Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 18, 2011

GESAC & More Spin

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

The agenda items include the long awaited ‘report’ on GESAC. However, this is not a ‘report’ but only an expanded ‘minutes’ of the October 5th meeting of the Pool Steering Committee. So much for Lipshutz’s promises and the transparency of this council!

The following is made clear:

  • GESAC will not open in December
  • Council is facing a ‘liquidated damages’ suit of $1m – at this point in time. Residents should therefore prepare themselves for potentially more legal costs in the attempt to recoup these monies
  • Even after the builder has finished, there is still a period which includes ‘commissioning’ – ie outfitting. We suggest that this means that the opening will likely be in February at the earliest.

We must also take the following with a huge grain of salt:

“The project is currently under budget, partly due to the levying of liquidated damages (LDs) on the sliding scale since 19 May 2011. Total LDs are likely to exceed $1m by the end of the project. The most likely scenario is that the $41.2m construction contract will be completed for thirty-nine-point-something million”.

Again we invite readers to consider the following:

  • What is the TOTAL COST of GESAC? All along we’ve been handed the line that the cost is roughly $41m. Now there is the admission that this is only the CONSTRUCTION costs. Add in, interest,  outfitting, staff, higher purchase agreements, running costs per year and we’re undoubtedly looking at a venture that is well and truly above $50m.
  • If these LDs were becoming apparent as early as May, then why has the public continually been fed the spin that everything is on time and under budget?
  • Several assumptions are made in the above statement: (1) that council will successfully recoup its LD payments; (2) that potential legal costs will be paid by the builder and there won’t be a protracted court battle adding further to overall costs.

Finally, this meagre 3 page document (which is really one page and a half) is short on detail but long on spin. Residents still have no idea when the centre will open; how much it will cost and how much it will be up for in operating costs. And of course, there is no mention of the basketball allocation saga which was ‘promised’ by Lipshutz at last council meeting. All in all, we suggest that this is fast becoming an unmitigated disaster on all fronts – transparency; accountability, and prudent oversight.

 

November 14, 2011

The Continuing Mire of GESAC

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

The minutes of 6th June, 2011 record the following resolutions: 

Item 10 – URGENT BUSINESS  

Crs Magee/Pilling 

“That Officers report to Council on the awarding of the use of GESAC basketball courts. This report should include details of requests for Expressions of Interest letters offers and acceptances copies of draft contracts, and responds to the claims contained in the letter by James Cody Treasurer of the McKinnon Basketball Association of the 1st June 2011 and should also cover the capacity of the Oakleigh Warriors to honour their commitment.

2. That the report include by way of separate appendix a copy of the proposed contractual terms to Oakleigh Warriors and
Council not submit any written contract to Oakleigh Warriors until Council has considered same.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting, and

4. The report should include the cost of hire of like courts at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.”

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Tang

In part four delete the word ‘at’ and replace with the word ‘including’.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED on the casting vote of the Chairperson and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENTS

Five months later the silence is literally deafening on all aspects of GESAC. The resolution states that officers are to report to council. If this has been done, then we question why this has been done in camera and behind closed doors via a secret assembly meeting. If, on the other hand, it hasn’t been tabled anywhere, then fulfilling the requirements of such a simple request in a timely manner should in no shape or form take 5 months. Most of the requested documents should be on file. As for the comparisons, we in fact put up a post including figures for MSAC and other sporting facilities that took us no longer than 20 minutes to research and locate the relevant information.

The angst that has been occasioned by this entire stuff up is unacceptable. What is even worse is that no information has been released to the long suffering residents who are paying the bills. If officers are incapable of carrying out councillors’ resolutions within an acceptable time frame, then most reasonable people would conclude that they are either incapable of performing their duties, or engaging in a not so subtle form of obstructionism. Either way they should be replaced.

 

November 9, 2011

A Little History Lesson

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

CEO: I’ll sue you

Mathew Dunckley

2 March 2005

Moorabbin Glen Eira/Kingston Leader

GLEN Eira chief executive officer Andrew Newton has threatened to sue city councillors if they don’t renew his $250,000-a-year contract.

In a letter leaked to the Leader, Mr Newton threatened to sue any councillor who voted against his reappointment, alleging a breach of the Fair Trading Act.

The letter, dated February 11 and confirmed by several councillors, is the latest in a flurry of leaks from the council.

The reappointment process stalled in December and the council voted against Mr Newton’s reappointment at a confidential meeting on February 7.

The council was expected to announce a decision to advertise the position last week but the Leader understands it has instead had to seek legal advice following the threat from Mr Newton.

In his letter, Mr Newton said all councillors had agreed to publish an advertisement declaring the council’s intention to reappoint him.

“I am advised that each councillor who resiled from that intention on February 7 has breached the Fair Trading Act,” the three-page letter stated.

“If a resolution is not put and passed reappointing me, you will leave me no choice but to act on legal advice to sue those  ouncillors personally for very substantial damages.”

The council had a number of options open to it last September when it first considered his reappointment, the letter stated.

“Given what you have said and done (since September), the only conscionable decision open to you, that does not carry unfavourable consequences, is to do what you said you would do.”

Mr Newton also alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act stretching back to 2002.

Mr Newton claimed the council had not acted on his concerns and if he was not reappointed, he would be forced to seek further damages.

“In any objective analysis the runs are on the board,” Mr Newton said. “This is a high performance-low cost organisation. The mayor has confirmed earlier this week that there are no allegations of performance issues in relation to me.”

Mr Newton and most councillors refused to comment on the issue when contacted by the Leader last week.

Cr Alan Grossbard would not comment on the subject of the letter but said any appointment by the council should not be “dealt with under the veil of alleged threats”.

Cr Noel Erlich said he had “100 per cent” confidence in Mr Newton and criticised other councillors for not backing the chief executive officer’s reappointment.

“Look at it from his point of view. He thought he had a job and now they have turned it around inexplicably and that it is unfair,” he said. 

 

November 5, 2011

Where Has The Old Cr. Lobo Gone?

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

Oscar Lobo came into council all guns blazing. We’ve reported on:

  • his demand for cost benefit analysis;
  • his support of decent answers to public questions;
  • his attempt to get a ‘request for a report’ on ‘unauthorised sporting groups’;
  • his battle cry of ‘4 plus 1’ indicating, we presume, his displeasure at the ruling clique of second and third term councillors.

There have also been several clashes with Lipshutz where ‘niceties’ were hurled across the chamber. We’ve also learnt that Lipshutz was definitely not on Cr. Lobo’s list of bosom buddies. So what’s happened? Why the sudden reversal that makes one suspect that Lobo is now nothing more than Lipshutz’s pawn. Ill health might explain some of this reversal. But certainly not all. From the gregarious, outgoing, impulsive, energetic councillor determined to listen to his community, Oscar Lobo has literally turned into a shadow of his former self. He is silent on all issues. All he does is put his hand up. And, most significantly, at last ouncil meeting after what appeared to be some urgent mutterings in his ear from Lipshutz his vote suddenly changed. What this says about conviction and decisiveness in voting we will leave to the reader’s imagination. But it may say plenty about the relationship between these two men.

We’ve learnt the following:

An email from Lipshutz to Lobo asked in part whether any of the Middle Eastern banks he had worked for were involved in channelling funds to terrorist organisations.

Lobo’s response was outrage and hence his attempt at one council meeting to force discussion on ‘racism’. This of course was blocked by the four. Our comments at the time (December 14th, 2010) were: “Lobo gagged AGAIN. Seems like Oscar Lobo attempted to reveal something about an email written to him by Lipshutz in response to the former’s email to Esakoff. Hyams piped up that private emails are private and since councillors have right of reply only when the PUBLIC may draw some inference from comments/press/statements, Lobo couldn’t raise the issue. We strongly suspect that it has something to do with his earlier call of ‘racism’ that he has attempted on several occasions to put before council.”

Apparently, there is also a recording of a conversation involving Lobo that ended up in the hands of Steven Tang.

We are certainly not suggesting anything untoward but, could the sudden change in Cr. Lobo and these events be connected in any way? We simply have to ponder:

  • Is there anything in this alleged tape recording which is now being used to advantage by certain individuals?
  • Can any of these events help explain the public perception that Cr. Lobo is now tied by a umbilical cord to Lipshutz?
  • Has Lipshutz played any role here? What of Tang?

Ah, questions, questions, questions! We invite Cr. Lobo to come forth and explain any of these coincidences and most importantly, to account for the amazing metamorphosis into a Lipshutz disciple over the past 10 or 11 months. The gallery misses the energy, enthusiasm and contributions of the old Cr. Lobo. We believe that residents deserve an explanation for this amazing conversion. Residents also need to understand the rationale behind Cr. Lobo’s voting patterns given his silence in council. After all, ratepayers pay his expenses and we deserve to know why he votes as he does.

 

November 5, 2011

GESAC: Is There A Major Problem?

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

For months and months we’ve been hearing the same repetitive spin – GESAC is on time and under budget. We’ve also consistently bemoaned the fact that the Pools Steering Committee has not exactly been forthcoming with information. Secrecy has dominated all facets of this project and the committee. Finally, the utopian vision that Lipshutz has been peddling is starting to show some major cracks. Suddenly the picture is not all that rosy for the much vaunted December opening. We also suspect that money is leaking like a sieve from this project – why else the need to enter into higher purchase contracts? ‘Unforseen’ costs such as lawyers, car parks, and heaven knows what else, must surely have blown the budget to smithereens? If so ‘successful’ then why the need for the continued extensive full page advertising in 4 local papers? Yet, we have been hearing the same old story again and again. It is definitely wearing thin.

So now, at the 11th hour it looks like residents will finally get an (edited) version of at least some of what has been going on. Lipshutz is finally admitting that there ARE PROBLEMS, and that the opening date is still unclear. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the pool doesn’t open until January next year. If council is right in its projected attendance figures of hundreds of thousands, then one month’s delay in the summer period, could impact massively on income. Longer and it could be disastrous. It really is about time that residents were provided with the full picture of what is, and has, been going on.

A good start would be for councillors to demand and receive a full, itemised account on all expenditure, where every single penny is accounted for – and income. And if there are issues and problems, then who is to be held accountable?  Is it really all the weather’s fault? the builders’ fault? The Steering Committee’s fault? The possible questionable quality of a business plan? And the most vital question – how much more money is this going to cost ratepayers that hasn’t been budgeted for?

Here’s what was said at Wednesday night’s Council Meeting:

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that committee meets monthly and discusses progress. ‘One of the biggest problems ….is the builder and the difficulties (for completion on time). Said that at NEXT council meeting there would be a ‘full report as to that issue’ (and) ‘the various activities at GESAC’. Concerns ‘that all members of the community have is the completion date’. Lipshutz expected ‘that would be discussed at next meeting’ and ‘once we know how the builder is going’ (building and plumbing issues, then they’ll be able to give some definite date as to when the pool will open)’.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he had attended some meetings and that there was another one on tomorrow (Thursday) ‘ I’m concerned that this council has too much in confidence material (these minutes lack) ‘detail’….I endorse what Cr. Lipshutz said. It was a full and frank discussion about the progress….and I think they should be recorded in the minutes…..there are one set of minutes for assemblies…this is a steering committee and I believe we either have this in camera …..or alternatively we have full and frank minutes published”.

 

 

 

November 4, 2011

Toilets, Policy and Circuses

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

Item 9.4 on Wednesday night featured the Public Toilet issue in Centre Rd., East Bentleigh. We draw readers’ attention to this item because it highlights again:

  • the total inconsistency of argument when applied to previous decisions and discussion
  • the discovery of new terminology by Lipshutz – ‘holistic’
  • the platitudes and dissembling that surround notions of ‘consultation’
  • the gang of four – again!
  • but the saddest thing about this whole episode is that it occupied more time than the C60 and other important issues put together. Yes, we can have ‘robust discussions’ – but only when the matter is ‘trivial’ in comparison to the really political and important matters that need proper decision making.

Here’s what happened:

MAGEE: Submitted alternative recommendation/motion where council could ‘note’ the ‘possibility’ of providing a public toilet at 672 Centre Rd and that there be community consultation about Option A – ie to sell the laneway to help fund the toilet block. Seconded Forge.

MAGEE: Stated that nearby toilet had disappeared nearly 15 years ago and that the IGA toilet was inappropriate since residents had to leave a deposit when they asked for a key then return it. For elderly residents this was not ‘dignified’, so instead of spending an ‘enjoyable time in our shopping centres’ they go to a hotel, go home ‘or they don’t come to the shopping centre’. Proposed that sale of laneway could go to Commonwealth bank ‘who are already pushed for car parking’ and they would benefit from an extra ‘3 or 4 carparking spaces’….(which would) ‘subsidise if not pay for the whole’ lot….’People in East Bentleigh deserve this and asking for this….let’s see how we can fund this….let’s ask the community, the shopholders…

FORGE: Supported Magee. Outlined how her previous work with the health industry and elderly and ‘it’s all very well going to a hotel’……’but when you’re in trouble….it’s a long way (to go)….it’s not just the elderly, but young ones as well. Mothers with children’….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports the ‘concept’ of public toilets and ‘if there is a need in East Bentleigh I would certainly support that’. ‘What I’m concerned about is policy on the run….we have a SRP (Strategic Resource Plan) ….we have a budget….we have so many projects that we all want as councillors…toilets is certainly one of them and childcare is another….trees,….footpaths….all of us
want to do (these projects)…’we also have a budget…I remind councillors that we are now completing GESAC ….a situation is critical to maintain cash flow….(can’t spend money which will) ‘impact adversely’. Said that council meets in February ‘where we look at our priorities, we look at what we want to achieve in the year’ (budget and SRP are developed from that). ‘there no reason why we should not alter that….I think in this particular case you go to consultation it tells the community straight away ‘we’re going to do this’….I’d rather see a recalculation of our strategy….let’s look globally, holistically and not simply
plug holes….if we approve this motion it simply opens the flood gates….every time we find something to plug….and before you know it we have a dysfunctional budget and a dysfunctional council’…I think that once having a plan you try and stick to that plan’…..’no iron clad, but in this particular case…..

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed with Lipshutz but only first half of what he said. ‘public toilets are important….(not only for mothers and elderly) but for youth….we spend a lot of money of warm season grasses…for sporting fields which are only used (mainly) by the young….but we don’t spend enough money on toilets’ Gave an example of the Hawthorn Rd toilet which is ‘way beyond I think the budget and way behind the timetable….(Agreed that council should be careful with spending money…Said that there had been plenty of discussions on) ‘the systems we have for delegating jobs…’we don’t know why the tenders come in and they’re too expensive….(Foreshadowed his calling for an Officers’ Report on tendering)…’In last Saturdays’ Age you can buy this house (holding up newspaper)…2 storey, double garage, study, 4 bedrooms, and 3 toilets  for $250,000….(whilst the toilet at Hawthorn Rd) ‘providing only 3 toilet cubicles that’s for $320,000….an extra $70,000 for a piddly little building…I really do not understand as a business person why this is costing us so much money…..I agree we are tight for funds….borrowing heavily….we can look more carefully in other areas to …how we allocate these jobs.’. Invited residents to look at the Hawthorn rd toilet and compare it with ‘this house – 4 bedrooms’….’we’re not getting value for money’….

TANG: Said that he thought that even Senator xenophon ‘would be happy with that stunt’…..’if public toilets can be made cheaper maybe there’s a business opportunity there …..(Brimbank councillor thought there was; imported toilets and under cut the market)….all State government bodies are paying around the same price…..(Disagreed with both Penhalluriack and Lipshutz in that finding money and spending it only when it becomes available)….’what I don’t hear is if we did get more money which public toilet would we spend it on?….(neither pays any regard to what he) ‘thinks was a unanimous (decision) on the Public Toilet Strategy in 2010…..(Spoke about the ‘filthy’ public toilet at Murrumbeena Railway Station)…’you’ve got to wonder if we had more money for public toilets where would we spend it?’….’If you’re wanting to go back to those priorities go back to the whole priorities….(foreshadowed a motion which would have consultation and look at priorities…’If it’s a representation made by the public council should consider it…(Said he’d been approached about McKinnon Reserve playground toilet)….I’d like to see us consider that location for priority listing….

PILLING: Would like to support Magee’s motion because ‘there certainly is a great need….East Bentleigh is the poor cousin….(his issue isn’t with money or process since) ‘there is a case to review the whole (strategy)….(Would be in favour of funding this toilet) ‘but more at the end of the process when we’ve examined all our strategies….I’d certainly be keen to re-examine the riorities….but we have to go through (process)….I certainly would like to be supporting a review….

HYAMS: Spoke about toilet at 670 Centre Rd which seemed to have been ignored….’not flush with funds’…(so if there’s a possibility of the developer paying for the toilet wait) ‘and see how that develops….I’d prefer at the moment to have an overall look at it (strategy)…..

ESAKOFF: Doesn’t support Magee’s motion. ‘ not for lack of motive….I support public toilets….(need to be provided) ‘in the usual way, not on the run as this one is….I would like to see us review the public toilet strategy….look at various options before we go to consultation….that needs discussion from our group first….financial report (on page 32 says) ‘definite need for caution and cash flow for remainder of this term….something that has not been budgeted for, not provided in the SRP…we need to go through this process in the correct and usual manner…..I would like to do this in the proper way and I would probably support the alternate motion (of Tang).

MAGEE: ‘strategies and policies….are just strategies and policies….The councillor group have lost the ability to listen to the community….if we are so stuck on a strategy that is now 2 years old, that didn’t properly in my opinion identify the need….this is about councillors doing their job. This is about listening to a community who have needs….this is an identified need and an approach from the community…this is me acting on behalf of that information….there’s no law that says Glen Eira Council must stick to (the strategy)….we have a very ageing community around East Bentleigh…..(can’t tell them that htye have to walk 250 metres when they need to go to the toilet).. ratepayers of Glen Eira deserve when they ask a councillor to advocate on their behalf….(talked about the laneway and how this could cover costs) ….I think the councillor body are now more intent on sticking to policies, strategies and formulaes rather than listening to the community….It’s not a council I (want?) to be part of’.

MOTION PUT: and Lost

TANG: Put alternate motion about conducting a review of toilet strategy BUT those residents who have made ‘representations’ since 10th August 2010 ‘should be invited to make submissions as part of that review’. Seconded Lipshutz. ‘Disappointed in the way Cr. Magee argued….very easy to say you stand here and represent your community and the rest of your colleagues don’t….(went over last ‘consultation process) ‘and council had to listen to its community…if councillors ignored them, find, probably got our strategy wrong….if council disregarded the advice it got on that strategy it probably got its strategy wrong….(and if we don’t review then again not doing things properly)…’It’s inappropriate to stand up here and say I received representations ….if you don’t listen to what I’m saying you’re not listening to the community…(need to have) ‘whole of community heard (and not just those that speak to one councillor). (Didn’t support relying on private developer)….(his motion would fit in with consultation) ‘that is to the whole council and not just one councillor because we happen to be doing our shopping down in East Bentleigh….some councillors shop in East Bentleigh, some councillors shop in Elsternwick, some councillors shop in glen Huntly….it shouldn’t be about catching them on a Saturday morning……

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m a councillor from Camden Ward but …..I’m a councillor for Glen Eira….and when I look at issues I look at what’s going to benefit all of Glen Eira, not just necessary my ward….(praised Magee for standing up for his ward residents but what is needed is )’a holistic approach….let’s do away with strategies, let’s do away with plans. If you do that ….let’s not have a community plan, let’s not have (February)…let’s willy nilly chose our pet projects …..It’s unfortunate that he (Magee) says that…I think all of us have to look at what’s best for the citizens of Glen Eira as a whole…(Claimed that more money is spent in Magee’s ward than any other one. That’s okay if) ‘that’s where the need arises….there has to be a holistic approach…you have to have a look at the needs of all the city of Glen Eira….’Let’s look at it holistically…let’s see what the community wants overall….and then decide where our priorities lie…(stated that each councillor wants to do so many things)….’but if we all do this…..as a team we actually achieve a hell of a lot….

HYAMS: Disagreed with Magee. ‘what we do when we put these strategies together is we consult with the community (they have input)…’we’re actually disenfranchising all the people who contributed to the strategy’ (if follow Magee’s example of individual representation)…’so in effect the way we do it is the most democratic way’…..’we do it systematically. We give everyone the same opportunity….once we’ve done that then we come to a solution….we are struggling for funds….sum of about 2.5 million dollars was ripped out of the budget over five years….we have to live with that decision….

PILLING: Positives will be that ‘we certainly do need to review’….(toilet strategy is) proceeding at glacial pace and that is part of the problem…perhaps we can increase the rate….but then also adjust some other areas….

MAGEE: ‘We obviously do need a review’ (so will support Tang’s motion)….I’m saying (residents) come to me and ask me and I’ll listen. I can’t speak for you. Only you know that.

ESAKOFF: ‘We are councillors who are meant to be working in the best interests of the people….not our given ward….and that’s why we have these plans in place and our strategies….and our prioritising of various things….to change those priorities around means changing other priorities….if something comes in something must go out,. Unless it’s been budgeted for and it’s in the SRP…we make those very difficult decisions (prior to budget setting) … because there are an enormous number of demands….What we have in place now is what was considered the right order, the right priority….that may well change….

TANG: ‘I don’t think ward arguments are particularly relevant here….(issue is where toilets are going to go, especially when only a couple a year are erected)….(Said that he wouldn’t like to get up and suggest to council that they change their priorities because he had been approached by one resident in his ward) ‘Representing the community would be to take on board that gentleman’s concerns and to bring them to council’s attention….I think we can accommodate what all councillors have been trying to achieve….in this review….No something we usually do (ie 2 year review) ……’so a review after two years is I think a pretty good outcome….

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

At Wednesday night’s Council Meeting, Penhalluriack attempted to deliver a ‘Right of Reply’. He was gagged repeatedly through his statements by Hyams and co. who numerous times leapt up to protest the relevance of what Penhalluriack was saying. We’ve since received an email from Cr. Penhalluriack which contains much of the statement he attempted to make. We publish this in the public interest.

At stake here is the ability of councillors to express a viewpoint, albeit unpopular, without hindrance, without procedural rules that are used to effectively silence individuals regardless of the merits of their position, and the deliberate and obstructionist manner in which these rules are interpreted and applied. In a council where there is no Notice of Motion, and all proposed motions, amendments, rights of reply, councillor questions and requests for reports are to be announced with 24 hours notice, then it is extremely easy to undermine and even sabotage efforts to get something into the public arena. Such practices do nothing to enhance the public’s perception of a truly democratic organisation and its governance practices.

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

Glen Eira Debates has an anonymous contribution posted earlier today that says that I am a bully, but goes on to point out that I am also shut out of the debate concerning council’s CEO. There is clearly a lot of confusion within the community, and there is a  large amount of material which has been declared “confidential” and therefore can’t be included in this reply.  However I do make the following points in my own defence.

The mulch storage facility has been in the news consistently. The Age, the Leader, the Bayside Melbourne Weekly and the local blog, Glen Eira Debates, have repeatedly featured stories and comments about this facility. I want to once and for all set the record straight and present the facts:

  1. My concern over the mulch storage facility is the result of residents writing to me. “I often take my granddaughter to play in the adjacent playground and I am worried about the traffic and the dust generated by the council’s equipment”  As well I have concerns for our employees, one of whom has written, concerning the mulch getting wet, “that may increase the risk of composting and subsequently the risk of Legionella.” An employee also wrote “The hazards associated with mulch are well known”.  Yet they continued to work there without protective gear until at least the 5th April 2011.
  2. I followed up on such concerns as is my duty as early as June 2010
  3. For months nothing was happening despite my frequent requests.   On the 28th October an officer wrote “No further action proposed at this time.”
  4. My recourse to the Audit committee is my right as a councillor, and that committee deliberated on the issue, and found no conflict of interest in my presentation.
  5. The Arnold investigation was only instigated because of the audit committee.
  6. The report seemingly went through many versions. What has appeared in public is only the latest one of these versions.
  7. I have been refused details of these changes, including why they were made.
  8. I supplied various other scientific studies to all councillors and council officers
  9. The decision to close the facility was on the vote of 7 to 2, yet the focus of criticism and innuendo has been specifically directed towards me.

In order to counter the continual and misleading media coverage of these events, I have applied under FOI and common law for documents relating to this entire episode. This is what has happened:

  • I have not received all the documents I requested
  • The processes have been most unusual in that I was given incorrect information by officers which delayed the release of documents; the released documents were not presented in accordance with legal requirements; and my request for a
    review by VCAT was also delayed by incorrect advice from council’s officers.
  • As a councillor I have a common law right to documents which are part of council business. The mulch storage facility is absolutely council business.
  • Section 17 of the FOI Act obliges council to assist in sourcing and releasing the documents yet they have briefed Maddocks, a large firm of city solicitors, to resist my claim.
  • Documents not released to me are currently the basis of my request for a review by VCAT
  • What is the cost of preventing me from seeing these documents, what is council trying to hide, and is the timing of all of this a mere coincidence?

At that point the Mayor declared that what I was saying was not relevant and refused me permission to continue.

Frank.

 

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:

  • The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
  • The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
  • The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton

If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions.  Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’  and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’

ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.

PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’

HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’

HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’

ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.

HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’

NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion

LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.

PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.

NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.

MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….

TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’

ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)

PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’

ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.

TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.

PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t  believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.

TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)

ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’

BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO.  Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.

TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..

LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive  meetings

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.

TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

 

October 29, 2011

Tenders: Value for Money?

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

Local government is very, very big business. One could therefore argue that it behoves councils to ensure that they are as transparent and accountable in their dealings with companies as possible. Please note, we do recognise the importance of  commercial in confidence’ and other associated legalities. All we’re saying is that residents need to have confidence that the successful applicants are in fact the best available and that we are getting ‘value for money’.

We’ve recently heard of a story where a certain club requested some equipment from Council. They offered to pay half and when told the price asked, they went and got their own quotations, and surprise, surprise – the quotations came in at half the cost that council had stated. When council was informed of this far cheaper quotation, their response was: “oh we’ve already selected our preferred supplier and it would now cost too much to tender”. End of story. The moral of course, is that residents end up paying double.

So what does this say about tendering and the processes involved? We’ve already asked whether councillors get a look in – do they see the tender documents? Do they sit on the selection panels? Do they help set the criteria? Who are the officers who sit on such panels? What are their qualifications? Why can’t the public be informed as to the process, the selection criteria, and the grades for each applicant – at least in those tenders that are not bound by ‘commercial in confidence’? It doesn’t seem to be a problem for Port Phillip, or other councils, to place in the public domain their evaluations and comments – see uploaded document.

We’ve gone through the last 3 Glen Eira council agendas/minutes and find the following tenders were, or are about to be, considered  –

IT ‘management support’       –         $4,250,000 (including GST?)

Designing Glen Eira News     –         “more than $200,000”

Sports oval    –
$525,969.40 inclusive of GST

Concrete works                       –           More than $1,000,000

Drainage                                 –           $1,445,000

Construction                           –           $382,715.30 (GST incl)

From these 3 meetings alone, that’s a potential grand total (and could be more if GST isn’t included) of $7,803,684. And all we, and probably councillors get to know about all this, is the ‘recommendation’ by anonymous officers that councillors probably rubber stamp, and we residents keep paying for. A lot more information and communication in this area is desperately needed so that residents may have full confidence that they are actually getting value for their money. As for councillors, surely the GESAC basketball allocation mess should be a salutary lesson in the necessity of careful oversight?

 

October 24, 2011

Financial Accountability: Are Councillors Doing Their Jobs?

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

Last council meeting featured the quarterly financial report. As per usual, it was accepted in glowing terms, especially by Lipshutz. We cannot help wondering however, whether councillors even read these reports, or if they do read them, whether they actually query any of the figures and statements. We wish to highlight the following figures which are buried within this report:

Packer Park concept plan – $370,000
Building Design Elsternwick CCC – $740,000

Surely even an architect of Frank Lloyd Wright’s calibre would not cost three quarters of a million dollars? But it gets even murkier. The budget of just several months ago contained this item – “Building Design and Community Consultation for Elsternwick Child Care Centre $250k”. We therefore ask:

• Why is consultation included together with ‘building design’ – consultation is a direct Council expense – it is not part of infrastructure’.
• Why in the space of 3 months has the expenditure on this item suddenly blown out by over half a million dollars?
• Has the budget figure been ‘understated’ in order to get passed and now, suddenly, the true cost may be emerging? Is this common practice for most items – especially GESAC?

We also draw readers’ attention to this one liner – “Funding of $371K for Bailey Reserve playground relocation (Council considered this relocation as part of the approval for the car parking extension for GESAC on 19 July 2011). Please note that the funding for this relocation is expected to be offset from savings on the GESAC construction expenditure.”

Apart from the sheer staggering cost of removing and relocating – with some additional play equipment – how can this in all conscience amount to such a figure? We also note the language (“expected”) and wonder whether some time down the track councillors, if they bother to question anything will simply be told – “oh sorry, this was only expected and sadly didn’t eventuate!”

There are numerous other items in this ‘report’ which are practically indecipherable – not because one needs an accounting degree to make head or tail out of the figures, but simply the lack of detail, the lack of explanation, and the overall ‘imprecision’ of what our money is being spent on. If councils are meant to be accountable to their communities, then clear, plain English statements are essential. But most importantly, councillors must read, question, and demand answers. Are they doing this we wonder?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »