Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 20, 2011

More Weasel Words?

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

The following comments are taken directly from the minutes of the last council meeting and refer to Magee’s statement (cited in an earlier post) about the farce that occurred when Penhalluriack attempted to request a report. Both Tang and Hyams responded to Magee’s comments.

11.2 Right of reply

Cr Tang: “I’d like to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by Cr Magee at this meeting at Item 11.1 Requests for Reports. Cr Magee has suggested that once Cr Penhalluriack opens his mouth he is expected to go through a rigmarole. I believe by direct implication the rigmarole he was referring to was the application of the Local Laws. I believe the direct implication is that other Councillors are not subject to the same application of the Local Laws. I distinctly recall being put through the same rigmarole last week when I tried to move an amendment to the budget as advertised. And at other times when we have tried to settle a motion where not all Councillors were in the same position of agreement nor was it clear that there was a majority of Councillors in agreement that would support any particular motion and in doing that it’s a bit messy but Councillors have to be able to move amendments because they should be able to amend something that is on the floor. Otherwise motions will come that no majority of Councillors are in support of. Motions will come where there are two Councillors on one side two Councillors on another side two Councillors in the middle and two Councillor who don’t know what is going on and one Councillor who is not there. Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency. You’ll have the Chair dictating which motion they’ll accept and you’ll have no objective assessment as to whether the Chair was being fair in that application. So I think the implication that Cr Magee clearly made was against each and every one of us Councillors in trying to apply the Local Law to Cr Penhalluriack but not applying it to any other Councillor.”

Cr Hyams: “I would also like to exercise a right of reply if I may. To the same comments that were made by Cr Magee. I agree with Cr Tang that the import of Cr Magee’s comments were that somehow the Local Law is being applied unfairly to some Councillors whereas not others whereas I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t. And I think that if Councillors look back on the way things have worked around here, each Councillor has at times been pulled up for going outside the Local Law. And I also think that when Councillors are finding their ways frustrated other Councillors who have actually tried to assist those Councillors in finding a way to do what they want to within the Local Law.”

 

May 18, 2011

Welcome To The Circus!

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

Please forgive this very long report on tonight’s council meeting. We’ve only covered a few of the agenda items, but will report on the rest in the next few days.

ITEM 9.8 – Newton’s ‘Report’

Hyams/Pilling moved motion to note report.

HYAMS: ‘I don’t have much to say on this. The CEO was asked to give a rport on his meetings with the MRC and he has done so’.

PILLING: did not say anything.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m disappointed in this report’….(Penhalluriack then read out the paragraph about the meetings with MPs and ‘others’)….asked whether Newton had actually attended those meetings. Newton replied ‘Madam Mayor, I didn’t’. Penhalluriack then said that since he’s written the paragraph, ‘then presumably somebody did otherwise you wouldn’t have it in the report’….

Paul Burke then intervened with “I may be able to assist your Worship. I understand that you attended those meetings Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack asked that Burke claify this which Burke claimed he couldn’t. Penhalluriack then went on to say that he did attend a meeting and Cr. Forge provided the minutes of that meeting back to council. He went on to say that ‘there is an olligation on council to keep detailed records under the Public Records Act’. Quoted Section 13 of the Act….’and I am frankly disappointed that we get in this report a lot of things that we didn’t ask for…..we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made’….’I’m not happy with this report’.

FORGE: ‘Yes, I have concerns too about the matter of detail and I support Cr. Penhalluriack’s observatiions’.

HYAMS: ‘I didn’t find the paragraph that Cr. Penhalluriack referred to (unclear)…because it said quite clearly that no officer attended (so it could only be councillors)…and I certainly didn’t attend any of these meetings…Cr. Penhalluriack is right that we have to keep detiled records but it doesn’t necessarily mean….detailed records in the agenda….I wouldn’t like to carry them, but some bodies might like to…There was also the comment that there was no record of (meetings attended, but there is) chronological order in paragraph 5….so I’m happy with this report.

MOTION CARRIED: Against Penhalluriack and Forge. For the motion – Hyams, Pilling, Tang, Magee, Esakoff.

REQUEST FOR REPORTS

TANG: ‘council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the mulch facility …..at another site in GlenEeira. The report should consider the recommendations of the Health assessment’ team. Claimed he was only ‘testing the water’ since he understands that councillors made a decision to remove the facility but now there’s been ‘public discord’ emails, phone calls and newspapers. He is ‘interested to see whether all options are exhausted before close the door’. He understands that some councillors have got strong views about all this  such as where the facility was placed and whether it could be operated from a different location.  ‘testing the water to see if councillors will open their minds to other options…..(and if this motion is defeated then it’s clear that council won’t be providing this facility from anywhere in Glen Eira).

HYAMS: ‘My concern….wasn’t the site but the dangers of handling it….so I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it at any other site but (since there are a couple of councillors absent) ‘it’s been a bone of contention so I’m happy to (support the request for a report) and see what comes back’ …’but I don’t think I’ll change my mind’.

PILLING: Stated that he did ask if there was anywhere else for the facility to go

FORGE: reminded councillors that she and Magee raised a number of issues apart from legionnaires and the dangers that the facility contained.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that people are obviously concerned when they go to the mulch facility but the signs indicate that ‘they’ve been denied a free service’. Said he could understand people’s concern, but he is also concerned that ‘the Leader is running a campaign’ because the mulch bin is still sitting there. ‘The wording of the motion which was passed is very straight forward. Officers are under obligation to listen to (councillors decisions) resolutions and do it expeditiously. The wording says that council removes the facility….AND it no longer provides this free service…..I’m reasonably competent in English …..the building is a prefabricated building ….and they could be stored almost anywhere….It’s simple English….This bin itself was badly designed right from the start…..it’s designed to allow the mulch to be pushed in….a bottle neck at the far end…..(explained how it could be better designed. ‘Standards Association says the mulch should be pasteurised….it is not pasteurised…..(then unless it is pasteurised) you cannot put this facility anywhere in Glen Eira. Spoke about insurance companies and whether they know about the dealing with a dangerous product and the same with Glen Eira college. Job is to protect the community. ‘I’m not prepared to do it’ – ie. take the risk.

TANG: ‘would be shocked’ if they didn’t know about the risk. Council had spoken with principal of college. Insurance would have an appraisal, so they also know. ‘I encouraged Penhalluriack to bring the issue forward….would be good to implement every one of those recommendations…..some councillors as concerned about the mulch service as concerned about where it is located…there is very strong feeling….our duty to investigate whether there are optiions…..If there aren’t I will let the issue lie….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Penahalluriack: FOR: Esakoff, Tang, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Forge

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

PENHALLURIACK: ‘i’ve given notice of a motion concerning a footpath down the western side of Queen’s Avenue. The matter is not urgent (but he was told the criteria for an ‘urgent’ motion was that it had to have happened after the agenda was published)…’It seems in Glen Eira that whatever does or does not go in the agenda is the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer….There is no other way for me to get discussion on my motion….my question is Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a provision for councillors’ motions on notice, so if a seconder can be found…(important issues can be discussed)?

ESAKOFF: ‘Who are you directing the question to?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘To you madam Mayor’

Esakoff started to reply when Hyams interjected with a point of procedure. That questions to councillors had to be given to that councillor prior to the meeting, and that in the current situation he ‘didn’t want to set a preceent’. Burke then said that ‘the matter was considered in the Local Law Process ….and Council took a view that it was satisfied with the process as (it stood).

PENHALLURIACK: ‘how can I get this matter debated’ if I can’t move a motion of notice?

BURKE: ‘you have 8 other colleagues…seek their support. The Local Law will allow you to do so….

TANG: ‘I’ll take lilberty and put a question to Mr. Burke (trying to help Penhalluriack)….would Cr. Penhalluriack be able to have this discussed if he were to move a request for a report….?

BURKE: ‘Yes’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I take umbrage at that response. he suggests I get all 9 councillors together (even when 9 councillors are together) ‘I can’t get a motion because our CEO controls the agenda ….I can ask for a report and a report will come back to us ….(but how do I get the Local Law changed)

BURKE: Requests for reports are a ‘catalyst’ for all sorts of’ things, including what you’re seeking.

PENAHLLURIACK: Tried to ask for a report on the agenda item

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s too late’

HYAMS: Moved a procedural motion that would allow Penhalluriack to request a report. Pilling seconded.

TANG:’ There’s no such thing as a procedural motion….I’ll just move  that ‘council reopen discussion of 11.2’

ESAKOFF: 11.1. Hyams accepted the amendment

Vote on amendment – carried unanimously

ESAKOFF: ‘We’re back to 11.1. Cr Penhalluriack’

PENAHALLURIACK: ‘How circumlocutous can we possible get! …..Can councillors please provide a report to councillors on why Glen Eira doesn’t have a provision for councillors to have a motion on notice….. Tang seconded.

TANG: ‘just hope that Cr. Penhalluriack remembers that we helped him out on getting these things…’

PILLING asked for a repeat of the request for a report.
Penhalluriack re-read the motion – why glen Eira doesn’t have a provision ….so that a seconder can be found and that matters of importance can be debated.’ Pilling then suggested changes to the request for a report, referring to the Local Law and the necessity to change that. Penahlluriack didn’t want the word ‘suggestion’ in Pilling’s rephrasing. He wanted to change the word ‘suggestions’ to ‘draft’. Burke then again said: ‘that may give officers a deal of angst’ since you’re asking for a report that means that your wording will change , so ‘officers are actually drafting what you want’. Penhalluriack then seconded Tang’s motion! Tang then tried to clarify.’ Cr Penahlluriack has moved a motion, I seconded that motion and Cr. Pilling has moved an amendment. Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested that he is prepared to’ accept the amendment , so he’s withdrawing his motion and moving the motion ‘as read by Pilling’.

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack and Tang whether they supported the amended motion. Both agreed.

MAGEE; ‘I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my life …every time Cr. Penhalluriack tries to do something….road blocking. The last 5 minuytes have been an absolute disgrace. (gallery clapped) …looking after 100 million dollar business should be informed and I think…..should be sacked’.

HYAMS: ‘at lot more of us would be sacked if we tried to ignore our local law rather than stick with it ….(interjection from the gallery about ‘ordinary business’) ‘I understand Mr. dunstan that you were a very ordinary councillor so I understand why you’d want ordinary business’

TANG: a question to Magee. ‘if we didn’t apply the local laws consistently the alternative would be to leave all the power in the hands of the chair and allow the chair to act at their discretion…accept or reject motions…..

MAGEE: ‘we’re all very aware from the first word of Cr. Penhalluriack (what he wanted) ‘and all we did was play tennis with it’

TANG; ‘I don’t think Cr. Magee has answered my question’.

MAGEE: ‘I think we all knew where Cr. Penhalluriack was going ….and all we did was play around with it. …we should have gone straight to the point…..

PILLING: ‘it was confusing….I was trying to get what Cr. Penhalluriack wanted

PENHALLURIACK: I get pissed off as well…..I’m happy for the motion as it stands …”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

May 8, 2011

A Conflict of Interest? – The Lipshutz Email

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

Our apologies – but we inadvertently left out a couple of pages from the ‘Frisbee Report’ upload in the previous post. Included in this report was the following email (admitted to) by Lipshutz. It reads:

“My son has reported that he and his friends were approached by a council officer on Friday and warned off playing Frisbee in Caulfield Park (the lacrosse oval). I am advised that there is a regular Friday afternoon Frisbee game which is not organised and basically anyone can turn up. I consider it a bit rich to prevent a bunch of kids playing Frisbee. My son says that they play on that oval as all the other ovals are being used for cricket. Could you please look into this for me. were the matter to be reported in The Leader I think we would look a little ridiculous.”

The same report went on to state: “The Frisbee group is a highly organised group who are regularly using Council facilities without a Council allocation and without proper authorisation…….. If members of the Frisbee group continue their unauthorised use of Council facilities then Council should issue warnings and Infringements if required.”

 

May 7, 2011

Decision Making Behind Closed Doors

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

The only decision making that is lawful must occur at full council meetings, special committee meetings, or under delegated authority. The role of Assembly of Councillors is to consider ‘matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision” (Local Government Act, 1989). Further, the VLGA states that ‘Briefings are a means by which councillors can ensure that they have all the information and advice required to debate and decide matters.” (Submission to discussion paper on ‘conflict of interest’, February, 2010).              

In theory, this works fine. Yes, councillors need to be briefed on important upcoming issues. Yes, they need to be in possession of all the facts and figures prior to informed decision making taking place. This is the theory – but in reality we find that in Glen Eira the so called ‘Assembly of Councillors’ is a defacto decision making forum. Debate obviously occurs, but there is also the unofficial ‘straw vote’ that in the end equates to behind the scenes decision making.

How do we know all this? We’ve received two sets of documents obtained under FOI. The first (uploaded here) is the infamous ‘Frisbee Report’, obviously tabled some time in late November, 2010 at a councillors’ briefing session. The document basically details a number of breaches of the local law by various ‘unauthorised sporting groups’, and its stated purpose is for councillors to ‘consider and approve ‘one of the options set out in the report”. The actual options are:

  • “Council can monitor the situation
  • Council can uphold reasonable laws reasonably enforced. Council can take the following action for unauthorised groups: issue a warning in the first instance; issue a formal warning in the second instance; issue a penalty infringement notice if the group continues to play,
  • Council can do nothing”.

The second document is Version 1 of the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting of 22nd November, 2010. (uploaded here). This document underwent at least three revisions, so that from 735 words, it was reduced to a mere 97 words. What’s important about this document is that the note-taker, whom we assume to be Linda Smith, recorded the following:

“Cr Tang advised that council had made the decision not to take any action with the Frisbee group back in November”.

In the first place, no Council meeting has ever made such a decision and secondly, we do not believe that Ms. Smith misheard or misquoted, or misunderstood the gist of the conversation at this point. If so, then the above November Assembly of Councillors to all intents and purposes did make a binding decision. Such incriminating ‘evidence’ therefore had to be expunged, and that’s the reason we suspect, behind Hyams’ emails and determination to ‘censor’ these minutes.

Readers may also recall that Lipshutz’s son was ‘associated’ with the Frisbee group, as well as some of Tang’s acquaintances. Then there was the instance of Lipshutz’s email to Burke requesting that he ‘look into the matter’, and now Hyams’ request to Burke that the minutes be changed – not once, but time and time again!

Whilst it is true that the Municipal Inspector found no ‘official breach of the act’, in regards to conflict of interest by both Lipshutz and Tang, this is small comfort to residents. The ‘decision’ not to prosecute, or even act, were not made in council meetings – hence there was no ‘official’ vote. But these documents suggest that consensus and de facto decisions are occurring time and time again – but behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. Even more concerning is the manner in which official documents are pared away so that all context and substance is removed. Yes, this may be ‘legal’, but it certainly is not ethical, or in the best interests of good governance. When there is no transparency, there is no accountability. All that we are left with is a rotten taste in our mouths and the further disrepute that has for a decade dogged this Council. 

We urge everyone to  read these documents carefully and to ask themselves:

  • Do Tang, Lipshutz and Hyams have a case to answer?
  • Do these documents promote confidence in the transparency and good governance of this council?
 

May 5, 2011

Keystone Cops Alive & Well in Glen Eira Council

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication
[11] Comments 

Here’s a little story for the amusement of all ratepayers. The antics of all the major actors definitely resemble the stumbling, bumbling and ineffectuality of the Keystone Cops. But these events also offer a unique window into the culture of an organisation that is committed to thwarting change. We also glean an appreciation of the inability (unwillingness?) of certain councillors to assert their rightful authority and control. We are, of course, referring to the Consultation Advisory Committee consisting of Pilling, Hyams, and Esakoff and officers. Given the current ‘consultation’ on the Engagement Strategy we think this post is a timely reminder of what residents should look out for in this new installment of spin, waffle and dissembling.

Since the November 2008 elections, minutes of the Consultation Committee Meetings have been tabled at full council meetings only 6 times. We’ve traced the ‘progress’ of one issue – the erection of Notice Boards in 12 locations throughout the municipality.  Readers should note that this issue has taken over two years to materialise – and all for the measly expenditure of $2,000+. When one considers that council has had notice boards in place at barbecues and rotundas for private bookings for years now (without being devastated by vandals) one can only marvel at the goings on at these committee meetings.

The following extracts are cited verbatim from relevant minutes. Nothing has been left out except the final list of recommended locations.

17th April 2009 – Community Notice boards – The issue of the value of Community Notice boards was raised. DCS (Peter Jones) advised that the issue had previously been examined and that the previous report would be provided to Councillors

Action: DCS to provide previous Community notice Board report to councillors.

24th June 2009: Peter Jones tabled a paper presented at a Council Briefing on 31 July 2006 concerning Community Notice Boards. The paper concluded that notice boards could be set up in libraries and supermarkets or other places which most residents visit, however these methods would still only reach a minority of the population. The paper recommended that council should use more direct methods of consultation such as direct mail, letter box drops, notices in the Leader Newspapers, Glen Eira News, Council website, surveys, focus groups and public meetings.

The committee discussed the use of community notice boards in shopping centres, at park entrances and council libraries. Cr Esakoff raised the use of stainless steel framed notice boards within the City of Boroondara.

ACTION: Officers to investigate notice boards used within the City of Boorondara and provide a report at the next Committee meeting. 

26th August, 2009: Officers tabled a report of community notice boards located within the City of Boroondara. The Boroondara City council maintains two notice boards situated outside trains stations, one in Glenferrie Road and the other in Auburn road.

Officers inspected the notice boards and found that they contained information taken directly from the Council newsletter Boroondara Bulletin. Officers are of the opinion that these notice boards would attract little attention from pedestrians and only reach a small minority of the population.

A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Notice boards are often graffitied and the perspex is also scratched by vandals using coins. Notice boards installed in parks are also set alight. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.

Cr Esakoff discussed slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip. The Committee discussed notices boards with Adshel bus shelters in areas of high pedestrian usage.

ACTION: officers to provide a report on the slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip and supply name of manufacturer and costs 

8th October 2009 : Stainless Steel Notice boards. Officers provided information about the stainless steel signs located in the Camberwell shopping strip. Stainless steel signs have been installed in the Camberwell Shopping Centre and are located on the footpath area of the shopping strip. The signs are fitted with a relatively small window of perspex glass on both sides of the sign and the sign contains a map of the shopping strip. The information contained in the window could not be easily seen from a distance and the sign had also attracted graffiti and stickers of unauthorised material.

The Committee discussed the possibility of using these signs to promote council community consultation.

Officers reported that the stainless steel signs are manufactured by Sign Insustriees located at 9 Lennox Street Moorabbin. Officers also reported that Sign Industries have advised that the costs for the manufacture and installation of three signs would be $16,335.00 including GST.

The Committee discussed different types of signage that could be used to promote community consultations including different construction materials and design. The committee requested a catalogue of the different signs produced by Sign Industries.

ACTION: Officers to investigate the costs of 6, 9 and 12 signs, additional costs of enlarging the perspect glass area and the provision of fittings so that information contained within the sign can be regularly changed. Officers to obtain a catalogue of the different types of signs produced by Sign Industries.

14th October, 2010: Brochure Holders

Mark Saunders advised that quotes had been obtained for Info-Central Brochure Holders. The purpose of the holders is to promote council community consultations and events. The quotes for the brochure holders range in cost from $180 (plus GST) for a standard holder up to $220.00 (plus GST) for a heavy duty holder. The cost for 12 standard holders is $2,040 (plus GST) and $2,520.00(plus GST) for 12 heavy duty holders.

A brochure holder set consists of two holders and brackets. The brochure holders are available in a standard version constructed of clear 3mm acrylic material or a heavy duty version that is manufactured from more robust high impact acrylic. A picture of the brochure holders is provided below.

A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Brochure holders and notice boards are often sprayed with graffiti, scratched by vandals using sharp objects. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.

Additional costs for the project include preparing, printing and regularly changing over information. These additional costs will be met through existing budgets.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the purchase of 12 heavy duty brochure holder sets at a cost of $2,520.00 plus GST.

Moved Cr. Hyams and Seconded Cr. Esakoff. Motion carried.

21st February 2011: Notice Boards

Officers presented a report of proposed locations of notice boards to be installed across the municipality to promote council community engagement activities and services

12 community signs shall be installed in the municipality. The signs shall be located in areas that experience high levels of pedestrian traffic in major activity centres.

The committee agreed that signage should be installed in the following locations: (a list follows)

ACTION: Officers to investigate the possibility of locating signage on the north side of Centre Road, East Bentleigh, in the Glenhuntly road Elsternwick within the close proximity of Staniland Grove, within close proximity to Patterson Train Station, and at the entrance to Caulfield Park on the corner of Hawthorn and Balaclava roads, Caulfield.

 

May 1, 2011

A Comment By Cr. Pilling

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[15] Comments 

A few thoughts about this blog-site, the content and some of the comments.

Some of the postings are informative and offer insights to what is happening particularly at Council meetings and that is to be applauded.

Increasingly though it seems a case of councillor/council bashing no matter what the merit of decisions made, myself being the latest recipient.

I appreciate constructive critisism but many of the postings/comments seem otherwise.

I have found all the councillors to be decent, conciencious and hard working – in short it is a good team to work amongst.

I stand by both my recent decisions on the racecourse centre and C60 and challenge the moderator and readers in the real world (not cyber) of how they would have delivered better outcomes given the circumstances.

 

April 28, 2011

Et Tu Brutus?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance
[4] Comments 

The C60 Amendment and the 7 lot subdivision were passed unanimously tonight – all according to plan no doubt. The gallery were assailed with the usual cliches, motherhood statements, and half truths. The rhetoric was familiar and repetitive. The C60 is the best deal that can be got; look we’ve protected residents, it’s only going to be 20 storeys instead of 23 and yes traffic will be a problem, but it’s already a problem so what’s the big deal? On and on and on. We’ll provide a more detailed report in the days ahead.

We’ve also chosen the title to this post deliberately. We think it speaks volumes of the actions of these four councillors and the administration in their total betrayal of residents. Top of the Brutus Scale is our first Green Councillor – Pilling. We simply wonder what his party must be thinking of him now?

 

April 26, 2011

“Agreement’ or Cave-In?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance
[15] Comments 

We’ve gone back and had a look at the Council resolution that was passed about negotiations with the MRC and compared this with the proposed ‘agreement’. It was decided that council’s position would be: 

1.That the opaque fences be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as possible;

2. That the centre of the circumferential training tracks be fenced off and the general public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to this entire area;

3. That the Melbourne Racing Club landscape this area to plans and specifications to be agreed with Council, but which will include sporting ovals, areas for passive use, change areas and toilets;

4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve so the Crown Land used for training can be made progressively available for unrestricted public use.

5. That aside from the tunnel there be further public access to the centre of the Racecourse.

6. That car parking not be permitted in the centre of the Racecourse except in association with the use by the public of the public park.

7. That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve be administered by Independent Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust not dominated by any one group.

What Newton and co have come up with doesn’t cover half of what was in the resolution. There’s nothing here about unrestricted access, a firm timetable for getting rid of training and greater access to the centre. It’s also odd that this item hasn’t got a single name attached to it. All we get are disclaimers such as “Council has no more control over this land than it does over the average residential property.” 

Also of note is that decisions on fencing remain with the MRC and not council. Further, Glen Eira residents will be forking out further monies to share in the construction of various entrances and fences. So much for the MRC footing the entire bill! Oh, and there’s a time limit of up to 5 years for some of this fencing to go. 

Of greatest concern is the total failure of this so called ‘negotiation’ to insist on the expeditious removal of training from the racecourse and the establishment of an independent trust ‘not dominated by any one group’. As it stands, this ‘agreement’ does not in any shape or form adhere to the council resolution. If this ‘agreement’ is passed then Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling and Magee will have to parry charges of hypocrisy since they all voted in favour of Penhalluriack’s motion on what council’s position should be. The motion still stands. They are therefore obligated to support the motion or be viewed as the lackeys of the MRC.

 

April 13, 2011

Read and Weep!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[8] Comments 

We invite readers to peruse the following pre-election statements from our little ‘gang of four’. The material comes from both the Caulfield and Moorabbin Leader just prior to the November 2008 elections.

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

LIPSHUTZ: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?We must have balanced development but at the same time preserve streetscape and period homes. Additionally rate increases must be contained, Glen Eira must be a leader in environmental matters . What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?I can assure voters that responsible and decisive governance will continue. Rates will be reigned in and Glen Eira will become a much greener municipality. Planning will be reviewed.

TANG: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira? Environmental, financial and social sustainability. We need to invest in community assets and community building whilst minimising our environmental impact. This can be achieved while keeping our rates below peer councils. What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council? I can deliver record investment in community infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. Top of the list is the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and Booran Rd Reservoir Park.

ESAKOFF: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira? Having a responsive, service-oriented, financially and environmentally responsible Council that governs well and fully consults the community to make the best possible decisions for the people of Glen Eira. What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?Making Glen Eira even more liveable by keeping rates low, retaining the pensioner rebate, improving services, facilities, safety, shopping strips and open space, whilst protecting our environment and residential amenity.

PS: An alert reader has pointed out that we’ve forgotten the other member of ‘the gang’ – Pilling. Here’s his election promise.

PILLING: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira? Genuine community consultation. We need to build a better council that genuinely listens and acts on what the community needs. I will conduct quarterly open focus forums to discuss concerns and issues.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council? Our present council doesn’t take climate change seriously! I will advocate strongly for Glen Eira Council to become carbon neutral by 2018 with a 40% reduction in carbon pollution by 2012.

 

March 30, 2011

The Folly of Lipshutz, Tang, Magee et.al

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

It looks like all chickens have finally come home to roost with VCAT’s decision to allow the Elsternwick 10 storey development to go ahead. Readers will remember that:

  • Lipshutz’s argument was that if council doesn’t approve 8 storeys instead of ten, that the developers will go to VCAT AND GET WHAT THEY WANT
  • Tang equivocated by arguing that 7 storeys is better than 8
  • Magee said that he wouldn’t like to live anywhere near the development but still voted for it
  • Lobo called it a ‘monstrosity’.

The sheer stupidity (and we use this word advisedly) of such arguments has finally been shown up for what they are – vapid, empty rhetoric with no foundation in law, fact, or good planning policy. Councillors should be ashamed of their efforts on this one and the ramifications of such decision making. Will they now, on the 14 storey application, vote in favour of 12 storeys and use the argument that since VCAT has approved the Ripon Grove development we can’t do anything?

The VCAT member made the point clearly and logically when he stated:

“Council recognised the importance of this key site in granting a conditional permit, however restricted the height of the building to eight storeys rather than the ten storeys applied for. One need to ask what difference either eight or ten storeys would make to the locality or the broader context of the major activity centre of Elsternwick”.

What this decision demonstrates is not the arbitrary nature of VCAT, but the failure of council planning policies (NO HEIGHT LIMITS, NO PRECINCT PARKING PLANS, NO STRUCTURE PLANS). Councillors have now successfully opened the flood gates in Elsternwick and they will bear the brunt of resident disaffection.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »