Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 2, 2011

Heritage Panel Report: 466 Hawthorn Rd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

August 24, 2011

Where To From Here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HYAMS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

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

STAIKOS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

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

MAGEE: Why should the electorate vote for you?

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

LOBO: Why should the electorate vote for you?

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

 

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article refers to a “legal stoush”, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Andrew Newton.

I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper.  And I can safely presume our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

August 2, 2011

Municipal Inspector Investigates: #4

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

From The Leader, Jenny Ling – Page 3

COUNCILLOR PROBE IS CONFIRMED

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

July 29, 2011

Planning: Still Singing From the Same (Pro-Development) Song Sheet!

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

At the last council meeting, one item in particular highlighted the schemozzle that is the current Planning Scheme. It focused on transition zones between Diversity Areas and Minimal Change Areas. The application was on Dandenong Rd – Item 9.2 in the agenda.

This is not the first time that the issue of high rise/multiple storeys adjacent to minimal change areas has cropped up. Several meetings previously Penhalluriack noted the failure to address the issue of transition zones. Here’s what Magee said last week on this application:

MAGEE: (on the surface looks okay but had) the opportunity to stand in the back yard of one of the houses (affected) ….what I was faced with was looking up….(and seeing in time) 3 storeys of concrete looking down over a back garden…Problem I have is in diversity areas it’s all well and true and fitting…..but over the back fence is minimal change….so really what we’re imposing on minimal change is a housing diversity area…..I don’t know where you draw the line….do we respect the minimal change or do we respect the housing diversity area? I don’t think we can do both….I couldn’t live to doing that to someone (neighbours)…..(he chose minimal change to live in so that there wouldn’t be tall building next to him)…and I think a lot of these people have done exactly the same and I think it’s unfair of us to do that….

Even more damning is the fact that in August 2007 Spaulding and Esakoff requested a report on:

“That a report be prepared outlining what planning mechanisms/ tools are available to provide greater certainty for development outcomes in the buffer area between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.”

We note:

  • 4 years on, nothing has changed except that the problem has worsened
  • Logic is again a severe casualty in the report – ie. no need for prescriptive criteria since VCAT doesn’t have to adhere to them!!!
  • The report itself is full of self congratulations so that the recommendation is that nothing be done since Glen Eira is handling the problem marvellously well. We’ve uploaded the ‘report’ and invite comments from readers.
    (diagrams and footnotes have been left out)
  • How much longer will councillors allow this situation to continue before they demand that the Planning Scheme is amended and that proper buffer zones are included around Activity centres and Housing diversity areas that front Minimal Change Areas?
  • The ‘report’ resorts to dissembling quite often, especially in its claims that the majority of residents were supportive of the amendments. The real question is: how well did residents understand the implications of the amendment? How much information was provided?

How many more times must residents be assailed with hand wringing and ‘woe is us’ from councillors before they decide that a major part of the problem begins and ends with the Planning Scheme? When will they actually do their jobs and start setting policy?

 

July 10, 2011

What Really Goes On Behind Those Closed Doors?

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

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 14th December 2010). At the next council meeting (February 1st 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 22nd 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!

 

July 9, 2011

Democracy Is Dead At Glen Eira

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

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.”

 

July 5, 2011

The Budget ‘Debate’!!!!!

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

A little belatedly, we now report on last week’s ‘debate’ on the Strategic Resource Plan and the Budget

Strategic Resource Plan (SRP)

MAGEE: Regurgitated the 2008 ‘consultation’ processes  and insisted on calling this the ‘community plan’ which incorporates the SRP. ‘The plan is fully integrated with the strategic resource plan….SRP expresses the community plan objectives ‘in financial terms’….Changes to the community plan since the SRP was advertised are 6.5% rate increase instead of 6.95% ‘to ensure consistency with the 2011/12 budget(!!!!!); over $500,000 ‘saved’ by decreasing expenditure on warm season grasses; $200,000 on pavilion design funding; and in 2016/7 more spent on infrastructure; community grants increase by $50,000….

PILLING: ‘very important for council’s future….street lighting which is $2 million over the next two years…..biggest building program ever (GESAC)….looking through (the plan) all are funded and ….I certainly commend (the SRP).

HYAMS: Aim is to keep ‘things steady’…’no changes to overall plan….what we changed are the strategic activities at the back of the plan….strategy towards closing the infrastructure gap and maintaining services….(highigihts include GESAC, Duncan McKinnon and others)….’one off charge for green waste to get more people using green waste….these are all things that will make a big difference to people’s lives and improve glen Eira….other things that might seem more mundane on first reading…..like inspecting 6000 drainage pits…..park patrols, …..a whole lot of things…..(target) so we can monitor whether we’re actually meeting the target…and if we’re falling short find out why we’re falling short…..people may note that we went to the public with one strategic resource plan, we’ve changed that in reasonably significant ways….because after we went to the public….we also put the budget to the public….and that budget was amended so it no longer (melded with the SRP) …so of course we had no choice but to amend the strategic resource plan….it still remains financially sustainable…..the change actually cost us $2.3 million  in five years…..I wasn’t in favour of that….but on the whole I still think it’s a good strategic resource plan so despite that concern I won’t be voting against it…..

TANG: ‘As the mover of that amendment (to reduce rates) I have to take some of the stick…this SRP has taken into account the budgetary position ….which would be consistent (if passed tonight) ……Hyams has failed to acknowledge some of the other changes….(warm season grasses reduction; another $50,000) but ultimately the changes in my mind are great but the SRP as a whole doesn’t address all of my concerns…..(because of changes) council is considering pushing back its pavilion program…not necessarily all of the scale of caulfield park….but closer to the scale of the multi purpose pavilion at Princes Park….allowing council to do pavilions at Victory park …there are countless pavilions out there that council could do …..prudent process would be to do one a year…..not to address all of them…to try and get through in a timely manner…..alongside other major programs such as (childcare Bentleigh library)….why I don’t support this SRP is primarily because councillors said that in order to (have lower rates) it will push back that pavilion program. I have no objection to a number of other programs….

MOTION CARRIED

Item 9.11 – BUDGET

MAGEE: Regurgitated again public’consultation’ process. ‘We have a set of pressures to allocate funds to fix up our ageing facilities….keep day to day costs as low as we can….4.95 million on roads….3.29 million on drains…..7.85 to complete GESAC….cash flow for GESAC indicate …..25 million borrowings…..Elsternwick childcare centre….environmental initiatives’. Magee went on to read out overall capital expenditure, assessment on property costs. ‘It’s a good budget, a responsible budget, but most of all….it is keeping our rates to 6.5%….

TANG: ‘I want to speak to the budget information session….no one turned up this year which was quite disappointing. In the past we’ve had small attendances…..it would be good to see that information session used to generate a bit of feed back before the budget submission process….we did have one speaker (in budget submissions)….we acknowledged the Friends of Caulfield Park submission…a number of suggestions that we had previously considered such as the depot, conservatory (and trees in the West of the park) …some I think council will certainly consider as part of its management practices….others such as the conservatory are …..I really do like the idea of hav ing a conservatory that is alive once again….there was some support for council initiatives this year….street light conversion…..a good step forward……I’d call it a compromise budget….council is transparent in its previous SRPs….in communicating to our residents that it was intending to raise by 6.5% in this financial years…..(because embarking on) massive renewal….in that regard I’m happy to see council follow through with that strategic resource plan….a prudent and responsible rate rise……allows us to do a number of things….

HYAMS: ‘third lowest’ rate rise in metro councils……low fees and charges, yet high capital expenditure….it lets us do what’s in the community plan basically…..(thank those who made submissions, especially Glen Eira Environment Group who were worried that council was putting synthetic grass, especially in road barriers)….’road separation only goes between service lanes and main roads…..save on maintenance because if you have grass there you have to cut it….and I certainly wouldn’t like to be the guy mowing ……I think it’s quite a worthwhile thing to do….

MAGEE: Stated that asking councillors to put up their pet projects means that you have ‘projects far outweighing the capabilities of the budget…..day care in East Bentleigh would be something that I would support …..pavilions in Victory and Centenary are something that I would have liked to ….at the end of the day it’s a matter of prioritising….I think this budget has prioritised….we would like to see more….I commend the budget to the council….’

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

  • Deliberate obfuscation in calling anything a ‘community plan’! Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan (unlike other councils). It has a Council Plan.
  • One would have hoped for more than a ‘reading’ of the budget papers/SRP papers, outlining expenditure. Please note that there was barely any mention of increased charges (especially for 3 year old kinda), nor burden of huge interest repayments, etc.
  • The lack of real and open debate is once again a damning indictment on the decision making processes of this Council.

 

 

 

 

June 29, 2011

Debate & Accountability Down The Drain!!!

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

Below is a report on the two items concerning developers’ levy and the flood report.

Item 9.7 – C84 amendment – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: Started by saying that he didn’t think that there was anyone on council who would give up the opportunity to collect money from developers. ‘However…..this particular issue there was no …’cost to do the research and initiate the developments….what it was worth….so basically there was not any point in doing it…..the money we were getting wasn’t going to actually pay for the scheme itself…..as the report says there are other ways of making developers pay more attention to the (effect they have on flooding) by putting this very low levy on them’. …..it was appropriate to fast track and that’s what’s been done here…….

Lipshutz declined to speak. There were no other speakers. Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Duration of debate – approximately 3 minutes!!!!

ITEM 9.13 – Flood Report – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘An interesting read…..hopeful that we won’t be seeing it (flooding) again….report explains…what council does…to prevent flooding and after flooding….and also what Melbourne Water does….Council …cleans about 6000 drain pits per year ….also cleans 30km of drains each year…..respond to 800 – 1000 requests…..I don’t think any infrastructure system would have dealt (with the floods)….we have to minimise. This sets out the ways this can be done…..consultation between ourselves and Melbourne Water…..Melbourne Water now better understands the problems in this area and hopefully …..we will be able to cope with it (another event) better and so will they.’

LIPSHUTZ: Told residents that ‘they should make sure’ to obtain a drainage plan’ before they buy or move house. ‘Melbourne Water has a plan of areas which are affected and it’s important that people understand  when one buys in an area of a flood zone…..

ESKAKOFF: ‘This does respond’ to the original request for a report. ‘It oulines many areas of council’s maintenance, of responses, of Melbourne Water’s drains and council’s drains, …..and the differentiation between those….plans to review the emergency response….there is a map as attachment one …it does show the MAIN areas….where businesses and homes were inundated……it by no means covers all areas of flooding…..these are the main areas and I just wanted to point that out…..

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY –DURATION OF DEBATE: 4 Minutes

COMMENTS: Two items which will have a major impact on the community, on amenity and livelihoods lasted exactly 7 minutes. This is plainly disgraceful and a complete whitewash of councillors’ responsibility to critically assess and evaluate the advice that is provided to them. All present last night did not undertake this duty. There was no questioning, no demand for statistics, no accountability to ratepayers.

 

June 21, 2011

Who Runs Council?

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

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?

 

 

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »