Glen Eira Debates

We have commented previously that it would appear that many ‘straw votes’ are taken in secrecy, behind the closed doors of councillor assembly meetings. Whilst not formal ‘decisions’ as such, it is clear that much goes on in these meetings that need to be looked at a lot more closely. We have to wonder what kind of pressures are placed on recalcitrant councillors who refuse to adhere to the majority line? What kind of discourse actually occurs? Who runs the show in there? Is there even the possibility of bullying and harassment? And why, oh why, is the public performance in council chambers often so diametrically opposed to what we suspect might have been going on behind these closed doors? The perfect example we have to illustrate our case involves Cr. Magee.

Late last year Cr. Penhalluriack is recorded as stating that he has qualms regarding the nature, tone, and content of Council responses to public questions by Mr. Varvodic. His actual statement reads: ““I’m unhappy with all of the answers to Mr Varvodic with the exception of the one relating to Cr Esakoff. I don’t know what to do about it but I think that they are unnecessarily aggressive and I am just not happy about it”. (Council Minutes 14^th December 2010). At the next council meeting (February 1^st 2011) Mr. Varvodic directed his public questions to each councillor, asking them if they were in any way in agreement with Penhalluriack’s statement. The questions were taken on notice and answered at the following February 22^nd Council meeting. Magee responded by stating: “Cr Magee said: “I stand by Council’s responses to all your public questions to date.”

Remarkably, this does not seem to be Magee’s general opinion in November 2010 when the FOI secured document of the Sports & Recreation Committee minutes record the following: “Councillor Magee stated that Nick Varvodic has cause to complain, and the situation has got out of hand with our answers and that we need to bring it back inline. We are the cause of the letters and we need to rectify the situation”.

How does this alleged statement by Magee just 3 months earlier tally with his endorsement of ALL COUNCIL RESPONSES to Mr. Varvodic.  We simply ask:

• What pressures are brought to bear in councillor assemblies and by whom and to what purpose?
• How can the community believe anything that is uttered in the public arena when it is becoming increasingly obvious that  public utterances may not accord with reality?
• When will councillors actually have the gumption to state their opinion honestly and in public? Democracy is after all founded on the rights of individuals to express an opinion and the council chamber must be the forum for genuine debate. Currently it resembles a theatre with carefully orchestrated arguments, voting patterns, motions, and pre-ordained  decisions.

SO WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS? HOW CAN THIS COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD? WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU, OUR READERS HAVE THAT WOULD ASSIST OUR COUNCILLORS TO ENSURE GOOD GOVERNANCE? WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO? We welcome all views!

We’ve just learnt that public questions regarding the Frisbee affair are now being deemed as ‘harassment’ by this council and will forever more be categorised as ‘inappropriate’ and hence will not be read, nor answered at Council Meetings. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this specific issue, we believe that such an action is unconscionable and denies residents their basic right to question council actions, policy, and veracity of responses.

It would appear that when council is faced with uncomfortable issues that the harassment and bullying card becomes the preferred option. We’ve recently witnessed the bullying allegations against Penhalluriack (presumably for his ‘crime’ of asking questions of the CEO) and now the harassment allegation against those individuals requesting clarification on council’s so called policy of reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. It would also seem that when Council is unable to answer appropriately for its shortcomings, then the only way out of such a dilemma is to play this harassment/bullying game.

Residents’ rights to ask public questions, to query policy decisions, and to demand accountability and transparency are fundamental to the good governance of all councils. When questions are continually fobbed off and answers are nothing more than dissembling and a game of semantics, then all fair minded people should be outraged. We urge all residents who care about what is happening in this council to send in their public questions and insist that whatever their concern or issue, that these questions are answered comprehensively and honestly.

PS: here is the offending paragraph : “As Council has received over one hundred and thirty (130) Public Questions this year alone on this matter, having consulted with Councillors and considered concerns raised, I wish to advise you that further Public Questions on this matter will be deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iii) on the grounds that they may constitute harassment. Thank you for your Public Question.”

Recent events such as the GESAC fiasco raise the question of who is actually running council – our elected representatives, or those faceless and unelected bureaucrats? We therefore thought it might be a good idea to remind councillors of their legal and fiduciary duties – according to the guidelines set down by the MAV, State Government, and VLGA in their combined document The Good Governance Guide. All the quotes below derive from this publication.

“It is important that issues of transparency and accountability are considered with regard to Council briefings. If councillors determine their position through the briefing process, and only go through a brief or perfunctory endorsement at the meeting of Council, this can impact adversely on the public’s ability to follow the decision-making process. The opportunity to fully explore and address an issue in private must be balanced with the accountability and transparency requirements of good governance.

To ensure transparency and accountability, it is also important that the administration is made accountable for the formal advice it provides to the Council meeting which subsequently takes place. This advice may or may not be entirely consistent with the discussions which took place at the council briefing. (page 12)

The elected body is ultimately accountable for the financial management of the local government. While the elected body should not have a hands-on role in financial management, it needs to ensure that it has the information to be satisfied that the finances are in order and that budgetary and financial planning goals are being met.

The role differentiation between the elected body and the administration is important in this area. The elected body should not be micro-managing the finances, but must demand financial reporting which provides the information it requires to meet its financial accountability responsibilities. (p.32)

Councillors must ensure that they have all appropriate financial information regarding financial performance. It is not enough merely to rely on assurances by the administration that all is well. If the financial situation is not as it should be, councillors will still be held accountable, even if they maintain that they received assurances from the administration. Councillors should ask questions, until they are satisfied that they know and understand the financial situation. Other potential sources of information and assurance are the internal auditor and the audit committee. (p.35)

QUESTIONS:

• How often did councillors ask questions about GESAC?
• Were the answers (if given) acceptable? If not, what did councillors do?
• How often were councillors provided with up to date information?
• What evidence was provided to councillors that the income from GESAC would be $2.91 million as stated in the budget?  
• Why does it take a public outcry before any ‘action’ is initiated by councillors?

The following articles from the Leader have direct relevance to what is currently going on in Glen Eira. We invite comments:

Nillumbik’s legal bill squabble continues

1 Feb 11 @ 05:54pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has hit back at claims it misled ratepayers on the cost of a legal stoush with a councillor.

Cr Belinda Clarkson last week accused it of grossly underestimating its legal fees, which the council expects will be $10,000 a day – $50,000 for the anticipated five days of the hearing.

Cr Clarkson said the figure would be closer to $150,000, including the hearing and preparation. “In my opinion, the council’s failure to take responsibility for the cost to ratepayers is seen in their statement’s only cost estimate figure of $10,000,” Cr Clarkson said. “I believe that is misleading.”

But Mayor Helen Coleman said the council had been upfront about its legal bill. “The advice that we have been given is that our legal costs will be around $10,000 a day, but we won’t know the final costs until the hearing,” Cr Coleman said.

She said ratepayers would have been spared the cost if Cr Clarkson had taken part in a relatively cheap councillor conduct panel last November. Instead, Cr Clarkson will answer misconduct allegations during a five-day hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. She faces 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act.

Cr Coleman said the council had resolved not to hire a solicitor, but had been forced to engage one when Cr Clarkson fronted the hearing with a lawyer from the firm Piper Alderman.

Cr Clarkson, who has not revealed her own legal costs, said the council was at fault for taking the matter to a conduct panel “and as part of that process, therefore to VCAT”.

More debate was curtailed.

Comments

Natalie Woodley writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 11:15pm

“Clowns” is a good way to describe these people, unfortunately elected to Nillumbik Council. Hellbent on their witch hunt after Cr Clarkson, under the guise of “confidentiality” they believed they could continue the bullying, it would never come out in the
open, spineless uninformed people. Obviously they were not cognisant of The Local Government Act, unaware a councillor being unmercifully hounded with vexatious, frivolous charges ,was able to receive “Natural Justice”. Cr Clarkson has only ever requested “Safe Planning” in this extremely bushfire prone area, surely we require all our Nillumbik Councillors to have Human Life as their priority?? If the councillors were using their own personal dollars they would have withdrawn their frivolous charges, made a public apology to Cr Clarkson and got on with attempting to govern for the good of Nillumbik, taking note of the oath or affirmation they swore on being elected.
Obviously they are a group of people who care less about spending other peoples money, hard earned dollars of the Nillumbik Ratepayers. They are a disgrace, totally unaccountable for their actions.

Melissa Eaton writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 05:27pm

When a council starts suing it’s own councillors, I have to start wondering what major secrets are they covering up to be using this ridiculous witchhunt as a deflection? As we are approaching the 2nd anniversary of the disastrous Black Saturday bushfires, I think
Nillumbik has better things to do than waste rate payers money (like mine) on legal bills to argue an alleged councillor conduct matter which only came about because same councillor was trying to get air time in council to discuss the very real risks of bush fires in the area. Clearly council needs re-education about what they are there for….I thought council was there for the community with bushfires being a real issue for Nillumbik. This money would be better spent on getting on with bushfire prevention which I can see from looking around the shire seems to be several weeks if not months behind in this fire season.

Daniel Potter writes:

Posted on 5 Feb 11 at 08:16pm

Nicole Singh……I Concur Totally. The Nillumbik Council Is Managed Totally By Overpaid Clowns.

nicole singh writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 11:54pm

i thought my Glen Eira council was dysfuncitonal thanyou to nillumbik you are No1 and have the highest rates in victoria. a council that is losing money every day is spending your hard earned persecuting a councillor, the crime? for merely trying to stop yet more of its people from being burnt in bushfires its off to court you go. Is nillumbik an open mental asylum?

J Bullock writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 12:07pm

What a waste of ratepayers money! My hard earned money! Nillumbik council should be dissolved and spilt among neighbouring urban and rural councils. The formation of Nillumbik was a mistake and since then it has been a continual battle ground between waring sides with us poor ratepayer as the victims. For the sake of good governance it should be put out of its misery!

Nillumbik Council dumps Clarkson VCAT hearing

23 Feb 11 @ 01:32pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has withdrawn a misconduct case against one of its councillors from the state’s peak tribunal.

Cr Belinda Clarkson was expected to answer 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. But at a closed meeting last night councilors resolved to drop the matter.

Mayor Helen Coleman said the decision was based on the cost of a five-day hearing, estimated at $10,000 a day.

“The costs to council in pursuing this matter in VCAT would have been too expensive when we have other financial priorities,’’ Cr Coleman said. “We need to ensure that we are spending ratepayers’ money in a responsible way.’‘

Cr Coleman said she did not know how much the council had spent so far on legal fees. She said the council would “monitor’’ Cr Clarkson’s behaviour during the next three months. Cr Clarkson said last night’s meeting was confidential and declined to
comment.

QUESTIONS:

• What is the current total of money spent on the Newton allegations of bullying?
• How much more will be spent?

Trust is imperative in any relationship and in any organisation.  It is especially imperative in a ‘business’ such as a council which has responsibility for tens of millions of ratepayers’ monies. There simply has to be trust in the CEO and his staff; trust between the Mayor and the CEO, and trust between the Council as a whole, and the CEO. Residents must also have trust and belief that their municipality is well governed and accountable. History, as well as recent issues, tell us that trust is a scarce commodity in Glen Eira.

When questions are asked of council, ratepayers have every right to demand that responses are accurate and truthful. When they are not, then suspicions arise as to the competence and accuracy of administrative record keeping systems. Questions also need to be asked about the level of trust that is granted by Mayors who sign off on such documents. By placing her signature on responses to public questions for instance, is Esakoff complicit in any errors? Is she fulfilling her legal and fiduciary duty in overseeing the administration? When councillors accept facts and figures that are questionable are they liable as well? Or is she (and Council) merely the victims of blind trust?

These are not idle questions. At the last Council meeting a public question asked for the number of open space and casual bookings at Allnutt Park over the past 2 financial years. Information was also requested on the number of commercial bookings and how many of these bookings originated from businesses outside of Glen Eira. The answer, provided we assume by Officers, and signed by Esakoff, reads:

“The information is as follows. From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 there were a total of sixty one bookings. These included ten bookings from not for profit organisations, three from commercial organisations and forty eight general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $6,893. From 1 July 2010 to 15 May 2011 there were a total of twenty bookings. These included five from not for profit organisations, five from commercial organisations and ten general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $2,260.

In relation to part three of your question, Council does not collect data in that form.”

For those readers unaware of the circumstances, Council Officers place a booking sheet alongside each rotunda/barbecue whenever there is an official booking. The sheet contains the following information: name, date, time, number of people, alcohol ‘permit’, and the actual booking permit number. The photo below shows one such notice which has not changed over the years.

Over the past few years several residents have collected and maintained a daily register of all such bookings. Their records differ markedly from that provided by Council. As to the last financial year, we are told that only 20 bookings took place. This is incorrect (see below). We are also told that only $2,260 was collected. Again incorrect. We estimate that the income should be at least double this given the actual number of bookings! We are also told that council does not collect ‘data in that form’. Again incorrect, since the notice included the individual’s name and the application form requires the filling out of name and address of person making the booking.

So we come back to trust once more. Can we trust Newton, who is ultimately responsible for his officers? Can we trust Esakoff in her affirmation of the information? Can we trust a COUNCIL who appears to rubber stamp so many policies and documents. There are also many other important questions that need to be asked –

• Where is the additional $2,000+? Where has it gone?
• What does this reveal about the record keeping practices of this administration? Can we trust these systems?
• Can we as a community have any faith in the answers to our questions?
• What else is inaccurate? Gone missing? The victim of poor record keeping?
• How well are councillors fulfilling their role in overseeing that administrators provide data which is correct, truthful, and unbiased.

The evidence that contradicts Council’s is below –

• This is not an error: the identical numbers appeared on both these booking sheets!