Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 9, 2011

Gobbledygook & Dirty Tricks

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is a mixture of more gobbledygook plus a few new dirty tricks. We will go through some of these.

Pools Steering Committee Minutes – 1^st December 2011.

“The builder’s revised program suggests further delays in relation to the gym and stadium. As these elements are not on the critical path, these works should not delay overall completion of the works. Unfortunately, officers are aware of other works that are not tracking as per the revised program. These delays (primarily in the pool hall) have the potential to further delay works. Officers have advised the builders of their concerns.”

COMMENT: If the gym and stadium are not on the ‘critical path’ does this mean that there are more serious problems with construction that have lead to the delay?

Under the heading Cash Flow – nothing, zilch, a big zero!

Budget/Variations

“There are a number of additional deductions under the contract. A quantity surveyor is currently valuing these works. Council continues to levy liquated (sic) damages.”

COMMENT: ‘additional deductions’ is a fascinating phrase. We suggest that what this is really referring to is that the original GESAC design is being cut back because of the cash flow crisis. Of course this will be trumpeted as GESAC coming in even further ‘under budget’. But residents should know what corners are being cut and what this suggests about the final quality of the building and facilities.

Critical Issues

The next paragraph is unintelligible and we are continually astounded at how such nonsense can be released into the public domain – “There are a number of active critical issues that officers continue to manage (some of which confidential has they relate to contractual matters). Critical issues include planning for handover of the facility from the builder, commissioning and managing delays in the program.”

COMMENT: Residents may as well forget January as the opening of the site. Again, the phasing is sublime in its attempts to camouflage the truth – “This would mean the facility would not open to the community until after the end of January”. ‘After the end of January – can only mean February, maybe even March’. But it sure sounds better to say ‘January’ rather than the later months! And no further meetings until ‘some time in January’!

DIRTY TRICKS

For the first time EVER a councillor’s ‘Right of Reply’ is published in the agenda items, rather than after it has been delivered at council meeting and then appears in the Minutes of that meeting. We can only speculate as to the thinking behind such a new ‘initiative’. Is this meant to ensure that Penhalluriack sticks 100% to the published script? That if he diverges by one single word, then Hyams and his cohorts will leap to their feet and declare a point of order?

Hyams is also very, very busy again requesting amendments to various previous minutes according to the Records of Assembly.

One other point we’ve noticed is that on all previous occasions when ‘legal advice’ and OH & S matters were discussed BOTH Penhalluriack and Newton left the room. (See 15^th November for example). However, the minutes of 22^nd November (after Newton has got his reappointment!) there is no mention of Newton departing even though the items cited were: “”Under s89(2)(a) ‘Personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 re OH &S compliance” and “under to (sic) s89(2)(f) ‘Legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” regarding OHS legal advice.”

MURRAY RD DEVELOPMENT

This application is for a 4 storey building comprising 31units. Officers recommend permit for 30 units. What caught our eye again was this sentence: “In principle, there are a number of factors which make this site appropriate for medium density development at the scale proposed:

It is located within close proximity to the Hawthorn Road tram route and shops;
It has abuttal to a tall 3 storey commercial building to the north and a single storey commercial building to the east (both fronting onto Hawthorn Road);
it has abuttal to two storey flats to the east”

COMMENT: When did a 30 unit development suddenly become ‘medium density’? Why the use of the word ‘tall’ in ‘3 storey commercial building’. Three storeys is three storeys surely? But what is most laughable is the logic of the argument – because of the existence of a 3 storey building and a 2 storey building then this seemingly justifies the granting of a permit for a 4 storey building! A small paragraph then follows – “Whilst the proposed development will be taller and more robust in its build form than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of reasonable change to the character of this street being within a Housing Diversity Area”. We congratulate the planning department for its expertise in the use of euphemism and spin and simply wonder where in the planning scheme does the policy state its ‘expectations’ as to medium density meaning 30 units on one lot?

Audit Committee Minutes – 27th November 2011

“The Committee noted the Auditor-General’s issuing of a high risk rating for Council based on a low liquidity ration as at 30 June 2011. Officers confirmed that the overall high risk rating was due to the liquidity ration of 0.95. The CFO stated that the monthly finance report to Council now included an additional liquidity section. The CFO also confirmed that Council should continue with all planned operating and capital expenditure, but should avoid any unplanned expenditure proposals. He said that delaying any planned capital expenditures such as the roads program or the warm season grasses program may have a negative impact on future renewal costs. The Chairman requested that Councillors be made aware, particularly at the strategy workshop, of the spending impact on the liquidity ratio. He also requested close monitoring of Council’s liquidity position and asked the CFO to report back at the next Audit Committee meeting”.

COMMENT: Another Machiavellian strategy by the CFO (Chief Financial Officer)? It’s okay to spend an unbudgeted for million on extending the car park at GESAC and relocating the playground, but not okay to delay roads and sporting ovals? Again, the logic is mind boggling, especially when you consider that many of these roads are repaved yearly! All in all, we suspect that this is a not so subtle warning to councillors to watch their “p’s and q’s” and not to interfere with the grand plans laid out by Messrs Newton and co – for example such as the recent funding of Take a Break and the attempt by Cr. Magee to have public toilets installed in Bentleigh. The message seems clear – it states “butt out councillors and let us continue as we will”!!!!

December 8, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Mayoral Speeches

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

From Port Phillip Council minutes – 5th December 2011

ADDRESS BY THE NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR OF THE PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL

The Mayor, Cr Powning assumed the Chair, and addressed the gallery as follows:

Good evening all and thank you for coming along tonight. I’d like to acknowledge the presence of parliamentary representative Sue Pennicuik.

Thank you Councillors for your support.

So we now find ourselves in the last year of our four year term, feeling weary no doubt. And though we have achieved much over the past 3 years, I know you all have a strong desire to achieve much more and of course faster.

But on this occasion I think it’s important that we pause and look at what we have achieved over the past year, which is a great deal. We have continued with our commitment to the principles of good governance – maximum transparency (no confidential matters), extensive consultation (so much time and energy, but of course worth it) and have encouraged local participation through our numerous reference committees, again which take enormous amounts of councillor time and energy but so important.

We entered the year with a new State government to work with, and in the interests of Council and our community as a whole, we have struck a respectful and I hope effective working relationship with this new State government, despite some clear differences at times on our respective views of the world.

This has been much supported by a number of our Liberal local members, and we have been impressed by their professionalism and keenness to work with us to achieve the best for our communities.

At this point I must also comment on the vigour and passion shown by Martin Foley in his new role as Labor opposition member – Martin has made the transition from government to opposition with the greatest of skill, and I can only imagine it must be a very difficult transition to make. Your commitment to achieving the best for our community and your long term vision for Albert Park is as clear as ever.

Councillors this third year of our term has seen us achieve some significant milestones, and though its tempting to read through them all, but for the benefit of you and the gallery, I will resist and focus on the highlights.

This year has seen Council adopt a Responsible Gambling Policy and a Social Justice Charter for the first time ever. These critical pieces of policy express this Council’s long standing and fundamental support for the principles of social equity, and also our willingness to challenge those social factors which we know create disadvantage and injustice.

We have made some real progress in the area of climate change, and have adopted several important strategies, which will drive our response to this critical issue, including the Walk Plan, the Cycling Plan and our Greenhouse Action Plan.

Our last budget saw us increase our expenditure on climate change to $8.5 million. Although there is more we can and will do Councillors, money talks and we are now starting to shout.

2011 also saw Council continue down the path with many critical infrastructure projects, including the development of our two children’s hubs in St Kilda and Port Melbourne, and when completed these centres will mean new childcare places for hundreds of our local families.

We have also achieved much in Emerald Hill, with the Emerald Hill Vision project, and as early as next week we hope to be ready to start the detailed design of the new Emerald Hill Library and Heritage Centre.

We are of course all excited by the possibility of a skatepark for Port Phillip being finished in 2012, and we have made more progress on the Triangle with the release of a new vision and principles document, which reflects what our community want for this important site.

We will soon see the design process for a new aged care facility in Port Phillip, again a great outcome for our community and one which Council has made a significant contribution to.

Next week we will release the draft urban design framework for the critically important Port Melbourne precinct, and of course I can’t resist gloating about our advocacy skills Councillors which resulted in the bi-partisan commitment to fund the upgrade of the Balaclava Station – which was a real win for this community.

There’s so much more I would like to highlight Councillors, not because it’s a chance to brag, but because I think it’s so important that all here understand how hard you have all worked to achieve these things on their behalf. Being a councillor at Port Phillip is a really very tough job, often unacknowledged, and I have been consistently impressed by the level of energy and enthusiasm each councillor has brought to their role, it is a fortunate community indeed which has this level of dedication from its local representatives. We are a great Council and we are doing great things.

Over this final year of our term, we will work hard to continue to deliver our vision for Port Phillip as detailed in our four year plan.

Naturally we will be presented with new challenges as we head into the election year – we will be subject to more criticism than usual, especially from potential candidates, as we all know one doesn’t get elected to council by saying what a great job the current council is doing.

So during the year ahead Councillors I urge you to continue to treat one another with the respect of which I have been so impressed again and again. The local government model of governing means we can only be effective if we work together – not one of us can achieve anything much alone.

And speaking of working together, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of our CEO Kay Rundle and Council’s executive management team. We Councillors know that you all put in a huge amount of time and energy to your roles, and I think I speak for all when I say we have been impressed by the unfailing respect you have shown us as the elected representatives of this fine municipality.

To my good friends, some of you here tonight, – can I ask you to hang in there – hopefully one day I’ll be able to go out and just have fun again for a change, instead of just inviting you to events where I give yet another wretched speech.

And in closing can I thank my family for their unfailing support. To Michael and Bridget, I know that you are both proud of my work but it doesn’t make it any easier when I am out for four nights of the week, or working all day on the weekends. Without your encouragement of course I wouldn’t be able to do this job. And by this time next year our new little Tommy rocket will be running around this chamber and creating total chaos at home, so plenty more challenges ahead.

But as one political leader once said, life wasn’t meant to be easy, (we all know who that was), and as another said more recently, when presented with 2 paths to choose from, always take the more challenging – (which is what we’ve done for sure). I’ll buy a drink for the first person to guess who said that.

Thank you.

December 3, 2011

Councillor Courses

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

On 28^th November 2011 a public question at Bayside City Council asked for information on each councillor’s academic qualifications and the courses each had undertaken since becoming a councillor. Information was also requested on the cost of these courses to Council. We’ve copied the responses and provide them in the public interest. We note specifically the number of councillors who have undertaken Director courses and wonder how many, if any, of our councillors have completed similar courses.

Academic Qualifications

Del Porto – B.A. (Hons) M.A Melb; Post Grad Sec. ACU

Hayes – Adv. Dip App. Sci. (Farm Management)

Long – B.A. (Multidiscipline)

Norris – M.A, M. Sc (Econ)

Frederico – B. Bus. (Mktg) Certificate of Business (Tourism)

Cooper-Shaw – B. Comm, B-Ed. Grad Dip Criminology; M.A. (applied Psych) M. Ed.

Russell – Nil

Councillor	Course	Year	Cost	Course Completed	Certificate Issued
Del Porto	Australian Institute of Company Directors	2011	$5,900	Completed	Yes
Hayes	Media Training Presentation Training Australian Institute of Company Directors	2009 2009 2011	$1,350 $800 $5,900	Completed Completed Completed	Yes Yes Yes
Long	Media Training Presentation Training	2009 2009	$1,350 $800	Completed Completed	Yes Yes
Norris	Media Training Presentation Training	2009 2009	$1,350 $800	Completed Completed	Yes Yes
Frederico	Media Training Presentation Training Australian Institute of Company Directors	2009 2009 2011	$1,350 $800 $5,900	Completed Completed Not Completed	Yes Yes No
Cooper-Shaw	Australian Institute of Company Directors	2011	$5,900	Not Completed	No
Russell	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

December 2, 2011

A New ‘King Maker’ In Town?

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

Things are hotting up and becoming really interesting. With the mayoral election just around the corner we can lay bets that the phones have been running hot and little clandestine meetings going on all over the place, with lobbying at its most intensive. Promises are being made left right and centre; favours called in, and all kinds of pressures brought to bear. The way we read the situation, is that the race is well and truly on between Hyams and Magee. Speculating a little further, we believe that the gang will of course vote for Hyams (ie. Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff and Hyams himself) whilst Magee will possibly have the votes of Forge, Pilling, Penhalluriack and himself. That leaves dear Oscar – the new ‘king maker’.

What a turn around from last year when Lobo nominated himself and got no support. His continual cry of ‘4 plus 1’ fell on deaf ears. Well, this year things are vastly different. Lobo is that pivotal ‘1’! The question of course is: will he succumb to the wiles of Hyams et al or the wiles of Magee et al? How will he vote? Will past animosity against ‘the gang’ suddenly be fresh in his memory, or will his current (inexplicable) embrace of the group remain firm? From last year’s ‘nowhere man’, Lobo is suddenly thrust into the limelight – the real ‘kingmaker’.

November 30, 2011

Special Council Meeting: Mayoral Race

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

Page 17 of today’s Moorabbin Leader and yesterday’s Caulfield Leader contain the notice of a Special Council Meeting set down for December 14th, at 7pm. The business to be transacted is the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

November 30, 2011

‘Please Explain!’

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

From the flood of comments we’ve received on the Newton reappointment and upcoming Mayoral election there is clearly keen interest out there in the community. We’ve basically summarised the range of comments and present them below as a series of questions – many of which need to be answered by councillors themselves since the Councillor Code of Conduct tells us that the public has a right to hear the reasons and logic behind each councillor’s vote! We therefore welcome their responses and also ask readers to provide their ‘answers’ to the following:

Why didn’t the majority of councillors choose to advertise?
Why after 12 stormy years with Newton at the helm did the gang choose to reappoint?
What really went on behind the closed doors of the Special Committee?
Should the public really believe that these councillors are so enamoured with Newton’s performance that the decision to reappoint was inevitable – keeping in mind GESAC; more bullying allegations; more Municipal Inspector investigations; more ombudsman’s investigations; more rate rises; more service charges; more planning objections; more lawyers than you can count; more secrecy and lack of transparency; general discontent in the community, etc. etc. etc.
Were any (undue) pressures brought to bear as in 2005?
What will be the legacy of another two years of Newton?
Will Hyams, if elected Mayor, enhance governance or continue along the same slippery path as Esakoff?
Why has Lobo so dramatically aligned himself with the gang?
Do any of these 9 councillors deserve re-election if they stand?
Will Liberal party backers/supporters of certain councillors be dismayed at the current turn of events?
Will the presumed ongoing Municipal Inspector’s and Ombudsman’s reports be another whitewash?
Has this Council reached its lowest point in the eyes of the community?

November 28, 2011

The Mayoral Stoush

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

Candidates are lining up for the annual Mayoral Stoush. In the blue corner we have Hyams, whilst in the red corner there are two likely candidates – Pilling and Magee. It’s the traditional end of year derby that takes place behind the closed doors of assembly meetings and, you can bet your bottom dollar, countless private phone calls, secret meetings and emails, away from the prying eyes of the public and Newton. Favours are called in, promises made, hand on heart commitments to the ‘public good’, favourable time off from work, agreeable wives and husbands. The prize isn’t half bad either – just under $90,000 per annum; fame and glory; your mug shot on the hallowed walls and of course the opportunity to ram your (and Newton’s) agenda through with support from your allies. Sitting up on high you can squash debate so easily; you can rule anybody at any time out of order; you can prevent residents from addressing council; you can dismiss public questions as harassment; you can speak to the press and promulgate more spin; you can have your picture in the Glen Eira news innumerable times; you can, in short, rule the roost.

Or you have the real opportunity to return Glen Eira to what it should be – a place of respect for individuals, especially the public, and to oversee the change in corporate culture. We do not hold out much hope for this option if the blue corner maintains its current position.

Gazing into our crystal ball, the numbers are probably evenly split. We doubt that Pilling will stand if Magee does, and vice versa – this would only dilute their already limited power base. Lobo is the lynch pin. His vote is vital in breaking the Mexican stand off. Will he again stand with the gang and vote for Hyams? Will he resort to his former self and break with his new found friends? We do feel sincere sympathy for him – the pressure must be enormous. In a very real sense the future of good governance rests with him.

November 24, 2011

More Chicanery

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

From the minutes of 22^nd November under ‘Urgent Business’

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR

Cr Esakoff: “On behalf of Council I wish to correct the record in relation to assertions made by Cr Frank Penhalluriack at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 November 2011 in his request for a report.

It was stated by Cr Penhalluriack that Officers had failed to table reports at Council Meetings.

This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologies (sic) to the CEO and Officers for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence.

It is noted that reports listed were either tabled at Council Meetings or provided to Councillors. It is further noted that there is no requirement unless specified that a report once prepared must go to a Council Meeting as opposed to Councillors or an Assembly of Councillors.”

We have previously commented that Andrew Newton’s statement that reports are “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting” implies that ALL requests for reports are tabled at ordinary COUNCIL MEETINGS – as signified by the use of Upper Case. The Esakoff statement is thus not only incorrect but again totally illogical. She in fact admits that Penhalluriack had made ‘assertions’ that Officers ‘failed to table reports at Council Meetings’ – yet in the final paragraph there is the admission that the reports Penhalluriack referred to were “EITHER TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETINGS OR PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS”. This in fact CONFIRMS everything that Penhalluriack said.

There are many other points we could quibble with – such as; what does ‘provided’ mean? What ‘evidence’ is required when Penhalluriack is talking about the ABSENCE of tabled reports in full Council Meetings. The ‘evidence’ is to be found in the minutes of all these meetings and the fact that NONE of the reports he read out appear in them. And surely the onus to provide proof to the contrary rests with Esakoff here and not Penhalluriack?

We can only ask why, with supposedly 8 intelligent people sitting as councillors, and 3 lawyers to boot, how no-one could see the inherent contradictions throughout this statement. It in fact makes a laughing stock of Esakoff and the rest. In their haste to do Newton’s bidding, logic, clear thinking, and respect for governance has been well and truly scuttled. This statement only cements the growing perception among residents of the incompetence of these councillors, the manipulation by officers for their own ends, and the abandonment of all principles of what constitutes good governance. It is utterly shameful and should be condemned by all residents concerned with what is happening to this Council.

November 24, 2011

Governance: From Bad To Abysmal

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

The minutes for the November 22^nd Council Meeting have made a very, very speedy appearance on Council’s website. We are however, continually amazed at the lack of logic that is contained in council’s reports and in the motions that are tabled. These minutes exemplify in spades the division and blatant ‘control mechanisms’ that we believe are being instigated by ‘the gang’ and Newton.

The in camera agenda items listed the following: “12.5 under s89(2)(f)” legal advice” which relates to right of reply”. More ratepayers funds are thus being wasted on ‘legal advice’ . Next, the minutes feature the outcome of this discussion item –

“Crs Lipshutz/Tang

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council:

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENTS:

Penhalluriack is expressing a personal reaction to what has been in the public domain. He is entitled to respond to such items. Furthermore, he is stating that he is embarrassed. Since when is it a ‘crime’ and the cause for ‘legal advice’ when someone admits their embarrassment?
He ‘presumes’ that the CEO is equally embarrassed by such media reports. Again, a logical assumption and not a hanging offence.
Nowhere in this motion DOES COUNCIL DENY THE TRUTH OF PENHALLURIACK’S STATEMENT.
Nowhere in this motion does Penhalluriack BULLY, HARRASS, OR VILIFY THE CEO, so what on earth is there for Council to disassociate itself from?
Why after three months does this only now appear in the public domain?
What is the motivation behind such an ill thought out resolution except to tarnish and attempt to discredit one councillor?

But it gets even better. The minutes then record the following: Item 12.6(b). We note the following and again question the transparency of what goes on behind the closed doors of in camera meetings and assembly meetings. THERE IS NO ITEM 12.6 (b) LISTED IN THE AGENDA OR IN THE MINUTES – only Item 12.6(a). In other words, the Agenda & Minutes do not reflect in any shape or form what is discussed in secret. If this was a late item – then it should have been included as 12.6(b) in the minutes. Thus discussions go on without the necessary disclosure as required by the Local Government Act. However, we have full confidence that at the next Council Meeting Hyams will leap up with another ‘correction’ to the minutes which will annul this ‘clerical error’ or oversight!

The minutes then go on to report –

Item 12.6 (b)

2. In the interest of considered decision-making, Council strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.

3. That Council strongly encourages all councillors not to support any motion initiated by any councillor unless the motion has been submitted in writing to councillors prior to the Council meeting except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.

COMMENTS

‘strongly encourages’ is meaningless – legally, morally, ethically. It is nothing but an attempt to gag councillors and circumvent open, spontaneous, and genuine debate within the council chamber. It has no authority of law backing it – that’s why the phrase ‘strongly encourages’ is used. It is not worth the paper it is written on we suggest!
We also find it obscene in its attempt to direct how councillors should or shouldn’t vote on any matter raised by another councillor.

The extraordinary thing about all this, is that councillors continue to bow their heads, and abdicate their responsibilities to their constituents. When we thought that the low point has been reached in the governance practices of this council, we always seem to find another benchmark which is even lower!

November 23, 2011

Auditor General: Council At ‘High Risk’

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

The Auditor General of Victoria has released his report into the financial sustainability of local governments. The full report is available at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20111123-Local-Govt/20111123-Local-Govt.pdf

Below are some lowlights from his report, plus an extract from Council’s Chief Financial Officer’s response to the findings.

“Buloke Shire Council was again rated high risk and Glen Eira City Council increased from low to high risk”.

“The overall financial sustainability risk for inner metropolitan councils for 2010–11 was low. However, Glen Eira City Council was assessed as high risk. Glen Eira’s liquidity ratio fell below one in 2010–11. Its cash assets were used to fund building of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. This also increased the council’s non-current assets. Based on its forward plans, Glen Eira will borrow additional funds to complete the centre, thus keeping the liquidity ratio forecast for the next three years between 0.94 and 1.05″.

Peter Swabey’s response: “Over the last few years, we have forecast that our liquidity ratio would drop to a level of approximately 1, as we have invested heavily in our capital works progrms and have borrowed to complete construction of a major Sports & Acquatic Centre redevelopment (please note that the Centre is expected to operate at a cash surplus). Given that all other indicators for Glen Eira are green (i.e. Underlying Result; indebtedness; Self financing; Capital Replacement and Renewal Gap), we feel that an overall rating of red is a bit severe. A liquidity ratio around 1 indicates that we are fully utilising ratepayer funds to maintain a sustainable infrastructure base (supported by a high Renewal Gap indicator and high Capital Replacement Ratio)”.

COMMENTS

Swabey’s letter is dated 3rd November 2011. So, how long has Council known this rating was coming? Why was nothing stated at the November 2nd Council Meeting?
Is it mere coincidence that the CEO reappointment occurred prior to the release of this information and did Councillors know it was coming? If they did, then what impact did this have on their performance appraisal of the CEO?
Have residents been sold a furphy the whole way along the GESAC journey?
What impact will this report have on interest rates and future borrowings and ultimately rate increases?

There are literally dozens of other questions we might ask beginning with a thorough cost accounting of all GESAC expenses and incremental costs which have never been fully released nor itemised. It also makes us query the statement that GESAC will be operating at a cash surplus! What do our readers think?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates