Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only –  please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

 

September 21, 2011

Too Little, Too Late?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[9] Comments 

At Tuesday night’s council meeting, Cr. Pilling requested an officer’s report on the enormous charge increases for 3 year old kindergartens. He stipulated that the report should also provide comparisons with prices at neighbouring councils. Pilling also expressed concern that the Glen Eira charges were at the ‘steep end’ of charges, especially in comparison to other councils. This request for a report was passed unanimously.

Pilling should be commended for his request and concern. However, we remind readers that we raised this matter as soon as the draft budget was published. We pointed out that by June 2012, parents of 3 year olds would be paying an extra $155 per week for their toddlers to attend a council run kindergarten. There was also a major story in the Leader which we featured. Alarm bells were thus ringing loud and clear months and months ago. So, why wasn’t this ‘concern’ expressed loudly and clearly at budget time – or even prior to then when plans were first being drawn up? Why is the request for a report put in months later, when the charges are already set in concrete? Perhaps Cr. Pilling did raise the matter in Assemblies. We don’t know. But the end result was that the budget was passed unanimously with a few minor adjustments (ie. 2 less sports grounds redone and  a rate drop to 6.5% instead of 6.95%).

So, we are now in the position of waiting for the Officer’s report – which could take months. And what will this actually achieve anyway? Will it bring charges down this year, next year? Will it actually make any difference to anyone? We can only conclude that if Cr. Pilling and others were so concerned about the exorbitant increase then they should have rejected the budget when they had the opportunity. To cry crocodile tears now is far too late.  And an Officer’s Report will fix nothing. It will be ‘noted’, and most probably go into the dustbin of history.

 

September 21, 2011

The Chamber of Spin!

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

Item 9.3 – Heritage status

Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.

Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.

PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.

TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’  and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.

LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….

HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…

PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)

Motion – Pilling/Forge

PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’

FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.

PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should  be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).

HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.

TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.

PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.

 

September 20, 2011

Time For Humble Pie?

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

The 466 Hawthorn Rd. Heritage listing is also on tonight’s agenda items. Officer recommendations are to accept the Panel Report recommendations and to include the 2 Seaview properties under the Heritage listing. Should we therefore expect some humble pie tonight from councillors? After all, they have cost residents an extra 4 Heritage Advisors ‘reports’; a panel hearing, lawyers and staff time. In short, quite a few thousand dollars that has been needlessly flushed down the toilet. Readers should also remember Cr. Lipshutz’s new found expertise in Heritage matters. We also had Tang and Hyams claiming that recourse to a Panel was to ensure that a member of the community wasn’t disadvantaged simply because of who he was.

We anticipate that this will be the constant refrain tonight – council has only acted in the best interests of social justice, blah, blah, blah. No apologies, and no accounting for the dismal performance of Council lawyers in this matter. But, we still have had no real plausible explanation of how and why this stuff up occurred in the first place. Nor what role the planning department played in this entire fiasco.

 

September 17, 2011

Proposed C93 Amendment – More Stealth?

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

This item must surely win the award for obfuscation and keeping everyone in the dark. Here we have a 2 page officer’s report proposing the removal of the Commercial Centre Policy from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. One page is fully taken up with the processes involved in seeking an amendment – ie. permission to advertise, submissions, perhaps a panel, etc. The first page is nothing more than waffle, and we believe a deliberate attempt to disguise what is really going on and the motives behind such a move. When any amendment is proposed, residents have every right to expect the following:

  • Clear, comprehensible, and comprehensive information as to the reasons which justify the amendment. In this case, all the rationale states is that the original policy dates from 1998 and is ‘redundant’. Not good enough we say. What’s wrong with updating and improving a policy rather than removing it entirely?
  • No explanation is given as to the potential ramifications if the policy is removed. What will it mean to traders? To residents? To the neighbourhood? To those little shopping strip centres that are already struggling against the big ones, Chadstone and now the C60 stores? Where are the statistics, planning strategies – in short, where is the evidence that this policy is now ‘outdated’ as claimed and that the municipality will be better off without Clause 22.04 remaining in the Planning Scheme?
  • We also wonder whether the removal of the Commercial Centres policy is simply one way of declaring open slather for all  forms of (residential) development and council washing its hands of all strip shopping centres except for the big three – Centre Rd, Carnegie & Elsternwick. So much for enhancing, developing, and maintaining local strip shopping! So much for looking after this sector of the community!

If councillors pass this as stands then we believe they are again not fulfilling their obligations as councillors. They must question in depth this proposal and not simply sit there and rubber stamp everything that is stuck under their noses. Such a report should never be accepted. It is bereft of detail, logic, and argument. It remains a ‘report’ in name only and certainly a below par effort. But then again, perhaps this is the objective – to get something through with as little fuss, furore, discussion and debate as possible? Rule by stealth perhaps? Make up your own mind when you read these paltry few pages.

 

September 6, 2011

The Age Revisits Heritage

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

Council’s  heritage decision panned

Jason Dowling

September 6, 2011
A COUNCIL decision to reject heritage protection for three homes in Caulfield  South – one owned by the mayor  – has been  rebuffed by an independent planning  panel.

Glen Eira councillors ignored the advice of  the council’s own heritage and  planning advisers, and additional advice from independent heritage experts, to  extend heritage protection to all three homes.

In a sharp critique of the council’s decision to push to have the three  maisonette dwellings on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street not  heritage protected, the panel found ”there should be good reasons when officer  and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance”.
When asked by the panel why it had not accepted the expert advice, the  council stated that ”council may form its own view”.The heritage dispute arose when the council discovered a heritage planning  anomaly for the three dwellings.

While the entire building containing the three dwellings was included on a  heritage planning map, only the address of one of the three individual dwellings  was recorded for heritage protection.

One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently  heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband,  Jack.

Cr Esakoff has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from  council meetings discussing the issue.

When council staff discovered the heritage anomaly, they recommended  extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors  rejected the advice of its own heritage staff on two occasions and voted to  begin a process to remove heritage protection from the entire site.

The matter was referred to an expert planning panel and the panel’s findings  were released publicly on Friday.

The panel’s report recommends the council’s attempt to remove heritage  protection from the building be dismissed and calls on the Planning Minister to  extend heritage protection to all three dwellings.

The panel said it was not provided with any justification to disregard the  view of heritage experts that the  entire apartment building deserved heritage  protection.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/councils-heritage-decision-panned-20110905-1jua1.html#ixzz1X5YPNCID

 

September 2, 2011

Heritage Panel Report: 466 Hawthorn Rd

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

The Panel Report on proposed Amendment C83 has been released. Below are edited highlights –

The Panel is satisfied that the significance of the entire apartment building supports its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel does not support the deletion of HO114. Rather, the Panel recommends a Ministerial amendment to correct the description of HO114 in the schedule to the HO which omitted 2A and 2B Sea View Street in error. This will ensure that the protection of heritage values is taken into account in future planning decisions.

The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment C83 process, including the Panel process, has provided the affected landowners with an opportunity to make submissions with respect to HO114 and for the merits of the Amendment to be evaluated. This addresses the mistake made when notice was given of Amendment C19.

‘In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over‐painted on the front apartment).’  (Council’s current Heritage Advisor‐ Gabrielle Moylan 27 July 2010)

‘I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted.” “ Property is significant and will not write any strategic justification for removal of this overlay‘ (John Briggs 15 November 2010)

‘This building justifies the current Heritage Overlay….The two rear dwellings are integral parts of the whole, the building being basically symmetrical on the Sea View Street façade (which is somewhat unusual as side street frontages of such buildings are often simpler). This building is of unusually good quality’ (David Bick 26 November 2010)

‘In my view, both publicly visible facades, while different from each other in composition, are integral to the strong overall design, and hence to the heritage value of this prominent building. I do not believe it would be appropriate to remove the current heritage protection.’ (Dale Kelly 14 December 2010)

‘The site is clearly worthy of heritage controls…further research might be undertaken which would have the likely effect of amplifying the heritage attributes of the place’. (Roger Beeston 14 December 2010)

It was Council’s decision not to call expert evidence and this limited the ability to test at the Hearing the expert advice provided to Council. This does not mean that the views and the consensus opinion of these experienced heritage experts should be disregarded. Nothing was presented to the Panel that would justify setting aside the views of any of these heritage experts.

The Panel accords significant weight to the consistent expert view that the heritage value of the Site warrants the application of the HO. There has been no expert view to the contrary.

Council responded to the query from the Panel about why the Council did not accept the expert advice provided by stating that Council may form its own view. These responses do not support removal of HO114. Planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that planning schemes have a sound basis. There should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance.

The Panel does not accept the argument put by Council that removal of HO114 is justified by the fact that one quite different example of development influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright will be retained and all examples would not be lost.

The Sea View Street properties are in a Minimal Change Area, whereas 466 Hawthorn Road is in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive housing development. These strategic designations do not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives.

The Panel agrees with ….(objector)… that it would set ‘a dangerous precedent’ if a strategic designation for more intense redevelopment was deemed sufficient justification for removing heritage overlays. The protection of heritage values remains a valid planning consideration in planning decisions. It could even be argued that heritages places make a particularly important contribution to the urban fabric in areas undergoing significant change, such as along Hawthorn Road in the vicinity of the Site.

The Panel was not provided with any justification to disregard the clear view of heritage experts that the significance of the entire apartment building, in its current condition, supports its inclusion in the HO.

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme includes 466 Hawthorn Road in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive development. This strategic designation does not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives. Rather, where the Heritage Overlay applies in a Housing Diversity Area, local policy (Clause 22.07) highlights the continued relevance of heritage considerations and makes it clear that development should not compromise heritage values.

 

August 24, 2011

Where To From Here?

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

Cr. Hyams’ reference to the Leader pre-election blurbs by the various candidates has been the catalyst for this post. Just over a year out from the next election, we thought it would be opportune to consider where we’ve come from, what’s been achieved, and what still needs doing.

The rhetoric that we continually hear is that councillors run the show and that administrators administer. Reading the promises below, a total rethink on this proposition is in order. Nearly every councillor opposed ‘inappropriate development’; nearly every councillor promised better consultation; nearly every councillor thought that carbon reduction was important as was keeping rates ‘reined in’. Three years down the track and very, very few of these promises have materialised into concrete achievements. So what’s gone wrong? Why can’t councillors deliver on their promises – especially since they’re supposed to be in control? Have we simply elected the wrong people? Why have many of these initial worthwhile promises simply bitten the dust? What is the reason for the failure of vision, the failure of real initiative, and the failure to fully engage and represent the wishes of the community? All your views are welcomed!

Councillors’ comments (including those from our ‘dearly departed’) are cited below from the Leader (November, 2008)

TANG: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Environmental, financial and social sustainability. We need to invest in community assets and community building whilst minimising our environmental impact. This can  be achieved while keeping our rates below peer councils.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can deliver record investment in community infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. Top of the list is the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and Booran Rd Reservoir Park.

ESAKOFF: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Having a responsive, service-oriented, financially and environmentally responsible Council that governs well and fully consults the community to make the best possible decisions for the people of Glen Eira.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Making Glen Eira even more liveable by keeping rates low, retaining the pensioner rebate, improving services, facilities, safety, shopping strips and open space, whilst protecting our environment and residential amenity.

PILLING: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Genuine community consultation. We need to build a better council that genuinely listens and acts on what the community needs. I will conduct quarterly open focus forums to discuss concerns and issues.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Our present council doesn’t take climate change seriously! I will advocate strongly for Glen Eira Council to become carbon neutral by 2018 with a 40% reduction in carbon pollution by 2012.

PENHALLURIACK: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Gaining a financial and recreational benefit from the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land, which is a jewel hidden behind a gulag-style fence and used for only 20 race meetings a year.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

My experience as the owner of Penhalluriack’s Building Supplies will enable me to bring local knowledge and business efficiencies to council, thereby enabling lower rates and better services and facilities.

FORGE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

 Develop Caulfield Racecourse into a world standard sporting and recreational complex; reform State planning rules in the best interest of ratepayers; and make greater progress of greening our city with canopy trees.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I attended over 90 per cent of Glen Eira Council meetings in past three years, so am well aware of how I can contribute. I am a skilful negotiator and have experience lobbying.

WHITESIDE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

My priority issue during the past three years in council has been and remains town planning, particularly inappropriate development, protection of heritage properties and streetscapes, especially at boundaries of minimal change areas.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I am committed to good governance and to a council that listens to people. I believe that the high standard of governance can be continued in Glen Eira with my influence.

LIPSHUTZ: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

We must have balanced development but at the same time preserve streetscape and period homes. Additionally rate increases must be contained, Glen Eira must be a leader in environmental matters.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can assure voters that responsible and decisive governance will continue. Rates will be reigned in and Glen Eira will become a much greener municipality. Planning will be reviewed.

HYAMS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

Council is about community, and helping residents and ratepayers. As President of the Moorabbin Historical Society, Vice President of Glen Eira Community Associations, local Bendigo Community Bank committee member and until earlier this year cricket club president and Neighbourhood Watch Area Secretary, and as a former councillor, I have a strong history of community involvement. I will work for low rates and a high pensioner rebate, improved community and sporting facilities, better support for sporting and other clubs, improved services for families and the aged, better community consultation, improved safety and better representation to State Government. I will strongly oppose over-development.

STAIKOS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Tucker Ward councillor for the last three years, I have worked to ensure that Bentleigh and East Bentleigh are not forgotten. Some positive outcomes for our local community include the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool, keeping the McKinnon Maternal and Child Health Centre open as well as expanding services at the Bentleigh Centre, committing to the rebuild
of the Centenary Park Pavilion and ensuring that the Home and Community Care Service is as efficient as possible. Looking forward, I want to ensure that Council opposes inappropriate development, establishes a child care centre in East Bentleigh, reduces carbon emissions and fights graffiti.

MAGEE: Why should the electorate vote for you?

I have lived in East Bentleigh with my wife Claire and two children since 1988. I have watched our area grow year by year. The number of double, even triple, dwellings on single blocks has started to change the very look and feel of Tucker Ward. The pressure for places at our kindergartens, child and maternal health centres and schools shows how popular this area is. We need our parks and playgrounds to be safe, our streets well lit and footpaths in good order. I am committed to the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool.

LOBO: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Justice of the Peace for Victoria, I believe I am community spirited. By the nature of my professional background I am result oriented. My commitment to the residents of Bentleigh, East Bentleigh and McKinnon is to give our suburbs a strong voice on the council and put community safety and welfare before council’s surplus. I will oppose inappropriate developments; ensure that senior citizens are properly supported; support parents with young children and give young people opportunities to express their creativity in positive ways. A vote for me is a vote for someone who cares with heart and mind.

 

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman   Street, not far from here.  I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities.  I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people.  And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira.  In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

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 our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace.  It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members.  Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre.  Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch.  I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute.  It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

 

August 2, 2011

Municipal Inspector Investigates: #4

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

From The Leader, Jenny Ling – Page 3

COUNCILLOR PROBE IS CONFIRMED

The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating “a matter related to councillor (Frank) Penhalluriak”.

The Camden Ward councillor riased health concerns about Glen Eira Council’s free mulch service and the possible risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease, which led to the removal of the service in April (“Mulch to fume about” Leader April 26).

Councillors voted 7-2 in favour of removing the service at Glen Huntly reserve, leaving the $160,000 mulch storage shed – built in 2009 – empty.

In May the inspectorate said it was reviewing conflict of interest allegations made against Cr Penhalluriak who owns a hardware store in Caulfield that sells mulch. “Upon receiving a complaint, the inspectorate reviews the information…in order to determine if it is within jurisdiction and contains suitable evidence to investigate,” spokeswoman Angela Smith said at the time.

Ms Smith confirmed last week the inspectorate was now investigating, but would not make further comment. “Each investigation is unique and it is therefore not appropriate to anticipate a specific time frame for the resolution of any case,” Ms Smith said.

Cr Penhalluriak said he was not aware of the investigation. “If I did it would be confidential so I can’t make any comment,” he said.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »