Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 17, 2012

Good Or Bad?

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

Announcement from the Local Govt Minister –

Administration to continue at Brimbank City Council

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Victorian Government will introduce legislation next week to extend the Administration of the Brimbank City Council through until March 2015.

The decision to extend the period of Administration was recommended by two independent reports, has considerable community support and will help to ensure a return to stable, effective representative government at Brimbank City Council.

“The weight of advice provided by independent reports was such that the best course of action was to maintain Administration while work was finalised,” Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said.

“Both reports identified that the premature return to an elected council carries the very real risk of a return to the discredited and damaging practices of the past and the derailing of numerous important projects commenced under Administration.

“Subject to the passage of the legislation a rotation and refocusing will occur amongst the team of administrators at Brimbank.

“Jo Anderson and Meredith Sussex will step down at the end of October this year, roughly in line with the general Local Council elections.

“Peter Lewinsky will relinquish his role as Chief Administrator but remain a member of the Administration team.

“It is important to put on the record my personal thanks to the current Administrators for the outstanding job they have done at the council and acknowledge the role the former Minister Richard Wynne played in the decision to appoint them.

“The community of Brimbank have been fortunate to have the skills and dedication of Jo and Meredith working for them during this difficult period,” Mrs Powell said.

“The final phase of administration will feature a comprehensive community engagement strategy to prepare for the return of an elected council.

“I have asked the current Chair Peter Lewinsky to stay on as an administrator, thereby giving the team important continuity.

“John Watson, the current Executive Director of Local Government Victoria, will retire in October and will then assume the role of Chief Administrator at Brimbank.

“John Watson is highly respected for his skills and abilities throughout the sector and by both sides of politics.

“Upon learning of his intention to retire from LGV, I asked him to take on the role of Chair of the Brimbank Administrators.

“I can think of no-one better qualified to build on the work of the current Administrators and prepare the council for elections in March 2015,” Mrs Powell said.

The third administrator’s position will go to an individual with strong qualifications in community engagement.

 

 

May 17, 2012

Sound Familiar?

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

Doyle in heated  row with councillor

Miki Perkins
May 17, 2012

Jackie Watts with Robert DoyleJackie Watts with Robert Doyle Photo: Teagan Glenane

ACCUSATIONS of  bullying  have surfaced at Melbourne City Council in a   series of fiery letters between lord mayor Robert Doyle and a  councillor.

Cr Jackie Watts, who joined the council last July, says Cr Doyle may be   engaging in ”harassment and bullying” against her and accuses him of  failing  to understand ”the basic principles of natural justice”

The spat was triggered by a letter from Cr Doyle’s office to Cr Watts  this  month, telling her he had  investigated a complaint about her by  the council’s  chief executive, Kathy Alexander.

In his letter, Cr Doyle  said he had decided not to proceed with a  formal  investigation.   But he noted the concerns were serious enough  that Cr Watts  could  be reported to either the Ombudsman or WorkSafe –  ”possibly citing  harassment or bullying”.

”The principal reason I have decided not to take a formal investigation   path is that the CEO has informed me that since her original complaint  to me,  your behaviour has changed radically and diametrically,” Cr  Doyle wrote.  He  said he was ”loathe” to take the matter to a conduct  panel or  investigation  by the chief municipal officer. ”Such public  processes can do no good to the  reputation of anyone involved,  especially yourself.

”I recognise that given your previous patterns of behaviour, you will  most  likely respond to this (final) email with a further series of  accusations,  interpretations and justifications … I will ignore it,”  the lord mayor  wrote.

Cr Watts responded this week, sending a copy of Cr Doyle’s letter and  her  response to   councillors, saying she was doing so in the interests  of  ”transparency and disclosure” and pointing out the lord mayor and  CEO had  decided not to pursue the matter.

In her response to Cr Doyle, she said his letter and earlier  correspondence  may ”constitute a course of harassment and bullying  conducted by you against  me … Having had the opportunity … to consider  your actions and demeanour  towards me it has become very clear to me  that you have no understanding or  appreciation of even the basic  principles of natural justice,” Cr Watts  wrote.

”It is evident from the tenor and content of your correspondence that  you  pre-judged the issues, to what purpose I do not know.”

A Carlton resident, Labor Party member and former community activist,  Cr  Watts has been vocal on accountability issues, moving  unsuccessful  motions  about the use of confidential items on the council agenda and overhauling   electoral policies.

Last night Cr Doyle said he believed  the matter  should have been dealt   with through internal council processes. ”It is not my job to be judge  or jury  or arbitrator or mediator … It is my job to try to resolve it  in the first  instance,” Cr Doyle said.

Cr Watts told The Age: ”It’s a sad situation where a  councillor  attempting to conduct inquiries in response to constituent  concerns encounters  such efforts to suppress them.” Ms  Alexander was  not available for  comment.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doyle-in-heated-row-with-councillor-20120516-1yrdz.html#ixzz1v5CDoNEW

 

May 15, 2012

Allegation #4

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

ALLEGATION  4

That Councillor Penhalluriack victimised the CEO for making a complaint against him. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO and his staff in their employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

30 Nov   2010 At an  audio taped Council Meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack criticised the CEO for not accepting mediation. This was in respect of informal complaints made by the CEO to the then Mayor. The CEO referred to the obligations of his employer and that if he wanted to raise the issue he would do so with his employer, the Council.
2 April   2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises the CEO, Peter Jones, the MRC and the CRRT. With respect to the allegations of inappropriate conduct made against him by the CEO, he refers to the allegations as “something manufactured by the CEO” and “we need to take his concerns seriously, but this is the third time he has cried wolf, and I’m pleased we decided to leave him alone in the forest”.
 

May 3, 2012

More Mulch

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

Item 9.5 Leaf and Chipped Garden Waste

Penhalluriack left the room. Lipshutz moved and Magee seconded motion.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that this has been a ‘vexed issue for some time now’ and been dealt with by the Ombudsman. Said that Penhalluriack had raised the issue of legionella disease and potential risk to workers. Said that ‘we have a proper’ report that recommends ‘some safeguards which will protect’ users. Claimed that what the Arnold report does say is that ‘bacteria’ is ‘found in all sorts of’ gardens and waste. Went on to say that he personally was ‘not aware of any person contracting Legionnaires disease by using our mulch facility’. In these ‘circumstances it is appropriate’ to reopen the facility with the ‘safeguards as outlined’.

MAGEE: Said that last year he had no ‘hesitation’ in voting to close the facility because ‘there was a potential risk to members of our community’. But now after reading a lot more and ‘given the 6 recommendations’ by the Arnold report it was okay. Noted that there was also a letter from Arnold that came in April. Read from the letter where it was claimed that they tested ‘both the air and the mulch’ and that ‘legionella was not detected’. ‘I’m more than comfortable with that paragraph’ and together with the recommendations was happy to ‘reverse the decision I made’. Was now ‘confident’ that there isn’t any risk.

LOBO:  began by referring to what he had said at last council meeting about the Ombudsman’s title to his report and that he was ‘misquoted by the local Glen Eira Debates’ blog. Reiterated that the title is ‘not a good reflection’ on councillors when it says that governance ‘involves each and every one of us’. Defined governance in terms of ‘processes’ and ‘procedures’ and ‘accountable’. Said that he believed that ‘as councillors we have done what we could’ so therefore the ombudsman’s title should have simply said ‘poor governance…..by a councillor’… ‘it should not be a reflection’ on others. Went on to say that as soon as councillors were aware following the O’Neill report they sent Penhalluriack off to a Code of Conduct Panel. ‘Painting everyone with the same brush was not appropriate’ and all this does is ‘show the over enthusiasm of the ombudsman’.  Said that when he last raised the issue ‘I was criticised by Glen Eira Debates….(claimed not to be reading it) ‘regularly but I do go on it once a month’. There was the need for Glen Eira Debates to ‘be careful in information….particularly those (that write under) cover (of anonymity)….’they should be courageous enough to say who they are’ so that councillors could reply. Went on to say that when he ‘had the guts’ to show up at a recent community forum one ‘over enthusiastic resident’ attacked councillors who were ‘painted as useless’ and that the ‘community should get rid of all the councillors’….’ I don’t understand all this garbage’ and that Glen Eira Debates should think about the positive things that council is doing and not be ‘negative’.

ESAKOFF:  Agreed with Magee that the recommendations were ‘competent’ and that ‘there will be no issue in the area’ and that there will be ‘more than a few residents’ who will be pleased with the reopening.

HYAMS:  Said that the ‘first part’ of the motion is to note the ombudsman’s report ‘on these matters’. Agreed with Lobo’s comments that the title is ‘unfortunate and doesn’t reflect the contents of the report’ and also ‘endorsed’ Lobo’s comments on those ‘without the integrity to put their names to their criticisms’. They ‘hide behind anonymity’ and ‘cowardice’. The further letter from Noel Arnold ‘proves that contrary to much speculation’ the mulch was checked but that isn’t ‘an indication of whether the mulch facility causes a risk to health’ because there’s always ‘things in dirt’. Said that the ‘real test’ is checking the air and that was done. Officers ‘weren’t able to find’ any other location that was as good as Glen Huntly Park because of ‘the size of the car park’. Since the facility was closed there had been a lot of ‘feedback’ from people that it shouldn’t have been closed. Said that when he voted to close it his real concern was that ‘people may not handle it safely’, ‘but I guess there is only so much that you can do’ (so the recommendations and the debate would alert people. Also they might try and get it from other sites that don’t have these safety precautions).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5 councillors with Pilling, Tang & Forge absent).

 

May 2, 2012

C87 & Crocodile Tears

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

The C87 Amendment was passed unanimously as expected. What was, in our view,  most revealing was the superb crocodile tears performance put on by several councillors. They literally shed buckets in bemoaning the fact that the Amendment was incapable of including residents’ recommendations for inclusion into the Significant Character Areas – especially Normanby Rd. We shake our heads in wonderment and ask:

  • Are councillors that impotent or stupid or guilty of collusion not to realise that when they allow the cart to be put before the horse this will be the inevitable outcome? One of our previous posts commented on the fact that the only recommendations sought came from council officers and Planisphere. Even councillors and of course residents were totally excluded from making suggestions! To now turn around and say that our hands are tied is indeed laughable. All that was needed was a motion that residents could submit their own proposals for inclusion. Simple and democratic – but obviously something that is anathema to those running Glen Eira.
  • Instead, we now have further expenditure on ‘legal advice’ to ensure that nothing can be done with this amendment! It all has to start again via a new amendment if residents are to have a say.  Oh yes, the  crocodile tears flowed in Oscar winning performances.
  • We also suggested in our earlier post that the chances of the Planning Panel actually accepting, much less listening to residents’ submissions on areas that should be included was buckleys and none! We stick with this conclusion!

The ‘debate’ went as follows:

Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Lipshutz moved that C87 be exhibited with the removal of properties from Poath Rd. Seconded by Penhalluriack.

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that VCAT ‘basically ignores’ council’s policy and that policy by itself is not the ‘appropriate method to ensure’ that neighbourhoods are protected. ‘The way to go about it’ is to pass the motion so that there’s an overlay on these areas. Said that this was a ‘vexed’ issue because some people didn’t want it and others did. Said that the Normanby Rd people ‘believe that their street has such significance’ that they should be included. ‘Unfortunately the motion…..does not provide for this…..the motion seeks to preserve their current position and will allow for a panel to consider their submissions….‘. People who think that their properties shouldn’t be there are also free to make a submission to panel. Spoke about The Highway and if the amendment would ‘restrict’ the possibility of ‘dual occupancy’ in that street. Said that wouldn’t impact adversely and that ‘panel can consider this’ and that council ‘can then determine the issue’. Amendment ‘starts the process’….‘we’ve had the submissions, we’ve had the conferences’…’the intent of c87 is to provide stronger safeguards’….(and those areas outside heritage) ‘can at least be preserved’.

PENHALLURIACK: The motion is ‘disappointing’ since ‘so many’ people around the c60 and racecourse, especially along Normanby Rd ‘are missing out’. Said he looked at old maps of the area and that there are some beautiful old homes and ‘I can’t read the mind of the town planner who said this area isn’t worthy of being included’….’but because he made that decision we are now caught between a rock and a hard place’. Said that people can go to the panel, but the amendment is ‘lacking the jewel in the crown’ (Park, Kambrook, Normanby Rd). ‘I can’t do anything, I’m tormented, I think this is a tragedy….but the officers assure me there is no option….(ultimately has to come back to council and start whole thing again. Said that maybe council should look at heritage overlays as well).

HYAMS: Reassured everyone that the status quo remains until the ‘amendment goes through’. Explained that the Significant Character Area only covers double dwelling and doesn’t protect against someone building a terrible single dwelling..’policy doesn’t have the strength at VCAT…these are less than heritage….you can demolish….pros are …protects the neighbourhood….cons are….restricts what people can do with their own houses….so not something we would impose without going through….thorough community consultation process’. Said that community does generally support this as spoken about in the various community forums. Claimed it was ‘disappointing’ that after all the letters sent out council only got 59 submissions back ‘you could read that as people being apathetic’….’people happy with the amendment’ so no need to write in. Said that the planning conference that was held had more people in favour than against the amendment. Claimed to have ‘door knocked a couple of the streets’ to get a feel for what people wanted and ‘overwhelming majority’ supported the amendment. Admitted that some areas are ‘out of character, but still worth preserving of what remains of character’. Agreed that Normanby Rd is ‘a very nice area’ and that he was ‘disappointed’ that it wasn’t included. Said that there was some discussion at the planning conference whether it could be included and that council had obtained ‘further legal advice’ which concluded that once something is ‘exhibited’ you ‘can’t put other areas in’ because it ‘denies natural justice to those people’ in that area…..’that’s the legal advice so we can’t do that unfortunately’. Summarised the processes of the panel, what they will do and how they will look at the submissions ‘in depth’….’still quite a few steps to take’.

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted that people of Normanby Rd have been ‘badly done by’ and ‘very unfortunate that they can’t be included’….(that this is the )’best we can do in the circumstances’….(Urged people who thought they should be included) ‘to make submissions to the panel’….’Id be very supportive of inclusion’. Explained process – ie goes to panel and then council will decide whether to accept or reject. Process is ‘independent and fair’. said that heritage overlay is ‘very, very restrictive’ and that there’s a difference between Normanby Rd and council’s heritage areas.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

May 1, 2012

Revisionism Or Hedging Your Bets?

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

Lipshutz got the ball rolling tonight with an incredible motion – to rewrite history and the official record. When Hyams called for confirmation of minutes Lipshutz moved that the minutes of 10th April be amended in relation to Penhalluriack’s questions and Lipshutz’s point of order inserted. He claimed that the questions were ‘a continuation of the bullying behaviour’ as ‘noted in the Ombudsman’s report”. Hyams asked for a seconder. There was a very long silence and in the end, Hyams seconded the motion himself.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack asked a ‘series of questions’ and on the 5th question he raised a point of order. Stated again that the point of order was upheld by Hyams and ‘therefore the minutes do not properly reflect that’.

HYAMS: agreed  that what’s there currently is ‘more commentary’ than an account of ‘what actually happened at the meeting’. Said that his ‘recollection’ of the events was about the three points of order that Lipshutz raised and that he ruled in favour of them.

PENHALLURIACK: “I asked a series of questions……(he paused after the first one and got Hyams permission to continue)….’those questions are vital…..(since councillors will be voting on re-opening the mulch facility)……’that is council’s right’….’but the minutes are inaccurate because they don’t record the fact that I had asked 4 questions’ (and we didn’t get notice of Lipshutz’s motion in assembly)….’the four questions should have been put on the record…they should be answered by the CEO (or relevant officer)…..Cr Lipshutz is famous for….leaping to his feet to stop me from speaking….(he should have done this with the first question but he didn’t)…(same for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th question)…..’during the 5th….he suddenly woke up…..or (decided to) stop me at that point’….(Said that Hyams pointed out that Glen Eira’s meeting procedures in the Local Law) ‘protect you from my motion of dissent’….’so even though there may have been a majority of councillors who didn’t like what you were doing….you weren’t prepared to put it to the vote’….(which democratic institutions) ‘love doing’….(You said) ‘I rule, I am the Mayor’ …(the Mayor of) ‘toss of the coin’….’I will not listen to your motion of dissent and I will not consult with fellow councillors’….’that defies logic that a point of order can go backwards’ (and delete earlier questions)….’each of my questions covered different matters’…

Hyams interrupted saying that Penhalluriack’s 3 minutes were up. A vote to extend time was taken and passed unanimously.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘we have the tape recording of the meeting’ (so can confirm what) “I’m saying is correct’…’there was silence…..until the 5th question….(Told councillors to refer to the minutes of the assembly of 10th April where it says ‘Councillor questions’ and quoted that Penhalluriack advised he had a ‘list of questions’)….’not a question….a list of questions’….’I am now demanding that this council supports me in getting those questions answered’….’councillors deserve explicit answers before they embark’ (on decisions on the agenda tonight).

HYAMS: said he wanted to ask Burke a ‘couple of questions’.

‘Is there anything in our Local Law at all that would have allowed me to do that?’ (ie put the dissent motion to a vote). Burke answered ‘No there’s not’. Next question was whether the Local Law permitted the Mayor to ‘decide all points of order?’. Burke stated that ‘the Local Law is quite clear….absolutely clear…’. Hyams then asked if Burke had heard him say ‘I am the Mayor and what I say goes’?..Burke said that he doesn’t have a ‘recollection’ of what Penhalluriack alleges Hyams said. Hyams then said that he ‘understands that you’ve listened to the tape of this discussion’….’does it reflect that all the questions were ruled out of order?’ Burke confirmed this.

LIPSHUTZ: asked Burke that when he moved the point of order whether he meant all questions?

BURKE: responded that the point of order ‘was in relation to all questions’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that in any meeting of ‘elected representatives’…..’is it possible to put anything to the vote?’

BURKE asked Penhalluriack to ‘be more specific’.

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed that the Local Law states that the Mayor can decide but ‘it does not say that the Mayor cannot democratically ask his councillors’ to vote….’that’s similar to when the Mayor has the casting vote….(and his obligation is to preserve the status quo)…’the law doesn’t say he must, tradition says he will’.

BURKE: stated that he’s only got the Local Law and that says that the Mayor is the final ‘arbiter’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that Burke is avoiding the question and asked whether ‘it was not possible for the Mayor to seek the advice’ of his councillors…..

BURKE: ‘…..ultimately (chairperson has to ensure that the)’business of council is done….in good order….(since there is the Local Law then it would be) ‘most unusual to move away from that’….there’s nothing to stop the Chairperson from doing that ( but he doesn’t have to).

PENAHLLURIACK: stated that he didn’t say that the chair ‘has to do that’…..

HYAMS: interrupted by asking if Penhalluriack was asking a question or making a statement.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Burke that when he listened to the tapes whether he noticed a ‘pause’ between the series of questions

BURKE responded that he didn’t

PENHALLURIACK asked for a copy of the tape

BURKE: “I will need to consider that request Councillor’

PENHALLURIACK: Why?

BURKE: ‘That’s my answer Cr Penhalluriack’.

LOBO: Said that he didn’t come to the council meeting for the election of the Mayor because he ‘wasn’t well’…..(Penhalluriack shouldn’t have said that Hyams is a Mayor) ‘by toss of the coin…you have to respect the seat’.

PENHALLURIACK: asked permission to answer but Hyams said it wasn’t a question. Penhalluriack said his comments weren’t a  reflection on Lobo. Hyams then said that Penhalluriack is ‘allowed to speak if you feel you’ve been misrepresented’.

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed that his habit of ‘jumping up’ is ‘not true’….(he was concerned that Penhalluriack not continue with behaviour)…’that the ombudsman and the O’Neill report (condemend)….’I’m also concerned….that the questions be proper….’not just Penhalluriack….if any councillor, including myself embark on that course (then he’d want someone to raise a point of order)….(said that Penhalluriack’s claim about ‘no notice) ‘that’s not true either….(said that at the pre-meeting he gave a) ‘clear indication’….’that I may raise a point of order’….(said that Penhalluriack was trying to) ‘revive the same motion that he had’ (before)…’reality is….listened to the question to see how far….by the 5th question pretty clear ….the whole totality of those questions were the subject of my concern…’list of questions and they were dealt with as one….(point of order was upheld)’and the minutes should reflect that’….

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. Penhalluriack called for a division. FOR – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams. AGAINST: Magee, Penhalluriack

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FORGE AND TANG WERE APOLOGIES. PILLING WAS ABSENT AND NO APOLOGY TENDERED.

 

April 30, 2012

Caulfield Park Depot

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

Item 9.7 centres on the suspect Lipshutz Request for a Report on the removal of the Caulfield Park Depot. We remind readers of the Pilling email which clearly revealed how in breach of council’s own resolution this request was. Now we have the Officers’ report which of course says nothing, so that the status quo remains. We also note that there is no name attached to this report so there is no accountability or responsibility. Another frequent and handy ploy of this administration!

The report states that  “The Caulfield Park master plan adopted by Council some years ago was premised at that time on the depot remaining where it is”. So what? Not stated is that the Master Plan dates back to the dark ages and when it suits has been changed and altered and massaged according to new circumstances – ie. concrete pathways; ‘realigning’ of ovals’; fences and now the latest craze, concrete plinthing.

The argument for non-removal then continues with an exposition of the multi-function purpose of the current depot and concludes with the simple sentences “There are few areas within Glen Eira which lend themselves to these uses. It would be undesirable to relocate the depot from one park to another park or to any other site which was capable of being used as public open space”. Note the admission that there is at least a ‘few areas’ that might be suitable. Of course, none of this is elaborated upon!

The real intended killer blow is: “Officers have previously advised Councillors of an estimated cost of not less than $3m. It is not possible to be more specific until a new site is identified and the nature of redevelopment of the existing site is known”. Surely it would not have been too difficult if there are a ‘few areas’ suitable, for some ‘specifics’ to be included for these sites at least?

Thus, in the space of one and a half pages an issue that has been of major concern for nigh on forever is thus sidelined again – indefinitely!

We urge readers to note:

  • The total lack of any financial/geographic details
  • No documentation as to which sites have been investigated
  • No detail as to why any of these alternate sites are unsuitable
  • No detail as to the arrived figure of $3 million

We can only conclude that not only is the report totally substandard, but its usefulness for any responsible decision making by councillors is non existent. We believe that this is the ultimate objective anyway – ie to do nothing but create the illusion that there has at least been the attempt to solve a festering problem and councillors, especially Lipshutz, can then proclaim to his electorate – “look, I’ve tried’.  In the end, it all depends on the gullibility and/or integrity of councillors as to whether they will accept this continual manipulation.

PS:  Following several comments re the MRC’s failure to put up the fence as per the ‘agreement’, we’ve received a photo of the site taken exactly one year since the signing of the ‘agreement’ (27th April). As many residents suspected, such agreements obviously aren’t worth the paper they’re written on! The weeds certainly do add a nice touch as well!

 

April 29, 2012

Transparency & Accountability? – No Way!

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

Glen Eira Council pretends that it cares about resident views. It pretends that it is transparent and accountable. It pretends that it not only listens to residents, but acts on their views. We believe that nothing could be further from the truth. All any resident has to do is to start questioning what information is in the public domain, and the format in which it is disseminated, to realise the smoke and mirrors and selective nature of disclosure consistently practised by this Council.

Section 223 of the Local Government Act provides residents with the opportunity to make submissions on important strategic and policy decisions such as budgets, community plans, selling of property, etc. Councils are bound to ‘consider’ such submissions. Countless other councils ensure that full submissions are published in agendas and minutes – as well as an officer’s summary and response to these submissions. In other words, interested readers can see what residents wrote, as well as how their views are responded to. In Glen Eira the process is far more selective – and, we believe, censored.

Yes, the minimalist legal requirements of Section 223 are fulfilled because they have to be. But in most cases, that is the extent of it. The most important policy decisions and issues, and what residents think about such proposals have not, in recent years, been published. For example, residents have not been provided access to submissions on:

  • Community engagement/consultation policy
  • Planning Scheme Review
  • C87
  • C60
  • Bike Strategy

All of the above have been major issues for residents. Yet all that has been published are skimpy (and perhaps selectively edited?) officers’ summaries and responses. What has been provided in full is laughable in comparison – ie. submissions to the Toilet Strategy!!!!!!!!

Councillors need to realise that good governance demands full disclosure of submissions on all topics, policies and areas – unless the authors of such submissions request otherwise. Only publishing those that are perceived to be potentially less contentious and ‘sensitive’ is not a substitute for full accountability and transparency.

 

April 26, 2012

‘Development’ Or More Waste?

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

From Council’s website –

Glen Eira City Council is currently finalising a proposed play space project at Murrumbeena Park on Kangaroo Road.

The proposal sees the removal of the existing playground adjacent to the main sports oval and the creation of a new play space in the eastern side of the park. The design incorporates a number of leading edge components and treatments which will make the playspace a model for future developments.

The design goes beyond any existing playground and merges traditional play equipment with interactive landscaping, family picnic areas, tree plantings and facilities. It provides areas from toddlers to more active adolescents and can be accessed by wheelchairs and prams.

In January, the Victorian Government announced a grant of $258,921 to assist in the construction of the Murrumbeena play space as part of Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program.

The project is listed as an item for consideration as part of Council’s 2012–13 Budget.

An opportunity to view the plans will be available at Murrumbeena Park Pavilion, Kangaroo Road on Thursday 24 May from 6.30pm to7.30pm. This will include a brief presentation by the play space designer and Council officers will be available to clarify any issues and answer any questions.

If you require further information, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or email recservices@gleneira.vic.gov.au

COMMENTS

  • What has happened to ‘community consultation’ re the design? One hour will definitely give residents ample opportunity to view and comment on the design, won’t it? Could it possibly be that after the fiasco of Packer Park the decision was NOT TO ENGAGE with the community and seek feedback?
  • No mention of the $700,000 that will come of ratepayers’ pockets!
  • Why are all designs produced by this council so ‘cartoonish’ and lacking in detail?
  • Risk management would certainly be an issue with this design given that the goal posts sit practically on the edge of the path/play areas. Will this mean that kiddies have to dodge footballs, soccer balls, etc? Or will council suddenly decide that they have to ‘relocate’ the sporting grounds at the cost of mega bucks? Or will we now have a 20 foot wire mesh fence to cordon off the sporting oval from the ‘development’?
  • Why are we spending $1,000,000 when this council has been classified as ‘high risk’ and we are facing a ‘cash crisis’ and a playground is already in existence at the park?


 

 

 

April 22, 2012

The O’Neill Report

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

The ‘Executive Summary’ of the O’Neill report comprises 8 pages involving 6 allegations. She concludes with 7 recommendations. The report is dated 20th June 2011. This is the first of our posts on this issue.

The following points should be carefully noted:

  • Newton’s allegations were never put into writing – they remain ‘unofficial’. There has never been a formal ‘written complaint’
  • Penhalluriack (and allegedly Newton) have only received this summary report – not the full report itself.
  • Who has read the full report?
  • O’Neill wrote the allegations herself based on the documents (and ‘discussions’?) provided to her by Newton
  • O’Neill interviewed: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang, Swabey, Wait, Donna Graham (Legal Counsel for council), Hyams, Magee, Pilling, Lobo, Forge. Penhalluriack asked that 6 residents be interviewed. O’Neill only interviewed 2 residents claiming that 4 were not ‘relevant’ to the investigation.
  • O’Neill NEVER concluded that Penhalluriack was a ‘bully’ in this report. Her strongest claim was that there were instances of “inappropriate behaviour”.

The following opening extracts are cited verbatim:

“In accordance with the terms of the Glen Eira Bullying Policy, the complainant, being the CEO and the person accused of bullying, being Councillor Penhalluriack should be provided with this Executive Summary. This should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity with Councillors to ensure that both the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack are given an opportunity to respond in accordance with your Policies and Procedures. This is particularly the case as Cr Penhalluriack is about to go on leave this week.

1.1           You have instructed me via Peter Jones, the responsible Officer, that the CEO, Andrew Newton (“CEO”) has raised a number of OHS concerns that he has with respect to the provision of a safe system of work. No official written complaint has been made by the CEO.

1.2           As there was no written complaint in this matter, I met with the CEO to ascertain what his OHS concerns were. Following my meetings with the CEO, I drafted a Table of Allegations  which was approved by the CEO

1.3           Cr Penhalluriack has been given every possible opportunity to respond to the allegations. Ultimately, Cr Penhalluriack chose not to meet with me to allow me to put the allegations to him. Instead he provided me with a written submission. It should be noted that in some cases these written submission to me do not address the allegation, but instead he responds to each of the incidences that are referred to in the allegations. By declining to meet with me and let me go through the submissions with him, I have been unable to provide him with information provided by other witnesses so that he could respond to those matters or discuss with him in more detail the issues.” 

COMMENTS

We find this whole process extraordinary for the following reasons:

  • No attempt at mediation as a first port of call as recommended by Worksafe and Council policy.
  • Nothing in writing from Newton – just the handing over of a (selective?) bunch of documents
  • As the official ‘author’ of the subsequent allegations, O’Neill becomes both ‘accuser’ and ‘judge’ – a process that is highly suspect professionally and legally.
  • Why Newton’s reluctance to put anything down on paper? Another ploy to ensure that his hands are clean?
  • O’Neill’s logic is incomprehensible – ie. conclusions of guilt surely are made on the bases of the ‘incidents’ recorded and their overall credibility.  Penhalluriack is criticised for challenging these ‘incidents’ head on. Yet what else is he supposed to do – especially if such ‘incidents’ demand debunking? Common sense tells us that if the ‘incidents’ are spurious and would never hold up in a court of law, then conclusions as to ‘inappropriate behaviour’ or ‘bullying’ are highly suspect. Understanding this basic principle appears to have been beyond O’Neill. The question then arises as to what weighting O’Neill gave to Penhalluriack’s submission.
  • Finally, we’ve learnt that this ostensible ‘objective’ Executive Summary does not contain one single word that emanated from the interviewed residents. Were their comments irrelevant, or perhaps, deliberately overlooked? 
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »