Glen Eira Debates

Secrecy is of course appropriate in some cases. But not when it denies residents access to vital policy documents, strategies and plans. Glen Eira is unique in its commitment to provide as little information as possible to its residents and if it is provided, to hide it away so that access and easy retrieval requires the skill of a Sherlock Holmes, together with the nose of a trusty bloodhound! Why?

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

The availability, or lack thereof, of major policy documents is a case in point. In contrast to neighbouring councils, Glen Eira’s website is deplorable in its content and design. No direct links on the home page to ‘policies’, ‘strategies’ or ‘plans’; searches under ‘policies’ lead to planning documents that are archaic, dating back as far as 1999 and so on…..

This we suggest, is more than poor web design but intended to make things as difficult as possible for residents AND to possibly cover up the fact that in contrast to other councils, Glen Eira is really bereft of up-to-date policy development that matters. For example: there is no sustainable design strategy; there is no transport strategy; there is no gambling strategy that we could find and it goes on and on. Our point is simple: all policies, all strategies should be out in the open and easily accessible.

Below are the policies/strategies from other councils, all accessible via direct links from the home page. Those with an asterisk indicate the areas that we believe Glen Eira does not have any official policy. Council plans, budgets, codes of conduct, etc. have been omitted from the list.

BAYSIDE:

Cultural collection and management policy

Cultural collection policy*

Economic development strategy*

Electronic gaming policy*

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – Municipal Arrangements

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – operational Arrangements

Register of significant trees policy*

Sports facility policy*

Tourism strategic action plan*

Whistleblowers/Improper conduct

Youth policy

PORT PHILLIP:

Heritage recognition program policy and strategy

Sustainable design policy*

Waste wise strategy

Youth framework

Playground strategy

Memorials and monuments*

Port Phillip Collection Management Policy

Festivals Framework*

Urban History consultative committee*

Inner Melbourne Action Plan*

Climate Change Commitment*

Active and Creative City Framework*

St. Kilda Botanical Gardens Future Directions Plan

Fisherman’s Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy

Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach 2011*

Industry and Business Strategy*

Housing Strategy 2007

Beacon Cove Planning

Activity Centres Strategy

Ormond Road Urban Design guidelines

Governance Statement*

Good Governance guide

KINGSTON:

Alcohol and Other Drugs Action Plan*

Fire Prevention Plan

Gambling (Poker Machines) Strategy*

Graffitti management Plan

Guide to Business Conduct*

Open Space Strategy

Public health Plan

Whistleblowers Act

Kingston Biodiversity Strategy*

Kingston Industrial Strategy*

Investment Policy*

Pandemic Influenza Plan*

(http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=2394&h=-1 – Policy Manual)*

STONNINGTON: 

Art Acquisition Policy*

Caretaker Policy

Cultural Diversity Policy*

Disaster Relief donations Policy*

Key to the City and Freedom of Entry Policy*

Responsible Gambling Policy*

Road Safety Policy*

Sustainable Transport Policy*

Stormwater Environmental Management Plan*

In late January this year, the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell, gazetted a comprehensive 42 page blueprint for Audit Committee reform and accountability. Whilst only ‘guidelines’ the Minister also stated  that Local Governments are “strongly encouraged to adopt and use the Guide when establishing their audit committees”.  Much of what the 42 page document entails has a direct bearing on the Audit Committee as constituted in Glen Eira. It is timely to consider this issue now since the agenda items listed for discussion next Tuesday night clearly fly in the face of the Minister’s recommendations in several key areas.  

We discuss the central issues under several headings – 

1. Composition and tenure of Audit Committee Membership 

The recommendation from the Minister is: 

“Periodic rotation of the members of the audit committee is encouraged as this will enhance the perception and reality of audit committee independence… To ensure continuity, ideally no more than one member should leave the audit committee pursuant to rotation in any one year. …..LGE members will be subject to council elections every four years and accordingly the tenure of LGE members on the audit committee needs to be set to allow for their rotation among the nominated LGE members….The period of tenure for independent members could be two to three years, again with options for reappointment after periodic performance reviews. The LGE might also consider setting a maximum number of terms of reappointment for independent members.” 

COMMENT: The latest agenda items contain committee nominations for 2010/11. Lipshutz and Tang again feature prominently. In fact, their tenure on the Audit Committee, as well as other important committees within Glen Eira (such as Local Laws; Racecourse Issues and previously Finance) has been extraordinary. The table below illustrates clearly how this council and its councillors have allowed two individuals to dominate the most important committees and which we argue is now in complete opposition to the position expressed by the Minister. 

 2.     Further Recommendations from the Minister

Some more extracts from the guidelines –

“To be effective, the audit committee must be independent from management and free from any undue influence”. 

COMMENT: In Glen Eira the ‘Finance Committee’ has suddenly become defunct –  no meetings of this committee were recorded in the Annual Report for the previous two years and it has now vanished from the upcoming committee delegations. Yet the table above reveals that Lipshutz was a member of this committee whilst he was also on the Audit Committee! A great example of ‘independence’ and perhaps ‘conflict of interest’ we ask? 

“Review internal audit’s mission, charter, and resources such that this charter maintains internal audit’s independence from management. This is achieved through its reporting structures and rights of access to all levels of management and relevant information…..Ensure that all work is reported through to the audit committee and is not censored or held up by management”. 

COMMENT: Not only Lipshutz but Gibbs and McLean have also been sitting on the audit committee for eons and have been extremely well reimbursed for their time and effort. We ask again why the Minister’s guidelines recommending rotation should not apply in the case of the latter two members? As the Minister states,  it is important to ‘also to provide a fresh perspective through succession planning and the selection process.” 

Finally, there are many comments throughout the document related to ethics, governance, and of particular emphases is the development of a charter that clearly enunciates all mechanisms, roles, expectations, and evaluations of the committee itself, and its individual members. The facts that readers should keep in mind are: 

1. These guidelines were published on January 31^st 2011 and gazetted on 8^th February 2011
2. Council has thus had ample time to read, absorb, and plan for their implementation. This has not been done!
3. Instead, we have basically the same old members; the same old accounting firms; the same old protocols, and hence the same old questions about independence, good governance and perceptions of all too cosy relationships with external and internal members 
4. Are Lipshutz and Tang in particular, so extraordinary in their skills, acumen, and vast accounting and/or expansive legal experience that they are indispensible on all these major committees? And is it mere coincidence, or the councillors’ own wishes, that Penhalluriack and Forge only manage to get on three committees, and Oscar Lobo is only on one? Should ratepayers conclude that no other councillor can fill the shoes of Lipshutz and Tang – that these individuals have the time to do a job properly when they are sitting on 6 committees each?  Or is there another agenda being played out here which has been ongoing for years?

The problem with Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang, as we see it, is that they continually forget that they are first and foremost meant to represent their constituents (us) and not pretend they are in a courtroom mouthing weasel words after weasel words. For ‘legal’ issues we as ratepayers fork out over $300,000 per year for a Corporate Counsel and her department! That is not the job of councillors!

Nothing brings this home more clearly than the continuing fiasco over public questions by Mr. Varvodic and the answers supplied by Lipshutz and Hyams. Readers will remember that the last set of minutes from the Recreation and Advisory Committee was in reality nothing more than a list of topics discussed. These were not minutes as per normal from this committee. To prove our point readers should look up the Council minutes of 8^th June, 2010. There we have two sets which are expansive, and give a clear indication of what individuals actually said. So why are these latest minutes so bereft of detail?

Mr. Varvodic has sent us his public question which accuses Hyams, as chair of that committee, in censoring the minutes. Technically, this is legal – minutes must be approved by committee members. But is it ethical? Is this good governance? And more to the point, what is he hiding? How come previous minutes are so different in style, tone, and content?

Even more hypocritical is the fact that since Mr. Varvodic’s name was undoubtedly included as a topic of conversation, (ie. Topics were public questions, local law, Frisbee group) then he has every (ethical) right to full disclosure as to what may have been said about him. Hyams’ response to Mr. Varvodic is outrageous in its misrepresentations and deliberate obfuscation. Hyams has stated that:

‘The real and full minutes of the meeting were published at the last Council Meeting…The minutes of Council’s Advisory Committee Meetings record discussion points, motions, outcomes and resolutions. The Inspectorate accepted this approach in responding to Complaint 14”.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The actual minutes of that committee give no inkling as to ‘discussion points’. They are in fact pseudo ‘record of assembly’ minutes. It does Hyams no credit to indulge in semantics and legalese. It does Esakoff no credit to sign whatever nonsense is placed under her nose, and it does this Council as a whole no credit to be continually perceived as abrogating their duty to ensure that legal loopholes do not over-ride basic principles of sound and open government.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT!  We have always been fascinated by the fact that ‘governance’ features as one of the objectives within the Council Plan. No other council that we know of includes such an item in their Community or Council Plan. The fact that Glen Eira does is extraodinary. It simple does not belong there. It is a ‘given’ – legally and by all principles of good government. Readers should carefully examine what this council includes under its categories of ‘governance’ in the Annual Report (Page 80) to see what a mockery the whole exercise becomes. Under the heading ‘Governance’ we find mumbo jumbo about health and safety and the ‘awards’ the council received. Then of course, there are the mandatory statistics about how many calls were answered by the service desk.

The Victorian Ombudsman tabled a report in Parliament yesterday concerning the conduct of a Hume City councillor. It was alleged that this councillor ‘influenced’ a planning permit on behalf of a business ‘associate’. Our interest in the ombudsman’s findings relate to the perceived conflict of interest of both Tang and Lipshutz and their involvement in the ongoing saga of the Frisbee affair. Readers may remember a response from Tang on this blog, where he stated: “The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.  I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status.  I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.

The ombudsman interprets such ‘relationships’ differently. On page 9 of the report, relating to Cr. Atmaca of Hume City Council,  he states:

“In response to my concerns, Councillor Atmaca said:

There can be no conflict or perceived conflict by treating a friend or acquaintance in an identical fashion to all other people.

I consider that Councillor Atmaca has misunderstood the concept of conflict of interest. A person has a conflict of interest when they have a personal or private interest which could affect their role as a public officer; a conflict of interest can exist even if no improper act results from it.”

The ombudsman also goes on to make this statement (page 13) – “To protect the integrity of the local government system, a councillor is expected to exercise a high standard of conduct and must act positively to promote public trust in the tier of government said to be closest to the people. Without the public’s trust, local government becomes ineffective and superfluous.”

The recent truncation (censorship?) of the Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes, where the issue of unauthorised sporting groups was again (and again) discussed, does nothing to engender the public’s trust in the processes of this council and its mandate to be open, transparent, and accountable. Nor does the consistent refusal to directly answer public questions in any meaningful way engender ‘public trust’ in Glen Eira City elected members.