Glen Eira Debates

The lack of transparency and accountability in the way that Advisory Committees are set up and run by this Council remains an issue of great concern. By exempting Advisory Committees from the strictures imposed on Council Meetings, and Special Committee Meetings as a result of the ‘meeting procedures’ of the Local Law, there is the resultant decision making behind closed doors syndrome, as well as, the failure to be transparent about the bases for such decision making.

Let’s elaborate! The Local Government Act, under Section 93:6(d) states: “in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process”.  When Advisory Committee notes are tabled in Council, there is the inevitable motion to accept the ‘recommendations’ made by these committees. Only on the rarest occasions has there been any documentation that accompanies such ‘minutes’. Hence the community has no real knowledge,  or understanding, of WHY certain recommendations have been made. Nor are they in possession of the necessary facts and figures which might account for such decision making.

Also at issue is the question of how well the entire group of councillors participates and understands why such recommendations have been made. Each advisory committee (although open to all councillors) usually consists of two to three councillors and an equal if not greater number of officers. Our questions are:

• do all 9 councillors get to see, much less read, the reports tabled by officers at these various Advisory Committee meetings?
• If they don’t then does this make a mockery of the rubber stamping which goes on a full council meetings?
• With no public disclosure of officers’ reports, are the very principles of transparency and good governance rendered null and void?

Readers also need to be aware that these Advisory Committee meetings are in reality ‘secret’ – that is, they do not disclose agendas, do not allow public attendance, and as with the Environment  and Consultation Committees, can take up to 7 months for ‘minutes’ to be finally tabled at council meetings – when often the recommendations for certain actions have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!!!

The ongoing justification is that councillors need to ‘firm up’ a view via discussion. Fine, but their recommendations are generally made on the bases of officers’ reports. These are either firm positions, or the officers proffer various options. This information should be available to the public. Officers and councillors must be accountable. With the current set up they are not!

Finally, one needs to consider again why other councils deem it appropriate to include community reps on advisory committees; why other councils publish agendas of these committee meetings; why other councils allow full public attandance at these meetings. Why is it that Glen Eira’s formats do not come within a bull’s roar of such procedures? We suggest that the answers to these questions all go to the heart of governance issues at Glen Eira.

Streuth has posted a comment which we repeat as a separate post:

Streuth, reading ‘gleneira’ makes me sick in the stomach as so much wrong is happening in our Council compared to other Councils. Concerned Resident, you are right to suggest Councillors should delegate their authority to staff within limits. Since Andrew Newton came to Glen Eira, first as a Chief Financial Officer, then Director of Corporate Development, and finally as a CEO, he has usurped year by year the authority, power and full control over Council affairs. The result of that is now very clear. Newton has sold out Glen Eira in every possible way: population wise, land wise, service ways.

All this has happened under the watch of elected Councillors: Grossbard, Erlich, Martens, Kennedy, Neve, Longmuir, Marwick, Sapir, Goudge, Esakoff, Hyams, Bloom, Walsh, Bury, Lipshutz, Staikos, Whiteside, Robilliard, Spaulding, Feldman, and Ashmor. Newton ‘the Wizard of Oz’, once uncovered, is simply a manipulator, scaremonger and autocrat. And none of the Councillors mentioned could or can do anything about it as Newton intimidates, and in all probability threatens legal action if need be. He does not shirk from strong arm tactics, calling the police if necessary, and sacking staff he does not like or are not in line with his politics. It is not an accident that there were 3 investigations in Glen Eira since 1998. He has never been a passive participant in any of those investigations.

The new Councillors are ‘babes in the woods’ and signs are already there that they are going the same way as the previous lot. They cannot manage Andrew Newton, manage properly controlled and limited delegations, setting performance criteria for him, and assessing appropriately his performance. Barring a Royal Commission to find out the truth, or a Revolution to get rid of all the old Councillors and Newton – the long suffering Public will just have to cop it sweet.

Concerned Resident, (I’m assuming you’re the same individual who used to post to Mary Walsh’s old blog) you might know all that as you seem to have been there and you may still communicate with the top brass through the master ‘spin doctor’ Paul Burke, manipulator extraordinaire, who knows how to divide and rule. You should be concerned Concerned Resident, but your concern should be directed towards poor residents, poor ordinary staff, and poor Councillors, who are subjected to this regime of undemocratic, autocratic, and unethical behaviour.

At the last council meeting, a public question was directed to Paul Burke ‘and Councillors if he cannot answer it’. Tang’s response was:

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Public Questions are to Council. Clause 232 (2) (b) of the Local Law allows an individual Councillor to respond to a Public Question if the Chairperson redirects the question to them. There is no such provision that allows a Public Question to be redirected to an individual Officer other than if an appropriate Officer is called upon by the Chairperson to respond to a Public Question to Council.

Additionally, I remind you that Clause 232 (1) (b) of the Local Law requires questions to be less than 150 words. However, despite your question exceeding 150 words Council can advise that Council has nothing to add to the responses previously provided to you.”

The actual Clause 232 (1) (b) states:

The Chairperson may decide to either:

(i) personally answer the question; or

(ii) refer the question to the appropriate Councillor; or

(iii) refer the question to the appropriate officer; or

(iv) advise that the question is taken on notice and that a written response will be sent. 

Tang does have the power to ensure that Burke answers the questions. Various officers have responded to public questions in the past. Tang’s gagging of Burke is deliberate, given that the question could be viewed as embarrassing given Burke’s previous cited remarks ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL.  The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that once again Tang has performed the bidding of his masters! The victim remains accountable government.

The minutes of December 14, 2010 record the following statement at the conclusion to Public Questions. 

Cr Penhalluriack said; “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”. 

THE HISTORY 

August 14^th, 2007 (in regard to Friends of Caulfield Park) 

The advertisement and flyer are not only misleading and deceptive but they are out and out intellectually dishonest……I also want to take issue with the comment; ‘Have Councillors been misled yet again’. If this is not a below the belt attack on the very hard working Officers of this Council, I don’t know what it is. That question has about as much credibility as asking; when did you last beat your wife. …We are however not prepared to be dictated to by self interest groups especially when those groups adopt cynical and dishonest tactics to deceive the public the very same public that we were elected to represent. 

September 22^nd, 2009 (in response to Mary Walsh) 

“The very manner in which this question is asked is akin to asking when did you last beat your wife? The question could have been framed in a non-confrontational manner such as; Do you object to residents asking public questions?….Where however it is the same people Council meeting after Council meeting asking the same type of question and in the same tone as this one, then frankly their credibility must be diminished. I would recommend that you read Dale Carnegie’s book How to win friends and influence people….You have taken it upon yourself to constantly snipe at whatever decision Council makes as if you are always right and Council always wrong. More so the very tone of these questions and most if not all of your questions are belligerent and self serving….That question besides being not only convoluted and turgid was based on ignorance of accounting and process and as with this question had an in built bias that Council had got it wrong. Clearly, if you did not understand accounting concepts or process then you are entitled to query however your question did not in any way suggest lack of understanding, rather it was predicated on the very arrogant basis that you were right and Council was clearly wrong. Had you been less interested in finding fodder for your blog by demonstrating your credentials as an interrogator and that Council had got it so wrong and more interested in genuinely obtaining an understanding of the matters the subject of your question then your question would have been framed in a non belligerent and dispassionate manner without gratuitous comments….The very tone of your question was not only arrogant and puffed up with self importance but was I believe, and I stand to be corrected, posted on your blog…I do not however have regard for any group that is not representative and which lies, distorts the truth and has no regard or indeed respect that the people have spoken by electing Councillors to office despite the strongly held views of those groups to the contrary…I and my fellow Councillors were elected by the people in a fair and contested election. It is we who represent the residents and not the community groups to which you refer. 

December 14^th, 2010 (in response to Nick Varvodic) 

“you have embarked on a ridiculous and ultimately a narcissistic campaign to discredit Council and specific Councillors for what I perceive is for no better reason than you enjoy having your name read out at Council meetings. Mr Varvodic, by your actions you have lost all credibility and your incessant questions are frankly no more than a joke.…. The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group... I can only suggest that if you are serious about the issue of Local Law 326 and clearly by your questions you are not, or indeed if you are concerned about any other issue affecting residents and ratepayers of the City of Glen Eira, of which you are not one, you first purchase a copy of Dale Carnergie’s book, How to win friends and influence people. You have to date not won any friends and you certainly have not influenced anyone.… Mr Varvodic, as long as questions are being asked, May I also enquire as to when you last bashed your wife? That question has as much intellectual honesty as your questions to date in that there are inbuilt assumptions which are patently false... You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’.

Several posts ago we brought up the issue of the ‘exchange of land’ involving the Coatesville Tennis Club. We cited what Magee had said in council meeting – namely that the intention was merely to develop the area to accommodate disabled players PLUS: “to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

We also questioned when, how, and by whom the decision for the above had taken place. Nothing has occurred in an open council meeting! Nothing has been voted on as far as we can tell in an open council meeting! Nothing has been itemised for ‘in camera’ discussions –  as far as we can tell.

What we do know however, is that on September 1^st, 2009 the following Request for a Report was made –

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of relocating the two tennis courts on Mackie Reserve in East Bentleigh to 31 Orange Street in East Bentleigh. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

NO SUCH REPORT HAS BEEN TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETING! It appears that once again decisions are far from transparent and public. That requests for a report are meaningless exercises since they are never tabled, and perhaps never see the light of day. We again offer our pages to Jim Magee and/or Jamie Hyams, in order to explain what appear to be extraordinary circumstances that leave us befuddled, bemused, and suspicious!!!!!

Because nothing is out in the open, we are left to merely conjecture, to try and piece one and two together. Our conclusions are depressingly always the same: decisions keep being made behind closed doors against the spirit of Section 3C of the Local Government Act which, we remind readers, was the favourite lament of the Muncipal Inspector!

The following public question was directed to Lipshutz. It relates to the Frisbee Affair, which we have previously reported upon. To refresh readers’ memories the issues revolve around:

• An ‘unauthorised sporting group’ regularly playing Frisbee without a permit
• Lipshutz’s son is/was one of the Frisbee players
• This Frisbee group has never been fined in contrast to a social soccer group and one of its members
• The soccer group has repeatedly asked public questions as to why there does not appear to be equal treatment for all and concludes that this is because of both Tang and Lipshutz’s ‘relationships’ with the Frisbee group

The question asked Lipshutz whether he had written the following, obtained under FOI  –

“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.” (our emphases) 

The answer was ‘yes’!!!!!!!

Readers may also find it interesting that the Local Government Act, 1989 specifically states under Section 76E –

 “A councillor must not improperly direct, or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council Staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.”

It seems that at last night’s Council meeting, Jim Magee may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, and thereby provided the community with solid evidence that decisions are not made in open council, but behind the closed doors of Assembly of councillors, briefing meetings, or perhaps even little tete a tetes between certain councillors and administrators. We have also learnt that Jim Magee almost religiously spends two hours each morning sitting in directors’ offices and having what we presume is a ‘pow-wow’. Nothing wrong with this, of course, but it all depends on what is being discussed.

Last night when moving the motion on the Coatesville tennis club ‘renovations’ Magee informed council that the tennis club was merely making some additions such as ‘renovation to their toilets’ since they had been trying to get a program for disabled players up and running and that this was the first stage to accommodate that. Magee then went on to state that the club also intends

“to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

Readers should note the following:

1. Officers’ reports on this Agenda Item contain no mention of this ‘land swap’; nor do they contain information about the ‘enlarged footprint’.
2. In camera items for the past year contain no reference to this ‘land swap; – hence if it was discussed as an in camera item, then Magee is breaking this confidentiality it seems. If discussed as part of an Assembly of Councillors, then why is Magee speaking as if a DECISION has already been made? Assembly of councillors are expressly forbidden to make decisions that should come before Council.
3. The Local Govt Act requires that all sale OR EXCHANGE OF LAND be announced via public notice and that Section 223 apply.
4. The 2010/11 budget contain no mention of any ‘council contribution’ or notation that ‘council has already agreed to help them’ financially.
5. So, where, when and by whom was this decision to EXCHANGE LAND made? Where, when and by whom was the decision made TO HELP the club?

Please note we are not arguing the validity or otherwise of this tennis club’s case. What we are questioning again and again are the fundamental issues of GOVERNANCE, CORRECT PROCESS AND TRANSPARENCY. We welcome Jim Magee’s response to these questions!