Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 23, 2012

Transparency, Accountability & Who Do Councillors Really Represent?

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

We’ve received the following email from a resident –

“Hello

The planning conference last evening regarding the development on Mavho Street was a joke! We had a great turnout of objectors from Mavho and surrounds. We were disappointed with the way the proceedings were moderated by the Councillor in chair Michael Lipshutz. There were other Councillors present in the room – Mayor and CrLobo. At the end of the session, the objectors left feeling rather dejected about the attitude of the moderator and the inability to have a more open session of Q & A.

We were instructed to discuss the issue just once and if more than one person wanted to reiterate a point about traffic, parking or bulk or privacy, it would not be permitted as it been heard and noted. ( Does the Council ever hear orlisten to anything?)

An important point raised was about what the council saw as medium density and the answer was that they had no idea what the definition of medium density was! Even the planning person could not clarify that one! The response was that this Urban Village Policy was formulated in 2000, way before their time and the community was consulted. We have requested to see the process under FOI. In my opinion, if there is no definition to a important part of a policy  -medium density housing within the urban village – there can be no informed voting.

There was one representation from Urbis development. The lady mentioned the site was selected as it was within the urban village scheme and had no heritage listing.Their proposal was in line with the neighbourhood character, which she explained was a mix of everything! We were not allowed to ask her any questions at all! I thought the purpose of this meeting was to have an open discussion about ourconcerns and be able to ask the developer questions. There could be only 2 reasons for this. One, the councillor wanted to get home, two, he was protecting the representative from the objectors. The whole process did not seem particularly transparent.

A resident raised whether there had been an pre application planning meeting with developer and if so, the application of such a nature should have been thrown out of the door to save everyone’s time. The planning rep would not comment whether a pre app session did take place. Clearly this developer, Urbis and builder, Vujic, have a good understanding of the Councils modus operandi!

We’ll continue to lobby the councillors and work on a strategy to get more people involved in the fight against raising monstrosities in residential areas”.

 

February 21, 2012

The Myth Of Minimal Change

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

So, you think you’re safe because you’re one of the lucky minority that happen to live in the designated ‘Minimal Change Areas’ listed in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Yes, you think that because you’re in the 20% of supposedly ‘protected’ neighbourhoods, your property, your lifestyle, your privacy, and your capital asset is safe from encroachment by (greedy) developers. Think again! Under the policies of this Council and the inconsistency in decision making, no-one is safe. Minimal Change Areas are not immune to rampant over-development. This is why. According to the Planning Scheme:

  • Single dwellings can suddenly metamorphasise into double houses/units. If the second unit is built at the back, then recent examples have them as double storeys – even though the planning scheme ‘recommends’ back units as being limited to only single storey
  • If the block is large then you’re in real trouble. Multiple storeys and multiple units are a real possibility because council states that it is not against high density in large lots – ie. “The proposal meets the tests of the Minimal Change Area Policy allowing consideration of a more intensive form of development. The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone does not apply in this instance because Res Code does not apply to four storey proposals”. (Minutes – 3rd February 2009 – rest of quotes are from these minutes). We’re really in Catch 22 territory now!
  • Bad luck if you happen to sit right alongside a Housing Diversity area, or if council has already approved some 2 or 3 storeys down the road. Then you’re facing this predicament – “The prevailing development on abutting properties is characterised by multidwelling development of up to 3 storeys (in the form of developments constructed, and approved but yet to be constructed)”.
  • And don’t try to object by screaming about lack of open space and overshadowing because Council’s view is: “It is considered that the private open spaces are sufficient in the form of balconies. All dwellings are provided with balconies with adequate access to sunlight and daylight and provide an appropriate level of internal amenity for future occupiers”.
  • Finally, none of these ‘standards’ are set in concrete and applied consistently. Developers are merely ‘encouraged’ to do what’s right and permits are granted when only a couple of the requisite boxes are ticked off and others remain outstanding.

By way of example, we’ve gone through some of the minutes from 2008 until now and selected a few of the decisions on developments in Minimal Change Areas or those areas adjoining Minimal Change. Please note, these are only the ones that actually arrive for Council decision – we simply do not know how many others are rubber stamped by the officers under their delegated authority.  We’ve prepared a table which we hope is self explanatory

ADDRESS

 DETAILS OF   APPLICATION OFFICER   RECOMMENDATION

COUNCILLORS’   DECISION
7-13 Dudley   St., Caulfield East A four storey building comprising 112 dwellings with two levels of basement car parking, and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement Permit – (three storey   building/up to75 dwellings)

Permit –   unanimous
846-848 Centre Rd, Bentleigh Construction of a two (2) storey building comprising fourteen (14) dwellings with basement carpark permit – allowing the construction of a two (2) storey building   comprising up to ten (10) dwellings

Permit –   carried
264-266 Grange Road, Carnegie Construction of four (4) double storey and two (2) single storey dwellings and alteration of vehicle access to a main road Permit – for the   construction offour (4) double storey and two (2) single storey   dwellings

Permit –   unanimous
29 Holloway street, Ormond A two storey building comprising 14 dwellings and basement carpark Permit – the construction   of a two storey building for up to 10 dwellings

Permit – on   casting vote of chairperson
332 Alma road, Caulfield Nth Construction of 10 dwellings Permit

Permit –   carried
19 Parker St., Ormond Construction of four dwellings (two double-storey dwellings at the   front of the site and two single storey dwellings at the rear) Permit – allowing the   construction of four dwellings (one double-storey dwellings at the front of   the site and three single-storey dwellings at the rear)-

Permit –   carried
56 Morgan St., Carnegie -Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by a Special Building Overlay Permit

Permit –   carried
12 the Highway Bentleigh Addition (carport) to the existing dwelling and the construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear Permit

Permit –   unanimous
31-39 Anthony St., Ormond Subdivide the land into six (6) lots – Heritage Overlay Permit

Permit –   unanimous
 

February 17, 2012

Penhalluriack & VCAT Directions Hearing

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

The hearing apparently went for just under half an hour this morning. Both Council and Penhalluriack were represented by lawyers. The sequence of events went something like this:

  • Member asked each lawyer how long they anticipated the full hearing would go. Council’s lawyer said 3 days; Penhalluriack’s 5 to 7 days.
  • Council’s lawyer asked (with agreement from Penhalluriack’s lawyer) that the names of Donna Graham and Margaret Esakoff be removed and that Glen Eira City Council be substituted. Penhalluriack is the respondent.
  • Penhalluriack’s lawyer then raised some points about how nebulous and vague the 128 page document of allegations presented by Council were. For example: alleged failure to declare a conflict of interest but no precise reference to what the conflict may have been, nor the date, time, etc. Another allegation was ‘interactions’ with Mr. Newton and again no specifics. It was claimed that basically, the allegations lacked detail and substance and therefore council needed to specify their case far more clearly.
  • The member ordered that council produce a summary of the allegations that would be far more specific. He also ordered a compulsory conference and stated that there are two possible outcomes – either, the parties agree to some resolution, or if this fails, then the full VCAT hearing to proceed. Council was ordered to have the summary completed by early March and the conference to occur soon after.
  • Apparently Penhalluriack has also lodged an FOI application which council are opposing him on. This matter is to be heard before the compulsory conference. More residents’ funds going to lawyers!
  • Costs were reserved

COMMENT

Judging by all of the above it seems as if ratepayers are in for a very expensive ride. If QCs are employed for a week then we are really talking major expenditure – and this does not take into account briefing barristers or solicitors, much less the funding that has already gone into this exercise!

It’s also quite laughable that after so much ‘legal advice’, council still cannot get its act into gear and has to be ordered to produce a summary of 128 pages of vague, non-specific, allegations. We simply are left to ponder exactly how much this obviously sub standard tome has cost ratepayers!

 

February 16, 2012

News Flash: Glen Eira v Penhalluriack

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

The VCAT Daily Law List for tomorrow contains the following item under ‘Directions Hearing’ –

“9:30 AM G8/2012 Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Donna Graham, Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Margaret Esakoff v Mr Frank Penhalluriak”

This is really a startling development and adds another tawdry and expensive item to the saga of poor governance in Glen Eira. We surmise the following:

  • Council, or individual councillors, have sent Penhalluriack to a Councillor Conduct Panel. Since Glen Eira CC is noted and Esakoff was the Mayor last year, we conclude this is a formal Council decision taken some time back and again in secret. This may explain the countless in camera items over the past few months that referred to ‘legal advice’. Start counting the cost!
  • If this has ended up at VCAT, then one of two things must have happened. Either the Panel directed that the matters be heard at VCAT, but only after they’ve found a case of misconduct – which is unlikely since under legislation council has 28 days to publish the findings – OR Penhalluriack himself (as the respondent) has asked for the issue to go to VCAT. This is within his rights.
  • Since no findings have been included in council minutes, we conclude that Penhalluriack has decided to ask for a full VCAT hearing. 

The consequences of this are enormous. According to the MAV, a panel hearing would be a minimum of $1500 just for the sitting members. This does not include lawyers’ work prior to this. The legal fees for one lawyer at the Heritage Panel review which lasted a few hours was $9,000. We cringe at how much this may have cost. Next, there’s the fees for lawyers at VCAT – and if this goes for 2 or 3 days, then we’re literally talking tens and tens of thousands of dollars. If Penhalluriack chooses to employ a QC, then Council pays for his legal bills as well. All in all, ratepayers could be looking at something in the vicinity of well over $100,000 – and for what? 

As to the actual charges, then again, we have to conclude that they involve things like Newton’s allegations of ‘bullying’ and since Penhalluriack was excluded from the CEO Special Committee, which had as part of its schedule the extraordinary clause of Occupational & Health matters, then let’s throw in potential conflict of interest claims as well. We’re sure there are countless other charges.  

The fact that ratepayers’ money is being expended on, what in our view, is an attempt to silence an outspoken councillor, then this signals the death of free speech in Glen Eira. It also signals the death of councillors daring to question administrators and seeking quantified justifications for their recommendations. If councillors voted for this action, then they are culpable in the wastage of resident funds and in foresaking their commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance.

 

 

February 11, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Public Questions

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

As in many other matters, public questions at Glen Eira have steadily become a bureaucratic tour de force. You ask, and pray, that you receive a decent reply. It is no coincidence that the Mayor’s signed letter uses the words ‘council’s response’ since on far too many occasions the ‘response’ is certainly not an ‘answer’! If anything, council’s ‘responses’ often become a game of semantics, evasion, and pure doublespeak.

Glen Eira is also in the minority when it comes to the timing of public questions – at the end of often tedious and excruciatingly boring council meetings, when most of the gallery have left so that there are very few ‘witnesses’ left to the responses and the mumbled and hurried performance by Mr. Burke.

Residents should also note that two public questions taken ‘on notice’ at the December 13th Council Meeting are still to be tabled. That’s two months to receive a reply when residents are told that ‘responses’ will be available within 10 working days and tabled at the next ‘appropriate’ meeting.

By way of contrast, we’ve taken the following from The Mayne Report. Not included are the handful of councils that still have their public question time at the end of meetings. What should  be carefully noted are the number of oral and unscripted questions allowed by various councils and that questions may be directed to officers. None of this is permissible in Glen Eira!

Banyule – 15 minutes of oral questions are permitted before the formal commencement of each council meeting with a limit of 3 minutes per resident.

Darebin – unscripted oral public questions are permitted for up to 30 minutes during the formal meeting at the start after councillors have reported back on their activities

Moreland – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Nillumbik – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Ballarat – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say

Bayside – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them.

Boroondara – written questions are to be submitted in writing before the meeting, and are addressed at the beginning of the meeting.

Brimbank – The public have the opportunity to raise questions before an Ordinary Council Meeting, which are then answered in the Council Chamber at the beginning before general business. Questions must be submitted on a Council Public Question form

Casey – questions are allowed at the beginning, after confirmation of minutes, but the questioner must be present when the question is read, a maximum of two questions from any one person are allowed at each meeting.

Frankston – A Public Question Time is held at the beginning of each Ordinary Meeting where questions with and without notice are addressed. A maximum of three questions will be permitted per resident per meeting

Greater Bendigo – The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions

Greater Geelong –  Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say.

Knox –  Council Meeting procedure includes public question time as a standard 3rd item on the Agenda in order to facilitate community participation in the meeting.

Maroondah –  question time is the second order of business at every Ordinary Meeting, to enable the general public to submit questions to Councillors or members of Council staff. Up to fifteen minutes will be allowed for the answering of all questions. A person must not submit more than two questions to a Council Meeting and must be present

Melton – Persons present in the Public Gallery will be given the opportunity to present any questions to Council during the meeting at the beginning, before items of business. All questions must be in writing and placed in the facility available in the Council Chamber Foyer by 7 pm on the evening of the meeting. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

Moonee Valley – From 6pm to 6.45pm, there is public forum and question time, and covers listed presentations, issues raised by citizens and questions without notice, so therefore it is not listed in the minutes. Formal meeting begins at 7pm.

Stonnington – unscripted public questions are permitted during the formal meeting at the beginning

Yarra Ranges – They can be lodged until 5pm on the day of the Council Meeting. A maximum of 15 minutes each meeting will be allocated to Question Time at the beginning as the last item before business. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

 

February 9, 2012

Council Meeting: The Bar Sinks Even Lower!

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

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

Penhalluriack’s question, as included in the agenda items, reads: “The tabling of a petition by constituents of this city was not accepted unanimously, but was opposed by certain councillors at the council meeting on the 22nd November 2011. A petition is one of the oldest and most sacred means of expression used by citizens. Tradition dictates that even the King must pay heed to his petitioners. I ask those Councillors on what grounds those (sic) they opposed its presentation to this Council?”

HYAMS: ‘aware that petition was being promoted through a blog’… (that always presents an) ‘unremittingly negative’ (view of council)……(gave example of Leader reporting on Community Satisfaction results and the blog printed this and not the later recant which was only referred to in a comment and this was to support) ‘a ludicrous conspiracy theory’ (about the Leader and Council. Went on to state that if the blog owners ‘have the confidence (about ‘accusations’)…’they would put their names to them….(which says a lot for) ‘their honesty and integrity that they hide behind anonymity…..(Regurgitated the Community Satisfaction Survey where 86% assessed council performance as ‘excellent’ and this ‘speaks volumes for the objectivity….of that blog….there has never been a positive post about Council…..unrepresentative ….of community sentiment…..(Thus the people who signed the petition) ‘were given misinformation in order to procure their signatures’ (and that’s why Hyams won’t accept the petition)…..’Question implies that petition should be received as a matter of course……we have the discretion to choose not to receive them….I chose to exercise this discretion…..Councillors should carefully consider every decision they make (and shouldn’t automatically accept everything).

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I concur with your comments’

ESAKOFF: ‘I also concur with your comments’.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

One question relating to insurance for sporting groups was declared inadmissable due to ‘harassment’. Penhalluriack then rose and asked for an explanation of why the question is regarded as ‘harassment’. Hyams responded that council had ‘received over 130 questions’ in the space of a year ‘on one topic’ after which ‘the Council determined….(harassment and) this is another question along the same lines’ (therefore harassment again)…..

Penhalluriack then made the point that ‘harassment’ is from an individual and not about a subject…’a topic can’t harass’….’and isn’t the question also’ directed to Cr. Lipshutz?

HYAMS: repeated the 130 questions business  and said that the intention was to harass council ‘until councillors saw things the way’ (the group wanted them to see it)….’on that basis we decided it was harassment’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘May I move dissent’.(from the ruling)?

HYAMS: ‘Yes, if you can find somewhere in the Local Law that allows you to do that’

PILLING: wanted to ask a question. Wanted a judgement on a clause in the Local Law

BURKE: basically (mumbled) that the chairperson has authority to rule. Burke then read out the followiing questions which included one to Lipshutz asking whether he would apologise for potentially misleading council via his statements of December 2010.

Lipshutz responded that he hadn’t mislead council so no apology ‘is required’.

Another question asked about the Facebook page published on this website and whether the public would be correct in concluding that there was a conflict of interest.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘never bother to read the blog…..(never) ‘anything positive about the council’….(when reading the blog you have to conclude that council is incompetent)….(reiterated about the Community satisfaction rating and ‘hiding behind anonymity’… (this anonymity would not protect the blog and moderators) ‘from damages claims….’I do not read the blog….(if his son’s name did appear on the blog then he was ‘unaware’ (and did not) ‘authorise’….’you have little knowledge or no knowledge of how Facebook operates’…..

TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question

HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors

BURKE: read out next question which asked whether council had finally validated the signatures for the petition and for the final number of signatories.

HYAMS: Stated that the petition had already been dealt with  on November 22nd and that it wasn’t council’s ‘role to validate the signatures’ on the petition.

PENHALLURIACK: that he had a ‘second response’ to the question. ‘I dissent….(referred to council website and the need to submit petitions 2 days prior to council meetings and the purpose would be so) ‘that officers can count and validate the sigatures….I am disappointed that the petitioners…..(weren’t counted since it sets a poor precedent for future petitions) ….‘subject of a petition should be irrelevant to the way it is handled‘…(here the subject matter) ‘has meant that petitioners have been treated with less respect’ …’for my part I apologise for that’.

 

February 7, 2012

How Does Glen Eira Stack Up?

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

We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:

  • 20 storeys for C60 instead of mooted 23 storeys
  • 8 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 10 storeys (10 storeys in the end)
  • 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 14 storeys
  • Glen Eira has no interim or permanent height controls. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to gain such controls
  • Glen Eira has no structure plans for activity centres. Instead there is ongoing steadfast refusal to have structure plans
  • No consistent/adequate public consultation

When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.

126 Apartments Axed

Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7th February

Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.

More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.

Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”

Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”

Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.

Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.

Chaos over control

Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7th February

City needs minister to step in over plans

STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.

The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.

Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’

Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.

Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.

PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February –  Linh Ly

Club details sought

MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.

The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.

The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.

The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.

The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.

Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.

 

January 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball

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

The silence from both the Warriors and the McKinnon basketball club does not augur well for the ‘compromise’ that got over the line at last council meeting on the casting vote of Mayor Hyams. The deadline for ‘agreement’ was listed as the 16th January. Now twelve days later there is deathly silence from both groups. Hence we can only surmise that the deal has fallen through – either because ‘suitable’ playing venues for the Warriors on the Saturday weren’t acceptable to them, or to the location owners the McKinnon club offered.

Whichever, it again highlights the total balls up by the administration and councillors. It basically leaves the Warriors with the prospect of filling all the venues, paying out big bucks and praying like hell that they can cover costs or get someone else to cover the costs for them via a ‘takeover’. In the end GESAC may not be the home of either the Warriors or McKinnon.

 

January 23, 2012

Lipshutz’s ‘Annus Horribilis’

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

Cr. Lipshutz currently heads or sits on the following important Council committees –

  • Chairman of GESAC
  • Chairman Caulfield Racecourse Special Committee
  • Member, Audit committee
  • Member Consultation Committee
  • And we mustn’t forget his tireless support of the CEO and officers!

Given these multiple areas of responsibility and the subsequent outcomes, 2011 has really become Lipshutz’s ‘annus horribilus’. We focus on just some of the ‘underachievements’ –

  • The Seaview/Hawthorn Rd Heritage fiasco where under Lipshutz’s guidance and his newly acquired heritage expertise, the views of 6 professional heritage advisors were ignored and rejected. Result? Needless costs of lawyers, panels, independent ‘advice’ to council – all for nothing. Next time Lipshutz announces ‘I don’t agree’ then perhaps residents should ask for him to display his credentials in the specific area!
  • Chairman of GESAC. Another shambolic performance that has been far from open and beyond reproach. Gesac, arguably the ugliest building to be erected in Glen Eira, has risen, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of the old scout and guide halls in Bailey Reserve. Lipshutz as chairman of the steering committee should answer how on earth it got passed by council given that there is no direct transport and we suspect no viable business plan. As late as September Lipshutz was still insisting that the facility would be open in December. April Fools’ day now appears more likely!

Lipshutz has never denied that GESAC will lose money when it is finally up and running. It will not even contribute to the interest payments, yet he continues to maintain that there is no problem – except for the builder. Council has continued to hire and presumably pay staff to accommodate the many thousands of angry ‘members’ who thought their membership would give them a swim this summer. We’ve probably got fitness advisors, swim instructors, and countless others just sitting around, collecting their wages and doing bugger all. More importantly, whilst the costs continue to escalate the Pools steering committee chairman can only say ‘council has used every means at its disposal to have the builder comply with building time lines” and “council has been levying liquidated damages as a consequence of each milestone missed and they are now approximately $1million”. And we’re expected to believe that a huge company such as Hansen Yuncken will sit idly by and cough up the million without a fight in the courts. Get ready we say for more hefty legal fees. Then there’s the fact that since it is a loss-making project making damages stick will be a problem. But, while bullying is fashionable in Glen Eira in 2011, fiscal responsibility takes the back seat.

The auditor general has classified Glen Eira as ‘high risk’. Council is borrowing $25 to construct GESAC – and who knows if this is enough? We presume that council has taken out a fixed interest loan in an economy where interest rates have dropped by 0.5% and look likely to drop even further this coming year. So much for the essential controls over income and expenditure by council’s well paid officers and the audit committee – also part of Lipshutz’s responsibilities. Poor, poor, long-suffering ratepayers, since it is not only us, but the next generation which will be paying off the loan.

  • Racecourse/C60. Lipshutz has been a major player here. In a move that went against his own ‘no surprises’ policy, Lipshutz and Hyams moved a sneaky little amendment that gave the gang and Newton control over ‘negotiations’ with the MRC. This was after their initial attempt to include Newton was defeated. But all’s fair in love and war and politics it seems. You tell others to play by the rules and then break the rules when needed, convenient, or expedient. These ‘negotiations’ have been a dismal failure delivering nothing to the community.
  • Audit Committee. Probity and accepted best practice appear to mean nothing here. Lipshutz has been a continual member of the Audit committee and for two years sat concurrently on both the Audit committee and the finance committee – surely a conflict of interest and a definite no-no in all responsible organisations. Given his legal background we should expect that Lipshutz would have known better. But even worse, the reappointments of Gibbs & McLean must break all world records. Further their reappointments have all been deemed ‘confidential’, held in secret with no public announcement. We’re still waiting for the 2011 annual report to make an appearance.
  • The final lowlight must be the manoeuvrings to design, implement and delegate the ceo appointment process to the special committee – minus Penhalluriack. Even here we’ve witnessed stuff ups – the creation of the committee only to have its delegatory powers rescinded in the space of 3 weeks and new terms drawn up.  Again, everything’s been behind closed doors, even the final voting – although one doesn’t have to be too smart to figure out that Newton has retained his job thanks to the gang and Lobo.

There’s plenty more of course – in voting for various developments that sacrifice public amenity; in doing Newton’s bidding with the last minute gesac car parking extension; with the failure of the audit committee to act responsibly for months and months on the mulch affair, and now for the utter shambles which constitutes the workings of the Pools Steering Committee. All in all a dismal year of failure for Lipshutz and consequently for the residents of Glen Eira.

 

January 21, 2012

Has Lipshutz Mislead Council?

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

The minutes of December 14th, 2010 record the following comments by Cr Lipshutz in response to a public question–

“The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group. 

All answers to your questions have been dealt with honestly and in a responsive manner. ….Perhaps you could identify which if any Frisbee Group you are referring to and further provide some empirical evidence of any of my sons regularly playing Frisbee in such a group. You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

COMMENT – these statements sound very much like a categorical denial of any official affiliation of Michael Lipshutz’s son (Josh) with any specific Frisbee group. There is the admission that Josh does play Frisbee, but that it is in a purely casual capacity. We beg to differ!

We urge all readers to carefully examine the following cached image of CP Frizza on Fridays. Readers will note that on the left hand side there are two categories – ‘Admins’ AND “Officers’. Each category has a hypertext link in the name of ‘Josh”. Clicking on this reveals that the ‘admin’ person and the ‘officer’ is none other than Josh Lipshutz – Cr. Lipshutz’s son!

Before anyone suggests that this affiliation may have occurred AFTER Cr. Lipshutz made his strident and insulting denial, we have seen cached versions of this and other pages which precede December 14th. One very early page in particular identifies Josh Lipshutz as a ‘member’ of this specific Frisbee group, despite Cr. Lipshutz’s categorical denials. Further, on the image provided above, one of the statements attributed to Josh Lipshutz clearly suggests his role is far greater than a mere occasional ‘social player’ of this regular Frisbee game.

If we are correct, then the only possible and logical conclusion would be that Lipshutz has mislead Council and has breached both the Local Government Act and the Councillor Code of Conduct.

PS: The current Frisbee page has made several changes – deleting the category of ‘Officers’ – but the link to Josh Lipshutz under ‘Admins’ still remains. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37156836057#!/group.php?gid=37156836057&v=wall

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »