Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 4, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #2

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

Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.

TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.

Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t  take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.

MAGEE:  Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it?  And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…

LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.

ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?

BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’

HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers

TANG:  Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.

COMMENTS

We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!

Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.

This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?

PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.

 

July 3, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution?

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

Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!

The issues we are referring to are:

  1. The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
  2. The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
  3. The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.

It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.

Amendment C102

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

June 28, 2012

Hyams: The Curse Of ‘Uniformity’

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

Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.

Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.

The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison.  More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!

Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.

 

June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

  • Lipshutz and Forge were absent
  • The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
  • Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
  • Lobo did not utter a word
  • Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
  • Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the  lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’.  ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being  paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

 

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

 

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[25] Comments 

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

  • These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
  • There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’  “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah!  Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors.  All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

 

June 19, 2012

Racecourse Machinations: A Little History

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

The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.

We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:

  • On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
  • Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.

What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!

It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.  What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.

WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.

POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.

In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.

It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).

COMMENT

There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!

 

June 18, 2012

Budget: Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[8] Comments 

Buried on page 23 of last week’s Glen Eira Leader is the mandatory public notification of the Special Council Meeting to consider the budget and Council Plan. With typical efficiency, no such announcement features on Council’s website!

We again highlight the following low lights of this budget:

  • Another 6.5% increase in rates plus exorbitant increases to rubbish collections and child care fees
  • More and more staff so that well over 60% of rate revenue goes to paying staff
  • More and more ‘contractors’ so that the staffing bill is astronomical – over $81,000,000 in the coming year
  • The continuing decline in council subsidies for Pensioner Rebates and real expenditure on drains, traffic management and footpaths/roads
  • Millions upon millions spent on pavilions (Duncan McKinnon), regrassing ovals, concrete plinthing, and toilets barely 10 years old. We simply ask whether ‘refurbishing’ or ‘redevelopment’ could not replace the total demolition of some of these pavilions?

At last council meeting Tang spoke of the necessity of ‘prioritising’ and looking at council’s ‘ideology’. We note that Tang has been in council since 2006 as has Lipshutz. Hyams was first elected in 2003, and again in 2008. Esakoff has been a constant since 2003. All the rest have had basically 4 years to figure out and change ‘ideology’ and to do some real ‘prioritising’. Fiddling with the budget as happened last year is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It just meant a slight hiccup and delay in the grand plan. The old goals, objectives, and agendas are still in place. The ‘ideology’ that these goals represent (ie more development, more taj mahals, more secrecy, and more extravagances) are the antithesis of the views expressed by residents. These councillors either will not, or cannot change the ‘ideology’. Only the October elections can achieve this.

PS: As an afterthought, the most pertinent question to consider would be: what have these councillors actually achieved in nearly 4 years? Our ‘answer’ has to be ‘not much’. For example:

  • GESAC running over time and losing money hand over fist
  • The failure to carefully supervise Paul Burke in his allocation of the basketball courts to the warriors and then backing him to the hilt and Lipshutz’s claim that councillors should not be ‘hand on’!
  • Booran Rd Reservoir – empty and not resourced for another 4 years at least despite Glen Eira having the lowest open space ratio per capita in the state
  • Centre of the Racecourse – a cave-in and not a word about anything for nearly a year
  • C60 – a total cave in to the MRC by the gang of four
  • Carbon reduction figures – still non-existent after years and years of talking about it
  • Community consultation still only given lip service to
  • Transparency and accountability – non existent
  • Secrecy on the rise with councillors continually gagged
  • A planning scheme that hands carte blanche to developers
  • The reappointment of Newton
  • Categorised as a ‘ high risk’ council for the first time
  • Hocked to the gills for the first time
  • Advisory committees that remain ‘closed shops’ – no published agendas; paltry minutes and bar one committee – no community reps.
  • No Notice of Motion; no recission provision; agenda set completely by CEO
  • Continual doctoring of minutes
  • Expenditure on pavilions that remain commercial failures
  • Failure to adequately address traffic and parking
  • Failure to address flooding potential
  • Scandal after scandal – Municipal inspectors, heritage farce, ombudsman inquiries, lawyers on easy street, etc.
 

June 15, 2012

News Flash: ‘All Charges Dismissed’

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

From Diamond Valley Leader

Magistrate dismisses Nillumbik councillor’s case

  • 15 Jun 12 @ 03:37pm by Raelene Wilson

CONFLICT of interest charges against a Nillumbik councillor were dismissed by a Heidelberg magistrate this afternoon.

Magistrate Michael Smith dismissed two charges against Cr Belinda Clarkson involving allegations she failed to declare a conflict of interest during confidential items discussed at a 2010 council meeting.

The Local Government and Compliance Inspectorate charged Cr Clarkson in July 2011 over the alleged breaches of the Local Government Act. Cr Clarkson denied the breaches, saying she believed she met conflict of interest exemptions under the Act.

COMMENT:

Our faith in the justice system has been fully restored with a decision in the Heidelberg Magistrate’s court today which dismissed all charges of conflict of interest against a Nillumbik Councillor. The brief background is that council had originally sent this councillor to a Conduct Panel. The councillor asserted her legal right to defend her reputation at VCAT. Nillumbik council, realising that the costs would be atronomical, withdrew. However, the Local Government Municipal Inspectorate then stepped in and laid charges that went to the Magistrate’s Court. Today, all these charges were thrown out and costs (which we estimate to be close to $200,000) awarded against the Inspectorate.

At the heart of this issue, which bears many similarities to the current witch-hunt against Penhalluriack, was the question of natural justice and the performance of administrators. It was quite illuminating to see the Nillumbik CEO in the witness stand sweating and mumbling under cross examination by Hore-Lacy trying to defend the indefensible and his role in the entire saga.

We only hope that this decision is a stern warning to all those who believe they can stomp on individual rights, ignore the basics of natural justice, and in the process waste hundreds and hundreds of thousands of ratepayer and taxpayer funds. The judgement also represents a stern warning to councillors who, as in the Nillumbik case, came out with egg on their face for their collusion in what was shown to be allegations without foundation.

 

June 13, 2012

Council & The Inviolability Of The Law!

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

We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.

We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.

Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.

TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….

COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?

PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’  and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.

ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various  applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’

COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!

LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….

COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?

PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.

TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.

ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?

PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.

MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.

COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!

HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.

COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.

TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).

MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »