Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 15, 2011

More On Games & Ratepayers’ Money

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

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

Nillumbik’s legal bill squabble continues

1 Feb 11 @ 05:54pm by Raelene Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More debate was curtailed.

Comments

Natalie Woodley writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 11:15pm

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

Melissa Eaton writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 05:27pm

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

Daniel Potter writes:

Posted on 5 Feb 11 at 08:16pm

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

nicole singh writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 11:54pm

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

J Bullock writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 12:07pm

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

Nillumbik Council dumps Clarkson VCAT hearing

23 Feb 11 @ 01:32pm by Raelene Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS:

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

June 8, 2011

Item 9.4 – Heritage Listing

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

Esakoff declared 3 conflicts of interest – as a director of company who owns one of the properties, and as her husband is also a director. Lipshutz Moved motion to accept/Pilling seconded

LIPSHUTZ: Reminded everyone that this had been before council previously as a result of an ‘anomaly’ in the Heritage Overlay in that 466 Hawthorn is the only property listed under the Heritage banner – thus ‘there is a mismatch between the map and the schedule’. The matter has gone to the Department and now there’s this new report where the heritage advisors state that ‘this is a property worth maintaining heritage’ over…..‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’ that heritage should be kept, especially when one of these sites ‘is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything. Since there were submissions the proper thing to do is go to a panel.

PILLING: Stated that he had chaired the planning conference and with the advisor’s reports, council should adopt the ‘cautious course’ and go to a panel.

TANG: ‘Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. ‘Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors…’it’s a difficult issue’….’there’s also a councillor involved’….’doesn’t mean that we treat them any worse than any other resident’….’I feel comfortable seeing this going to an independent panel’….’I note the heritage advice and would be prepared to see the heritage overlay clarified’ on all properties if that’s what the panel wants, but ‘in fairness to those who bought the property’ …’I think we should let this go to an independent panel’.

HYAMS: ‘This is a bit of a mess…..I don’t think we should be looking to apportion blame here…that one building would have addresses on two streets’….’owner of 2B didn’t know and ‘planning department only found out when there was an application for property next door’…’took all of our planning department by surprise’…..’several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….’only two objectors neither of whom came to the planning comference’
..’and this despite the blog that likes to consider itself as influential….readers of that blog…usually the greatest sin a councillor can commit is apparently is to heed officers’ advice, especially unquestioningly….the blog is professing outrage….(that the heritage advisor’s recommendations are being ignored) …simply because a councillor has an interest ….with such breathtaking hypocrisy it’s no wonder that the people on this blog prefer to stay anonymous’. Councillors will ‘do what we always do’, look at advice …..’and make best decision’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We assume that Hyams’ little fit of pique against the ‘blog’ to be a reference to Glen Eira Debates. That’s the second time in two council meetings that the ‘real’ Cr. Hyams has maybe stood up?  We accept this as a sincere compliment, since it indicates that we are definitely ruffling a few feathers and rattling a few cages. However, we need to correct some assertions made by Hyams. We are accused of ‘hypocrisy’ in that we have berated councillors for accepting ‘unquestioningly’ officers’ reports. If Cr Hyams would bother to look back at our post on this issue he would find the following as part of our commentary –

QUESTIONS:

  •  What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
  •  Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
  •  Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
  •  Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties?
  •  Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors…….”. We continued that what we recommend is surety for all concerned. There’s also a post that we put up but did not author – it comes from a resident expressing their personal opinion.

Finally, in relation to this current item, perhaps Cr. Hyams has not read the rehashed officers’ report as closely as he should have. The report notes: “Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants (David Bick, John Briggs, Roger Beeston and Dale Kelly). All concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection”.

So that makes it 6 Heritage Advisors in total. How much did this recourse to ‘external’ advisors cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? How much will referral to a Panel cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? Why in the interests of transparency did you not once refer to this additional ‘evidence’ from ‘independent’ experts? And since it was at your urging that the current Councillor Code of Conduct contains the injunction that councillors read all material placed before them, we ask you -“Did you really read the new report?”. Or is the failure to mention these additional 4 expert opinions merely an example of ‘hypocrisy’? We welcome your response Cr. Hyams!

 

 

June 7, 2011

Notice of Motion

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

Pilling moved the amendment to Item 9.11 – to introduce a Notice of Motion to the Local Law. Seconded by Magee

PILLING: Stated that he had emailed all councillors regarding his intention to move the amendment. Said that most councils already have Notice of Motion in fact 76 out of the current 79. ‘The premise (of Newton’s report) is that we councillors aren’t capable of sensibly utilising this option’….’it’s a negative type of argument’…… Pilling stated that he felt that Glen Eira councillors should have the same options as the vast majority of councillors in other municipalities. A notice of motion would also give councillors the opportunity to raise issues that ‘aren’t a majority view’….’in my mind this is a healthy feature of local government’….. ‘and goes some way to alleviate majority blocks’. Gives non majority councillors a voice and that ‘is to be encouraged’.

The report talked about ‘technical hurdles’ but countered this by saying that neighbouring councils such as Bayside and Kingston have ‘clear guidelines’ ….’Urgent business has to be deemed just that’ ….’let’s codify this….set guidelines’….’As community elected representatives I feel we are resposible enough to raise any issues that are constructive and timely’. A Notice of Motion would encourage this.  ‘It’s 10 years since we’ve had a Notice of Motion in glen eira. It’s now time to reintroduce it’.

MAGEE: Spoke about how there ‘is an opportunity there to misuse it (ie Notice of Motion) ‘but I believe the overwhelming majority within this chamber certainly wouldn’t do that….talking with groups, talking with individuals, there is times when business becomes a bit more than urgent…..I don’t think there’s a great opportunity for someone to come in and just blatantly raise issues to the detriment of the council…..(notice of motion) is …..an opportunity for us all to maybe move things along a little bit quicker…..it certainly doesn’t stop us from asking for information….or clarification in the days leading up to a council meeting…..it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to wait weeks and weeks…..sometimes months…..I feel that I would benefit from the Notice of Motion…..

TANG: Said he had spoken a few times with Pilling about this and the points he made were about the information that councillors received before making decisions. Went on to discuss the current agenda item stating ‘it wasn’t struck from thin air…..it came about (as a result of the last council meeting and Penhalluriack’s request for a report) …’and now we’ve got a report and councillors will take different positions…..it’s completely fair that councillors go against the advice from time to time….I don’t think (Pilling’s motion) is going to take council forward and only has the potential to take council back….(if a councillor wants a motion raised) I don’t see how a Notice of Motion will take them any further than a Request for a Report because if they don’t have the support of the majority of councillors…..if you can’t get a request for a report up you’re not going to be able to get a Notice of Motion up’. Tang then argued that if a motion was really urgent then it would fall into that category. ‘There is the potential that council could have a really persuasive argument  which could be completely founded in falsities…..and that could sway council to make a decision without any contrasting or corresponding information to support that position……that’s the risk I see with council making decisions on the run. ……I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang. ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’. Stated that ‘in reality’ councillors have 3 ways of raising matters – request for a report; urgent business and ‘we can simply ask the CEO to put something on the agenda’. ‘Generally what happens is that at our briefing meeting…..we can mull over decisions…..if a majority of people want something put on the agenda it happens that way’. ‘Every Tuesday we meet and we discuss a whole variety of things…..(councillors come up with) hairbrained ideas…..we can discuss this. We discuss it openly….and we have a very robust exchange of views….the majority comes to a decision one way or the other…..and that’s how I think it should be because (council has to decide)…I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and  can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.

FORGE: Stated that initially she was supportuive of Cr. Magee (?) but having ‘listened to various comments ….I’m going to abstain from this because I feel that I need to know more’. Asked if she needs to go to the Local Law advisory committee …”to receive that information’. Esakoff then interrupted and told Forge that she is unable to abstain and that she would have to vote or perhaps ‘go off to the bathroom or something’ (laughter) . Forge left chambers.

HYAMS:’ I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions….if a councillor makes a request for a report…I’ll know what they’re trying to get at….the advantage of doing it that way is that it comes back to us with a pack of information….can ignore (the information or back it)….someone said it may take ages (to get back a report) because officers need that long to make up the information …..so (if a matter is that complicated) that it’s going to take officers 8 weeks ….that we as a council should vote on it without that information at all…..surely that’s not responsible. Hyams then gave the example of Marrickville council deciding to boycott Israeli products only to discover that this would have cost them millions given that they would have to change their entire computer systems). …..if they would have made a request for a report first…and they wouldn’t have done it, but because (they voted) without background information’ they got themselves into this mess. …I don’t think anyone in this council would abuse this….but myself and the mayer have served on this council where people would have done this without hesitation….as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything….

TANG: raised the issue of Forge’s ‘desire to abstain from the vote’ and walk out …..I don’t think you can abstain and then walk out…(not a personal attack on Forge but conerned with) the advice that a councillor who is out of the room doesn’t have to vote….

ESAKOFF: thanks Tang and then spoke to the motion. Doesn’t support the motion for many of ‘the reasons that have already been outlined….I don’t believe that this council would misuse….but I would not like it to be brought back in to our local law for the reasons that Hyams raised…..you don’t know what, who will be in the future….I would not like to leave it at risk that way….I don’t believe that decision making should be made without proper information….never fun to do it on the run (decision making). Reiterated that there is request for reports, urgent business and in assemblies “we’re able to raise something in our general business’ ….if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….

PILLING: ‘I think the whole language is overstated….(all over the country 100s of) notices of motions are put up….it’s normal business for most councils to have notice of motion….(about making decisions on the run) ‘set guidelines’ ….I think the public likes to see us debate issues….there’s a lot of reasons why I think we should have a notice of motion….I don’t think it’s the real dilemma that’s been painted….it’s just another way of raising issues as other councils do. The world hasn’t fallen in in Stonnington….I think it’s healthy to have debate….I hope we aren’t so cautious and we’re bold and go forward….

MOTION LOST

Hyams then moved that the motion as printed be put. Lipshutz seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: responded to Pilling’s comments with ‘we do have debate’.

TANG: thought that Pilling ‘tackled the points that had been raised well’. Commented that if councillors look at other reports and the ways other councils do things, then he would welcome then bringing this information to council and ‘we’d have a look at it’ Examples he gave were: public toilets in restaurants, ‘pavilions that other councils build on’ ‘no smoking in public playgrounds…there’s all sorts of decisions that I’ve seen other councils make…and all the ones I’ve been interested in are all the ones where there have been reports’. couldn’t think of any one that had come from a Notice of Motion.

MOTION CARRIED ON ESAKOFF’S CASTING VOTE.

 

May 26, 2011

Can We Trust Them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence that contradicts Council’s is below –

 

NUMBER

DATE

TIME

PEOPLE

NAME

ALC.
1 20287 17th
october		 1 – 5pm

30

 Hall

yes
2 20438 24th
October		 9 – 3pm

40

 Perdriau

YES
3 6332 24TH
October		 10 – 5pm

20

 Doherty

No
4 20493 31st
October		 10 – 6pm

40

 Persi

No
5 19466 31st
October		 10 – 5pm

25

 Counsel

No
6 16293 7th
November		 10 – 6pm

20

 Nazaretian

No
7 NO NOTICE 17th
Nov		 6pm – ?

40

 Puppy
school

?
8 20485 22nd
Nov		 12 – 4pm

30

 Nire

Yes
9 20316 28th
Nov		 10 – 5pm

25

 Burnside

No
10 20489 5th
Dec		 11 – 5pm

50

 Pollock

Yes
11 11508 5th
Dec		 11- 5pm

100`

 Aust. Pacific Trading

Yes
12 20549 11th
Dec		 10 – 1pm

30

 Kakafous

No
13 20567 11th
Dec		 10 – 6pm

25

 Gilliland

No
14 19425 12th
Dec		 10 – 6pm

30

 Clarke

No
15 15502 15th
Dec		 5 – 8pm

50

 Comm. Bank

Yes
16 20510 18th
Dec		 12 – 5pm

40

 Renown Bus. Solutions

No
17 50308 18th
Dec		 1 – 8pm

70

 Blomberry

Yes
18 20145 19th
Dec		 3 – 7pm

30

 Willison

Yes
19 20553 19th
Dec		 11 – 4pm

40

 Power

Yes
20 20658 25th
Dec		 9 – 9pm

35

 Fivy
Taweel

Yes
21 16918 26th
Dec		 11 – 7pm

50

 Knowles

Yes
22 16918 16th
Jan		 12 – 5pm

25

 Jones

No
23 20717 26th Jan 10 – 3pm

100

 Millingen

No
24 20052 26th Jan 10 – 6pm

100

 Vic.Lebanese community

No
25 20824 29th
jan		 1 – 7pm

30

 Cannizzo

no
26 20215 29th
jan		 9 – 4pm

30

 Nousis

no
27 20792 30th
jan		 10 – 1pm

30

 Gorov

no
28 20846 5th
Feb		 1 – 9pm

30

 Verbene

No
29 20859 13th
Feb		 12.-6pm

30

 Callaghan

No
30 15502 24th
Feb		 5 – 8pm

50

Comm. Bank

Yes
31 11477 25th
Feb		 5 – 9pm

60

Hurlingham
Preschool

No
32 18603 27th
Feb

120

 Hamptom Comm. Kinda

No
33 20896* 5th
March		 3 – 7pm

30

 Blue eyes Ski-Op
34 20896* 6th
March		 10 – 5pm

30

 Nguyen

No
35 20953 6th
March		 12 -5pm

30

 Dudson

No
36 20880 20th
March		 10 -5pm

30

 Frances

No
37 21078 26th
Mar		 1 – 5pm

30

 Macgowan

No
38 21012 27th
March		 11 – 5pm

30

 Kubes

No
39 16931 2nd
April		 12 – 6pm

30

 Main

No
40 21119 2nd
April		 11 – 2pm

25

 Banks

No
41 21085 9th
April		 10 -4pm

40

 Aquilina

YES
42 21009 10th
April		 11 – 2pm 40 Rousso No
43 20887 23rd
April		 10- 3pm 30 Lillywhite No
44 No notice 30th April ? 45 Jump castle set up/balloons for kid’s
party		 ?
             
  • This is not an error: the identical numbers appeared on both these booking sheets!
 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »