Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 4, 2011

Toilets, Policy and Circuses

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

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

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

Here’s what happened:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION PUT: and Lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

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

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

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank.

 

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

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

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

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

REQUEST FOR REPORT

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

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

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

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

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

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

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

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

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

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

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

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

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

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

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

 

October 29, 2011

Tenders: Value for Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sports oval    –
$525,969.40 inclusive of GST

Concrete works                       –           More than $1,000,000

Drainage                                 –           $1,445,000

Construction                           –           $382,715.30 (GST incl)

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

 

October 24, 2011

Financial Accountability: Are Councillors Doing Their Jobs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »