Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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?

 

October 22, 2011

Only A Resolution Away!

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

From the Gold Coast Council Meeting of 8th August, 2011.

13.9 CENSORING OR INTERVENING WITH COUNCILLORS MAIL

LG211/-/-

RESOLUTION G11.0808.025 Moved Cr Clarke Seconded Cr Young

That the Memorandum be deemed non confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.

Council notes with concern the allegations published in the local media last Thursday in regard to the intervention of e-mails being received by Councillors (including generic, divisional office email accounts) and resolves that under no circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff, intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard, for Councillors, as from today, with the exception of any such action or intervention that is specifically requested by an aggrieved or concerned Councillor and that the CEO report back on the appropriate process for this to occur.

That the CEO report back on the process to identify junk mail, “MIMEsweeper” and spam mail within programming software in Councillors’ computers and how to enhance such programs to allow Councillors to determine when and how to deal with offensive emails and that the current spam filters stay in place.

That all policies appropriate to the receipt and distribution of electronic mail and posted mail to and from the Mayor and Councillors be revised to reflect the above policy position. “

Vote was carried eleven (11) to four (4).

 

October 21, 2011

Shambolic, Inept & Inexcusable!

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

Our urging for the publication of the October 4th Special Committee Meeting Minutes has paid off. They are now available on Council’s website. Here is the important parts of these pseudo minutes –

PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer  

The Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

The Mayor again called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

DIVISION

Cr
Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                              Cr Forge

Cr Hyams

Cr Lipshutz

Cr Lobo

Cr Magee

Cr Pilling

Cr Tang

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.

We are utterly speechless at the total shambles that these minutes reveal – from both councillors and from whoever is responsible for the taking and dissemination of these minutes. Again, we’ll go through this in chronological order –

  • The motion was moved in open council. Hence IT IS NOT PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS as stated!
  • Councillors are legally bound to vote – they CANNOT abstain.
  • Esakoff again does not know correct procedure. She cannot call for a Division until the voting has been recorded. No vote is recorded in these minutes.

COMMENT

This is getting worse and worse. We have a situation where the Chair does not seem to know the rules (even though she’s been mayor 3 times) and councillors who also do not know what is legally expected of them. As for the minute taker, perhaps he should be given as birthday present the State version of Standing Orders & Meeting Procedures?

 

October 20, 2011

Vale Democracy, Accountability – Hail Secrecy!

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

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting continued the tradition of secrecy within Glen Eira council. After five minutes the gallery was cleared for in camera  discussions on the following agenda items – which finally made it onto council’s website this afternoon. (Please note that the minutes of the first meeting are still wafting about but not in the public domain!)

This time round, the agenda items have really outdone themselves – they read:

“That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider any confidential business.

6.1 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

6.2 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to Right of Reply.

6.3 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider a Council resolution.

6.4 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider seeking further legal advice.

6.5 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ in order to consider OH&S matters.”

Some very strange goings on here. For example:

  • CEO (re)appointment is integrally linked to the Performance Appraisal. These should not be linked and we hazard a guess that no other council does link the 2 issues.
  • OH& S has again reared its ugly head and is playing a pivotal role in the appointment process since we assume this relates to Newton’s bullying claims and the exclusion of Penhalluriack.
  • Of further concern is the multiple ‘legal advice’ items. Are they ‘separate matters’ or related? Are ratepayers therefore looking at another possible $15,000 gifted to lawyers?
  • The farce is even further accentuated with the ‘legal advice in order to consider seeking further legal advice’. This line could have come straight out of Monty Python for its sheer anarchic insanity. Oh to be a lawyer in the employ of Glen
    Eira City Council – one is laughing all the way to the bank!
  • Seems like they can’t even decide if a Council resolution is legal or not! Surely this should have been nutted out BEFORE the resolution was put and carried? We again wonder if this item is related to the legality of the first Special Committee and
    hence the need to revoke the delegation powers and substitute them with the current one? As Lipshutz and Hyams keep telling us – ‘a little housekeeping’ – except that the costs keep adding up for ratepayers!
  • And one little issue that again won’t be made public – are any of these legal eagles part of Maddocks perhaps? Will Tang actually deign to declare a (potential) conflict of interest? We remind folks that in the past he has declared a conflict of interest on a Monash matter since he is merely one out of 40,000 students who attended the university! Should we expect consistency though?
  • Finally, facts suggest that dealing with Newton becomes a very, very expensive business. We still don’t know how much the 2005 schemozzle cost ratepayers, and the figure for 2009 is roughly $40,000. How much this current saga, with all the investigations of bullying, lawyers, and now more lawyers will eventually cost, is anyone’s guess.

Before we list the night’s events we believe it is worth pointing out that all motions were passed unanimously. One has to wonder at all these sudden ‘conversions’ when the vote at last week’s meeting to create this committee was 5 to 4! It’s good to see that public displays of ‘unity’ are valued far more highly perhaps than consistency, and dare we suggest, integrity! But as they say, a week’s a long time in politics.

The night’s events (in chronological order):

  • Motion to accept (non-public) minutes
  • Kerfuffle about apologies (Lipshutz absent). Tang played lawyer and brought up a ‘point of procedure’ and insisted that a  formal motion be put to accept Lipshutz’s absence – after the meeting had again moved on. Esakoff realised her mistake and backtracked to this motion. Incidentally, dear readers, what is a ‘point of procedure’ – does it even exist? or did Tang really mean ‘point of order’? And are these councillors running so scared of legal retribution that they are determined to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – just in case?
  • Motion to move in camera. Gallery cleared. World record of less than 5 minutes!
 

October 20, 2011

To Phone Or Not To Phone….That Is The Question!

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

What a sad, sad, state of affairs we appear to have come to in Glen Eira! And it’s not just for this last year either. Below is a comparative table of councillor telephone expenses for Glen Eira and 2 of our neighbouring councils. Kingston figures are for one quarter – hence they would need to be quadrupled to attain an approximation of the full year’s expenditure.

GLEN EIRA

1st Dec.,2009 – 1st Nov.2010

STONNINGTON

(1 year to December
2010)

KINGSTON

July-Sept. 2010
Penhalluriack $146.- Athanasopoulos $1975.99 Staikos $857.55
Whiteside (to30th July,2010) $580.- Chandler $1616.38 Athanasopoulos $489.96
Hyams $140.- Hannon $678.64 Peulich $907.94
Magee $696.- Hindle $1731.97 Brownlees $324.54
Esakoff $69.- Nicholls $567.92 West $324.54
Lipshutz $32.- O’Shea $3202.68 Dundas $446.12
Pilling $223.- Sehr $1066.51 Bauer $916.48
Lobo $255.- Smith $4797.46 Ronke $324.54
Tang $729.- Ullin $2256.19 Shewan $685.85
Forge (From 31st August 2010) $16.-

So what conclusions may be drawn from the above statistics? –

  • Are Glen Eira councillors doing their jobs? Maybe  an investigation should be undertaken to determine why these councillors’  expenses are miniscule compared to their colleagues? It is incomprehensible  that Lipshutz should only have a mobile phone bill of ~$30 per year (and the  same for the previous year). Does this mean that no resident rings him? That councillors  as a whole receive very few phone calls? That these aren’t answered?
  • Or is the truth that these councillors simply refuse to use council provided phones for fear of possible tracking devices?  That they don’t want super sleuth officers to know whom they’ve been talking  with, much less what they’ve been talking about? That the fear of god has been  put into them following the phone business of the past?

Whatever the truth is, other councils just do not have this  problem. When others are spending literally thousands and thousands on their  mobile phones, with not a whimper from anyone, then  Glen Eira stands out like a beacon. There are  only two logical possibilities here – either councillors are not doing their  jobs as representatives of the people, or they don’t like the possible surveillance  that using council supplied phones might imply. We have been told numerous times that various councillors have directed residents not to ring them on their council  phones, nor to email them on council email accounts. Why? If there is trust,  respect, and a sound working relationship, then there wouldn’t be the need to hide conversations and correspondence.

It’s just a great pity then that when a public question on this issue of surveillance was raised at the last council meeting and responses invited from each councillor (admittedly on emails), all but Penhalluriack sat there in silence. Silence is consent councillors! And look where that’s got us!

 

October 15, 2011

Who Is Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

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

Mulch ado about  council’s gardening service

Jason Dowling

October 15, 2011

A south-eastern council is facing probity investigations, including for a  potential conflict of interest where a councillor who owns a hardware store that  sells garden mulch pushed the council to close its free mulch service for   residents for  health reasons.

Glen Eira Council is believed to be under investigation by the Ombudsman’s  office and Cr  Frank Penhalluriack faces a separate investigation by the local  government inspectorate over his push to close the mulch facility.

Cr Penhalluriack was also investigated by the council earlier this year over  allegations he bullied the council’s chief executive, Andrew Newton.
Cr Penhalluriack denies he has a conflict of interest on the mulch issue or  bullied the chief executive. The local government inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating Cr  Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman’s office refused to comment.

The council voted in April to remove its Glen Huntly Park mulch facility.

In 2010, Cr Penhalluriack had requested  an external consultant be employed  to undertake an assessment of the health risks associated with the free mulch  service.

The report found ”it is likely workers and mulch users are potentially  exposed to bacteria (e.g. legionella) and fungi as a result of handling the  mulch material”, and made six recommendations to manage the risk, five of which  the council said it had implemented.

Separate advice to the council for the state Health  Department  said   ”there is no evidence to suggest woodchips have ever been the source of  legionella disease and a person would be very unlikely to contract legionnaires’  from handling woodchip mulch”.

Cr Penhalluriack told The Saturday Age he did not have a conflict of  interest in pushing for the mulch facility to be closed, despite selling mulch  from his Hawthorn Road hardware store.

”The mulch sales through Penhalluriack’s are 0.2 per cent of total sales,”  he said, and had not increased since the free service had been closed.

He said safety concerns were  the only reason he pushed to close the free  mulch service.

”They have taken the mulch out,  but the facility is still there, and the  CEO has an obligation to act on a council resolution expeditiously.”

The Glen Eira council  recently faced criticism for ignoring the advice of  its own staff to heritage-protect a home owned the mayor, Margaret Esakoff.

. Cr  Esakoff excused herself from voting on the issue.

The mayor said the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act prevented her from  commenting on any possible Ombudsman’s investigation.

She said she was unable to comment in relation to bullying claims because of  confidentiality provisions in the Local Government Act.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mulch-ado-about-councils-gardening-service-20111014-1lpb3.html#ixzz1amBugPL6

COMMENT: When government agencies such as the ombudsman and the municipal inspector are sent on total wild goose chases over something as inconsequential as a 0.2% councillor’s interest in the mulch business, versus concerns over potential health risks for workers and residents, then there is something drastically wrong with our system.

We keep asking the most basic questions:

  • Why is this story continually in the limelight? Is it really the most important thing that is happening in Glen Eira?
  • Who stands to gain the most by potentially discrediting Penhalluriack?
  • Why aren’t questions being asked as to why the mulch was put there in the first place? If so perfect to start with, then why the need to implement the ‘experts’ recommendations as a result of the scientific findings? What does this say about overall approaches to risk management?
  • Who tipped off the Age about the mulch story and why tip them off now, especially since the story is so old?
  • Who complained to the Municipal Inspectorate and/or the Ombudsman and why?
  • Is it coincidental that this story re-emerges in both the Leader and The Age when the CEO appointment process is starting?
  • Why the continual emphases on Penhalluriack when the council vote was 7 to 2 to close down the mulch shed? He certainly wasn’t the Lone Ranger on this.
  • Why does it take 4 months (and still counting) to table a council resolution for a Request for a Report on another potential location for the facility – whilst still keeping the $160,000 shell standing? It couldn’t be, could it, that finding another location would basically put the issue to bed for the community?
  • If conflict of interest is the current catchcry and flavour of the month, then let’s go whole hog and perhaps investigate every single Glen Eira councillor and administrator on a whole gamut of potential issues. Let’s turn over every rock and cranny and see what lies underneath. But please, enough with the mulch already!
 

October 12, 2011

It’s Kindergarten Playtime!

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

9.4 CENTRE RD KINDERGARTEN

Two hands went up – Tang’s & Magee. Esakoff declared that Tang’s hand went up first.

TANG: Moved that council don’t sell the Centre Rd kindergarten and that council supports extension of kinda places as required by the universal access report. Also to ‘develop new consultation with the community’. Also asked for rreport on population projections ‘for next 10 years and broken down by suburbs’. Lipshutz seconded.

Stated that he moved the motion because he was ‘concerned’ that it was ‘contrary to the direction that council has taken’….(ie Packer Park, Nina Reserve where no council land was sold). ‘thought they were good decisions…(the expansion of car park at Bailey reserve was) ‘not as good a decision’…..(This suggests) ‘that council take a service that it already provides ….and put it onto public open space at Centenary Park…(.admitted that the open space wasn’t used well there & compared this to Packer Park and the need for) a’ 50 year vision’. (Council has made this mistake before and he doesn’t want to make it now). Doesn’t think ‘the report is strategic…….is basically ignoring the policy position that council has taken….(Early years plan considered population and kindas, plus childcare) ‘and adopted an action plan’ to 2013. (If council is now considering a new plan then that’s okay or to cater for highest need that’s also okay) ‘I don’t think this proposal does any of those…..this proposal looks at an area of open public space….let’s put money into it…The results of community consultation would be almost overwhelming in favour of a new kindergarten (but if you asked any area if they wanted a new kindergarten you’d also get such positive results) ….’but I don’t think that’s a good reason’ (to support this)….(Concern is) ‘lack of strategic support for the project’. Urged councillors to ‘consider this in the light of recently adopted and supported plans’…

LIPSHUTZ: Supported Tang and claimed that there is a need for plans ‘you don’t simply go out pick a site and plot something there….what you do is you have to have a plan and work out where the need lies…..(council has got a plan and this) ‘demonstrated very clearly that McKinnon….were the areas that needed kindergartens….(if you ask people about kindergartens anywhere they would always say yes they want it in their area)….’that’s not the reason why you do it….you do it because there’s a need for it….(question is planning for the future and maybe Centre rd won’t be appropriate) ‘but that’s in the future’….right now we do have a plan that says McKinnon Carnegie’ (is most important)…(Argument about open space not being used so much. the answer is to) ‘develop it so it can be used….you’re going to have a much smaller kindergarten and the need is not there…..we need money (in lots of areas)…you can’t simply come along and say dot dot dot and put kindergartens there….that’s not our responsibility….try to enhance what we have got….

MAGEE: ‘I believe (this is an) opportunity to listen to your community…we don’t as a council identify projects very well….we’ve got in our city 1501 kindergarten places….(and 12 vacancies)….1500 people moving into melbourne every week….we could very easily be in a position in 12 months with 30, 40,50, 60 kids not being (allocated a place)….East Bentleigh is probably your entry point (to getting into Glen Eira because of housing costs)…we have an enormous amount of growth (2 primary schools and one has now 600 kids  compared to 7 years ago when it had 400. Explained the history of the park and how it was originally part of Moorabbin and when the amalgamation came plans were shelved) ‘that land is still sitting vacant, that land is still sitting waiting’….’Centre Rd kindergarten is on a very busy road (with 6 car parking spots and to pikc up kids have to walk 300 metres. As councillors not just getting reports and ‘saying that’s our policy…(or saying) ‘at the moment the need is McKinnon. Of course the need is McKinnon…(but ten years ago it probably wasn’t)…’we need to have vision to look forward….we can’t just say at the moment there is 12 vacancies (and we’re doing well)…’we’re not doing well’….I would like to see 50 vacancies or a 100 vacancies…(not good enough for someone to stand up and say it’s not needed. 6 years ago it wasn’t needed but now it is)….‘we need to plan for childcare in the city of Glen eira…and we don’t have one (plan)…’we have no long term strategic plan’…..somone has to stand up and start saying (that)….(should be looking at) ‘where are we going to be in 5 years, where are we going to be in 10 years’….(to say it’s not needed, etc is just wrng) ‘and shows no forethought….we need to have visions…and we need to stand up and say so’.

PILLING: Supported Magee and stated that as councillors they needed to have ‘vision’ and support what the community needs.’there’s a growing need’, taken about 8 or 9 months to get to council….whole lot of resistance, I understand….’take a proactive role in representing our community….there are a lot of needs …

HYAMS: Closing centre rd and moving to Centenary Park, then council ‘would be getting a better site arguably….and $300,000 to $400,000…..could be 16 more places than we have now….Centre Rd (is registered for 25 kids, but can be developed since the playground area is large, so to move would be to) move it to an area that has fewer places….need to sell council property and take public open space….(Spoke about kinda in Brady Rd so this would be)’duplicating’ (services)….’put one where there isn’t one’…’will run out, run low on cash reserves…so another major capital works (would be put on hold)…Crs Magee and Pilling have disparaged process and I think (process is ‘quite important’…(mentioned the Auditor general’s report about capital works and how well Glen Eira rated….’there’s no point in planning ahead if we’re just gong to introduce these wildcat works…really what is the point of doing a strategic resource plan….the budget…if we decide we don’t need the supporting evidence at all…there are right ways of doing things and there are wrong ways of doing things…the right way of doing things is the way we have been doing it….doing it like this just sets a very dangerous precedent….where any councillor who decides they want any (thing will start pushing for it)…‘without any supporting evidence at all’….I would be amazed if anyone who knows anything about governments would suggest that this is the way to go about it’. MAGEE INTERJECTED HERE SAYING THAT ‘LIVING THERE FOR 25 YEARS IS ENOUGH…… Esakoff ‘Thank you Cr. Magee’.

PENHALLURIACK: Unfortunate ‘that we didn’t have the alternative motion to debate….you chose Cr. Tang. HYAMS INTERJECTED WITH A POINT OF ORDER – ‘Madam mayor I think that’s an imputation on yourself. I saw Cr Tang’s hand (go up first). ESAKOFF: ‘I agree and uphold that point of order’ Claimed that Tang’s hand went up first. Penhalluriack tried to say something, but was cut short with ‘I’m speaking’ by Esakoff. Stated that Magee’s hand went up after Tang’s.

PENHALLURIACK; ‘no negative imputation was implied.I wasn’t arguing about whose hand went up first…..(said that if the alternative motion was given to councillors first then) ‘the debate would have been about real things…we don’t have a copy of (Tang’s motion) for a start….We have been given $500,000 ….for Julie coooper Pavilion (land behind has been car park for 50 years) ‘It would be ideal on economy of scale to build …adjointing the pavilion…cahngin rooms rooms,toilets,….

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang – ‘it is contrary to recent decisions….not within our strategic planning….alienation of public open space….pavilion will be redevloped …because of its functionality, or lack of…when redeveloped it is going to have a much larger footprint….it is going to take in that wasted space….we are going to be losing that space as part of the new footprint…. MAGEE INTERJECTED WITH ‘YOU HAVEN’T BEEN THERE HAVE YOU?’ Esakoff – ‘Excuse me Cr!’ I have been there. My word I have been there. More than once!’ MAGEE continued and started to say that Esakoff was talking about something that she….(probably didn’t know anything about?) Esakoff then told Magee to ‘stop interrupting’. Esakoff contiued – ’12 vacancies…expand mcKinnon which would provide us with a further 50 places….Centre rd has room for expansion…to make this change now would actually be a loss of places….Brady Rd is running and there may be some opportunity to expand there too…(agree with Hyams about Attonrey Generall’s’….in any decision making we need a solid business plan….we do not have it (for this)…we have to have that solid business plan and backup for those decisions that we make…and this does not have it.’

TANG; ‘I was speaking to the report in the agenda….I don’t think anything I’ve said was off what’s in the public agenda…I don’t know what his concerns are…sale of Centre rd kindergarten is listed on page 15……

PENAHALLURIACK: point of order in that Tang’s motion ‘didn’t mention any of this’…Esakoff asked on what grounds the point of order?
PENHALLURIACK: Tried to complete what he was saying but Esakoff said that this wasn’t a ‘right of reply’ and that she needed ‘to know the grounds of point of order’…..’Sorry, I’m listening to Cr. Tang explain where his comments are coming from and that is on the agenda item. I dismiss that point of order’.

TANG; Stated that he didn’t really understand Penhalluriack’s point of order but he’d clarify. Explained that last week he told 4 councillors that he wanted to move a motion after all councillors had got the report. That he received at 3.39 today the ‘printed alternate recommendation that was suggesting that council consult on the concept drawings’…’Everything I spoke to was contained in the report all councillors received at the same time…so i resent that criticism…Cr Pilling held a forum on the issue (of kindergartens)….issues were raised (about need in all sorts of suburbs)…’that was the community identifying issues …not looking at statistics…but looking at the raw belief and emotion….and I support that and that came through very strongly….there are emotions involved there are real people involved….and I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that those real people want to spend a million dollars in expanding a kindergarten on the Centenary Park site…(over MckInnon kinda, bentleigh hodgson) and I see no reason why we shouldn’t support that over this one….we should look at all of the community…and not just this one project….(council could have included this in all its plans)….’it didn’t. If council want to change that, that’s fine….we review policies all the time….we should have a vision (but dealing with one kindergarten isn’t a vision)….I agree that councillors should take a proactive role…..let’s be proactive and create a ten year plan using the projections….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Forge. Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Lobo voted for.

 

October 11, 2011

Council Meeting: More Secrecy

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

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

  • Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
  • Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
  • Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
  • One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
  • Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
  • Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
  • Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »