 

 

August 13, 2012

The Witch Hunt: Day #1

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

The legal eagles were out in force for the start of the Glen Eira vs Penhalluriack VCAT case. Council had 3 representatives and so did Penhalluriack. Also present were at least 4 other council officers plus the media. The case is set down for 7 days. How much will this cost we ask?

The opening hours were spent on legal arguments. What was astonishing was the ‘surprises’ that Council seemed to spring on the defendant at the 11th hour – the upgrading of several charges to ‘gross misconduct’ and the sudden appearance of audio tapes of council meetings. They attempted to make much of the fact that they had only received the defendant’s response to some of the charges on Friday and hence were not fully prepared to respond. Penhalluriack’s lawyers responded that Council lawyers were a week late in submitting their case and hence they had little notice of the changes and had not even had the opportunity to listen to the tapes. More ‘dirty tricks’ we ask?

Council’s lawyers sought permission to amend the charges which was opposed by Penhalluriack’s counsel. The arguments focused on the legal question of whether council’s request to amend the 4th allegation (misuse of position by Penhalluriack) should be allowed. It seems that the alleged ‘gross misconduct’ goes back years to the laneway dispute. Council however, after months and months of preparation and countless lawyers still couldn’t figure out that the Councillor Code of Conduct under which they allege misconduct is the November 2009 Code. The misconduct however happened in July and August of that year and hence is subject to the 2006 Councillor Code of Conduct and not the 2009 version which effectively rescinded the 2006 version. Looks like someone didn’t do their homework properly on this one and couldn’t even figure out that there are two separate and distinct codes – although Council’s lawyers did try to argue that the intent of the codes are identical. The members and both sides agreed to leave a decision on this until later given that the members hadn’t even had time to read the submissions from both sides and that important points of law were at stake and they didn’t want to make a ‘mistake’.

After all the hullabaloo of the O’Neill report and allegations of ‘bullying’, this has now disappeared into the dustbin of history. This alone supposedly cost just over $10,000! Instead, Penhalluriack is charged with ‘humiliating’ the CEO by stating in a private letter to Esakoff that he believes there was ‘behind our backs wheeling and dealing’ between Newton and the MRC and that he wrote that Peter Jones sat like a ‘dumb mute’ in a meeting and refused to respond to his questions. This allegedly breaches the Code of Conduct.

The second charge related to a ‘conflict of interest’ over the mulch facility and that Penhalluriack did not declare such an interest when he should have and it was all about personal financial gain. Again, this is in breach of the Local Government Act and the code of conduct.

This took just on 3 hours. After the luncheon break, Council outlined its case alleging that Penhalluriack had made statements to Mr Taylor (Planning compliance officer) that Penhalluriack had told him that his councillor ‘mates’ would back him. Council also wished to present audio tapes of meetings to counter Penhalluriack’s claims that he had been excluded from meetings and/or discussions.

Penhalluriack’s counsel was not backward in coming forward. He called the entire case ‘vindictive’, ‘trivial’, and that Newton has a history of attacking councillors who are doing their duty honestly in the best interests of the community. The most telling argument was that the Council witness (Mr Taylor) in his first email back to his superiors, did not make any mention whatsoever of the alleged statements by Penhalluriack. Yet, after meeting with John Bordignon who is in charge of Civic Compliance, there suddenly emerged another email 5 hours later which included these comments! The point was well made we feel. So we’re supposed to believe that if Penhalluriack made such seriously self-incriminating statements that it took 2 totally different emails and a meeting with Bordignon for these ‘facts’ to finally surface! Penhalluriack also claims that he has a witness to this alleged conversation between Taylor and himself and totally denies the statements in the Taylor witness affadavit.

Penhalluriack’s counsel also cited the Noel Arnold report which confirmed that there was a risk of ‘bacteria’ (including Legionella) and hence did represent a health risk. He emphasised that council had now implemented the recommendations contained in the report. Logically, if there was absolutely no danger, then there would not need to be any recommendations and any action taken. Penhalluriack was acting in the health interests of the community he stated and this is borne out by subsequent council actions in implementing the recommendations.

Council intends to call 8 witnesses – Newton, Burke, Jones among the top liners. No councillor will be called by council. Forge will testify on behalf of Penhalluriack.

 

PS – THE CAULFIELD LEADER

Glen Eira councillor defends misconduct allegations at VCAT

13 Aug 12 @  06:14pm by Andrea Kellett

GLEN Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has told VCAT he is the victim of a vendetta “manufactured” by the council’s chief executive, Andrew Newton.

Cr Penhalluriack is at the tribunal answering a series of allegations, including misconduct and harassing and humiliating Mr Newton.

Glen Eira Council told the tribunal Cr Penhalluriack had breached the council’s code of conduct multiple times since he was elected in 2008.

In April, Victorian Ombudsman George Brouwer recommended the council take Cr Penhalluriack to a councillor conduct panel as a result of five breaches of the Local Government Act.

Mr Brouwer investigated the claims of harassment against Mr Newton, which related to Cr Penhalluriack campaigning to close a free council-operated mulch service while his Caulfield hardware store sold mulch in bags.

Cr Penhalluriack rejected an in-house conduct panel hearing, preferring to have the allegations heard and defended at the public tribunal.

In his opening statement to VCAT today, Charles Gunst, QC, for Cr Penhalluriack, said Glen Eira Council staff treated his client with disdain.

“They ignore his questions, roll their eyes when he speaks at meetings and are resistant in providing him with information,” he said.

However, the council told the tribunal Cr Penhalluriack had had made “offensive” and “derogatory” comments about senior staff in writing, had misused his position and failed to declare a conflict of interest relating to his building supplies business.

Richard Attiwill, for the council, said he would produce confidential tape recordings and witnesses including the chief executive and senior staff to prove his case.

On the closure of the council mulch service, which recently reopened, Mr Gunst said Cr Penhalluriack was motivated by a “real concern” about public health and had no increase in business after the closure.

Mr Attiwill said council had “no doubt that there were conflicts” between Cr Penhalluriack’s mulch selling and his public duties.”

The hearing continues.

 

August 11, 2012

Our Rates At Work – All ~$400,000!!

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

The following is set down for Monday 13th August at VCAT

Room 1.4 – Senior Member R. Davis, Member E. Bensz

10:00 AM B54/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack

10:00 AM B114/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack

 

August 11, 2012

Working For & With The Community?

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

590 Orrong Road Update

STONNINGTON TO CHALLENGE VCAT DECISION AT SUPREME COURT

Stonnington Council will appeal the recent VCAT decision on 590 Orrong Road, at the Supreme Court, based on an ‘error of law’.

The Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) had ruled in favour of Lend Lease, in July, granting a permit for a major, controversial development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale, which drew significant community objection.

Stonnington Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council’s focus on appealing the VCAT decision is based on legal advice that there is an ‘error of law’ to be pursued, which presents the potential for a different decision to have been reached.

“The legal opinion considers that an error of law could be established, principally based on the tribunal’s express statement that “the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration.”

Cr Chandler said: “It is considered that VCAT failed to give due regard to significant community input and has made a decision that is not supported by the local community or Council. In Council’s view, the decision reflects a lack of consideration of neighbourhood character or respect for local community concerns around appropriate development.

“Council remains committed to seeking an appropriate planning outcome for the site.”

Documentation was lodged on Monday 6 August for Stonnington Council to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Source: Stonnington Council Media Release. There’s also an article in today’s Age by Jason Dowling. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/supreme-court-challenge-to-armadale-complex-20120810-24017.html

 

August 10, 2012

Feel Good Time

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

The agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting is out. It’s definitely election, feel good time. This is probably the most innocuous and least informative proposed council meeting of all time. The agenda is chock-a-block full of ‘social issues’ that, predictably, lead nowhere. For example: CCTV placement in Centre Road – this has been discussed, debated for over a year now but the buck passing continues whilst the cameras are probably lying there and rotting. Next there are 2 items on graffiti; homelessness and so on. All are responses to councillors last ditch attempts to parade a social conscience we suspect. Pity that the requests for reports cannot be for something that residents have continually highlighted as ‘major’ – such as planning, traffic, consultation.

What’s far more eye-catching is what is NOT listed for decision or simple information provision that is in keeping with the requirements of transparency and accountability. There’s not one single word about:

  • Caulfield Racecourse Centre
  • Liquidated damages and GESAC
  • No records of assembly (July 3rd was the last record published which means that a meeting probably took place on July 10 – over a month now for this to appear)
 

August 7, 2012

Compare & Contrast: VicSmart

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

No surprises that other councils such as Yarra and Kingston are on the front foot when it comes to speaking their mind, and encouraging residents to participate in feedback to Matthew Guy’s recently announced shakeup of the planning system. Glen Eira on the other hand is once again SILENT. Nothing on the website, nothing in chamber except for a few mumbled sentences, but certainly no indication that Council is inviting public comments and urging residents to have a say. We remind readers that not for the first time has this council put in submissions that were drafted behind closed doors (in secret) and submitted without a formal council resolution – ie VEAC submission, Parking Review & Speed Limit Review. We anticipate that exactly the same thing will happen here – that is, if council even bothers to put in a submission. Our major concern of course is governance and how submissions made in council’s name, and of such importance, do not warrant an agenda item and thus formal and legal endorsement via council resolution. It’s staggering that other councils continually publish their draft submissions. In Glen Eira, everything is secret and a travesty of good governance.

Below we present Yarra Council’s Media Release, then Kingston’s appeal from the Moorabbin Leader.

CITY OF YARRA

Concerns about State Government’s zoning proposals

24 July 2012

In mid-July 2012, the Minister for Planning announced that some changes were to be made to Victoria’s planning zones.

The Government is seeking feedback on the proposed changes by 21 September.

Council encourages community members to look into what is proposed as the changes are likely to have a significant impact in Yarra.

Council staff have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the changes and understand that the changes could result in the following:

  • In business and some      industrial zoned areas, a supermarket of up to 2000 square metres with an  additional 500 square metres of shops could proceed without the need for a  planning permit
  • In some of the residential zones, small shops, offices and cafes could proceed without the need for a  planning permit if they are within 100 metres of a business/commercial zone and if they share the same street frontage.
  • Medical centres of up to 250 square metres could proceed without the need for a planning permit in all of the proposed residential zones.

The changes could therefore mean that some developments and changes in land uses could go ahead without public input and Council assessment under the proposed zone provisions. Significant changes could occur in local neighbourhoods without an opportunity for community members to lodge formal objections and without an opportunity for Council to weigh up the issues and decide whether or not to issue a permit.

For more information on the proposed zoning reforms and how you can have a say, visit the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

You may also be interested in the State Government’s intention to prepare a new metropolitan planning strategy. More information on that project is also available on the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

Kingston Council wants comments on planning proposal

 

KINGSTON Council is urging residents to have their say on the biggest change to planning rules in decades.

The State Government’s proposed new planning zones will have the potential to make a big impact on many Kingston neighbourhoods, as well as green wedge areas.

The neighbourhood residential zone will be the toughest of the new zones.

It will allow councils to restrict the number, height and block size of new homes.

The reforms will also make agricultural operations in green wedge areas easier by getting rid of the need for planning permits.

Public feedback on the proposed changes is open until September 21.

Kingston Mayor John Ronke said the council hoped to include residents’ views in its submission.

Residents must contact the council by August 6.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the neighbourhood residential zone gave planning power back to councils.

But Opposition spokesman Brian Tee said the new rules would protect only Melbourne’s wealthier suburbs from developers.

Jessica Wray

 

July 31, 2012

Pilling & Foot In Mouth Disease!

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

Application lodged for Carnegie Recycling Plant

Residents are facing the prospect of a recycling plant in the unlikely location of Glen Huntly Rd, Carnegie.

An application to build the plant to recycle plastic, foam, timer, metal and bricks at 1254-1258 Glen Huntly Rd is open for objections until August 3. The site also subject to a rezoning application, is 650m from Glen Huntly Primary School.

Trucks would bring materials to the site throught the day. Dust, noise and traffic congestion were worries raised by nearby homeowners. Sam Zervides, who lives nearby with his wife, Helen, said the plant would wreak havoc on the “prime residential area”.

Dust, noise and traffic jams were worries raised by Adrienne Tomzai and other homeowners. “we are completely shocked – this is not an industrial area,” Mrs Tomzai said.

Mrs Zervides said she had not received any written notification of the application, despite living so close. Deputy Mayor Neil Pilling said the council had followed protocol. He said worried residents should lodge objections.

The Leader was unable to contact the plant’s applicant.

 

July 30, 2012

Your Rates At Work!

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

In the interests of presenting the truth, we will conclude with the following slideshow. Please note:

  • the weeds
  • the mould/fungii
  • and the water logged and dead trees. We have plenty of photos of more dead trees. We estimate that each tree would have cost at least $50 given their size. More money literally down the drain!
  • We have to ask: do these people really know what they are doing?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

July 27, 2012

Public Questions & Right Of Reply

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

“The minutes of the 20th March record that at that time, Council had spent $65,000 on legal advice relating to Cr Penhalluriack. What is the total amount invoiced up until the 22th July 2012? Further, will council’s legal fees be paid by ratepayers or by Council’s insurance company?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “On 20 March 2012 in response to a question from a Councillor, I provided the following information:

“Approximately $65,000 has been paid to date in relation to the matters you have raised in your Councillor Question. It is not possible to gain a cost estimate at this stage because that will depend on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct.

In this regard, it is relevant to point out that all expenditure here is due to Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour. This behaviour led councillors, including you, to unanimously resolve to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel. 

It included behaviour towards officers, which was found to be inappropriate by an independent investigation by a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety.  

Cr Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this matter from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT will also significantly increase the cost.”

Eight days later, the Ombudsman tabled his Report in the Victorian Parliament: “Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council”. The Ombudsman recommended that Council amend its application to the Councillor Conduct Panel or make a further application to the Panel to make a finding of misconduct against Cr Penhalluriack.

At a Special Council Meeting on 3 April 2012, Council resolved to make an application to the Councillor Conduct Panel based on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. The resolution was unanimous. Cr Penhalluriack elected to have all applications referred to VCAT rather than be dealt with by the Panel.

The matters are scheduled to be heard by VCAT starting on 13 August 2012.

You have asked for the total amount invoiced to Council up to 22 July 2012 on legal advice relating to Cr Penhalluriack. That amount is approximately $147,000 (inclusive of GST). 

Council’s Annual Report will disclose the amount incurred by Council during the 2011-12 year which was approximately $124,000 (exclusive of GST).

It is expected that Council’s costs will be paid by Council. It is expected that, under current legislation, Cr Penhalluriack’s costs will also be paid by Council.

A significant part of the cost relates to Cr Penhalluriack’s decision to escalate the matter from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.

On 20 June 2012 the Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill into Parliament to amend the Local Government Act. The Minister said:

“The Bill will reduce the incidence of Councils having to pay the legal costs of councillors in VCAT misconduct hearings. A council will not be liable for costs when an individual councillor has applied for the matter to go to VCAT instead of a councillor conduct panel. 

Councillor Conduct Panels are the appropriate forum to deal with most councillor misconduct matters, as they specialise in councillor conduct matters and involve less cost to ratepayers.”

Council supports the Minister’s decision. It is important for all ratepayers to realise that a large part of the costs of this matter are caused by the decision by Cr Penhalluriack alone to escalate the proceedings from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.” 

RIGHT OF REPLY: 

Statement under Section 232(2)(f) of the Local Law.

Cr Penhalluriack stated:

“I refer to the Mayor’s reply to a public question from (xxxxxxxx) in relation to a dispute in which the council has brought allegations against me. In fact it is not the Mayor’s reply; it is on behalf of all nine councillors. Similar misleading statements were made to council, and recorded in the minutes, on the 20th March this year. 

It is incorrect to say that council’s expenditure is due to my behaviour. There are now only four allegations against me — it is VCAT, and not the Mayor, who will determine whether I have engaged in any misconduct. Some thirty allegations were made against me at three separate Councillor Conduct Panels. At the first hearing I was given leave to be represented by solicitors, in which case the fees would be paid by council — or more precisely by council’s insurers. At that hearing I asked for the matter to be mediated. The Mayor, Cr Esakoff, refused that invitation so the matter proceeded. I then asked for the matter to be referred to the VCAT, which is my right at any time before a decision is handed down by the Panel. The chairman thanked me personally for not extending the hearing and wasting the Panel’s time. 

Subsequently council raised two further lists of allegations and brought two further applications to two fresh Councillor Conduct Panels. I referred each to the VCAT not, as the Mayor alleges, to add to the costs but in order to save both cost and time. The Mayor’s comments are both mischievous and misleading. 

None of these three applications has originated from me. At all times council has been the Applicant and I have been the Respondent. Prior to the matter going to VCAT I had always offered to mediate any alleged misbehaviour and it has been the councillors, the CEO and the senior officers who have always refused to discuss a settlement. 

The Mayor says that “a large part of the costs of this matter are caused by the decision by Cr Penhalluriack alone to escalate the proceedings from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.” That is incorrect. The cost of a hearing at VCAT is significantly less than that of a Councillor Conduct Panel since the judiciary is financed by the State, whereas council is obliged to pay for the two-person Councillor Conduct Panel, and the Registrar. 

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the ratepayers will have to pay the cost of council’s external legal advisors, together with the cost of the salaried staff members. I understand council has recently employed another senior lawyer. I have no such internal support base, but instead have find the time and the necessary resources to counter the large number of false and misleading allegations brought against me by council.

PS#2 – Apologies, we inadvertently left the following sections out!

I expect council’s insurers will pay my legal costs, so they will not, as wrongly indicated by the Mayor, be a burden on ratepayers.

Finally it is relevant that council has conceded that most of its allegations were unwinnable, and has withdrawn all but four, including allegations referred to by the Ombudsman. These will be heard in open court at the VCAT on Monday 13 tAugust 2012.”

PS: It’s also worthy of noting that once more the minutes fail to provide an accurate picture of what occurred. Penhalluriack stated unequivocably on 2 occasions that he ‘disassociated’ himself from Council’s responses. He also requested that this ‘dissent’ be included in the minutes. They are not! Hence, we have a situation where a councillor’s request, so that minutes provide an accurate and truthful accounting of events, is ignored. The acid test of course will come at next council meeting and residents can judge councillors on whether or not they vote to accept these minutes as ‘accurate’ or not. We also note that in the past on the rare occasion that Pilling has voiced some objection to a public question response, plus one from Penhalluriack himself, these objections were included in the minutes. Consistency would not appear to be the forte of this administration – especially in the current circumstances!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »