Glen Eira Debates

Fess up, councillors

MP slams Glen Eira spin on report

A LOCAL politician has lashed Glen Eira Council following the release of a damning report. Bentleigh Labor MP Rob Hudson said he was ‘‘very concerned’’ at the revelations in the report by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.

The council had already breached chief municipal inspector David Wolf’s main recommendation to be more open and transparent by refusing to publish the report on its website, he said. Residents have to phone the council’s service centre to obtain a copy.

Mr Hudson said the media release about the report was ‘‘a complete obfuscation’’ of what the inspector found. ‘‘That’s unprecedented,’’ he said. ‘‘Every other report goes up on the council website. To put out a media release that doesn’t properly convey what the inspector found . . . puts a spin on what the inspector said.’’

The inspectorate completed a nine-month investigation into 27 complaints of alleged conflicts of interest and misuse of position.

‘‘If you read between the lines, this report is a substantial rap over the knuckles for the councillors and the way the council operates,’’ Mr Hudson said. ‘‘Given the council has already been dismissed once I would have hoped the councillors would have learned the lessons from that.’’

Inspectorate spokeswoman Samantha Murray said the organisation could provide advice but the report’s details were ‘‘a matter for council to discuss’’. Mayor Steven Tang said the document had been made available. ‘‘While it was . . . private and confidential, council is determined it’s not kept confidential.’’

TANG’S LETTER

With reference to the article Get back to basics, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader, September 7, 2010, the inspectorate found in relation to the majority of complaints that there was no breach of the Act or no evidence to support a breach of the Act.

In fact, four of the five examples cited by the Leader were found to be in one of these two categories.

This is clearly different to a finding of insufficient evidence to prosecute. Council welcomes the recommendations.

It must also be noted, however, that the inspectorate has chosen to make recommendations as a result of this investigation rather than taking the many more punitive actions available to it.

Cr Steven Tang, Mayor, Glen Eira City Council.

For the third time, a municipal investigation into Glen Eira Council has basically revealed itself to be a total whitewash. Over the coming weeks we will dissect each finding made in the report and point out its fallacies, and its loopholes.

We’ll begin with the finding that councillor Requests for Reports are delivered in a ‘timely’ manner and that officers have fulfilled their duty by carrying out council resolutions.

On the 16^th October, 2007 the following request for a report was made by Lipshutz and Whiteside –

“That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City”.

The motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

No such report has ever been tabled at Council Meetings! Timely? – only 3 years late and still counting!

Even more damning is the fact that on April 7^th, 2010 a public question by Mr. Campbell asked:

“Could you please report the result of the investigation requested by Cr. Lipshutz into an alternative site for the ‘Works Depot’ currently located in the Crown Land of Caulfield Park and what action is planned to re-locate this Depot and when is it planned that this will occur.”

 The response was:

“The outcome of the investigation was reported on page 52 of Council’s 2008/09 Annual Report. A suitable alternative site that meets Council’s requirements has not been found. Councillors remain committed to continuing the search for an appropriate site.”

When we go to page 52 of the 2008/9 Annual Report, this is what is there –

Conclusions: 

• No report has ever been tabled at Council
• Three years later NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE
• Public question remains unanswered as to what and when
• Lipshutz, since you moved the motion for a report, what have you done about this?
• The comment seems to indicate that the depot will NOT BE MOVED, only reduced in size! This is not what the request for a report stated, nor what the answer to the public question inferred.
• If this is correct, then when was the decision to ‘downsize’ made, and by whom?
• Doesn’t the Annual Report contradict the answer to the public question?

 Like everything else, this council seems to be of the belief ‘out of sight, out of mind’. We’ll bury the detail, keep the residents ignorant, and go on in our merry way! That all this is acceptable to councillors, inspectors, and Ministers is damning in the extreme. It certainly is not acceptable to ratepayers!

The minutes of June 29, 2010 record the following as part of an answer to a public question:

“The nine Councillors meeting as the Council set policy and the Council Officers implement policy. The policy as set by Council is one of reasonable laws reasonably enforced.”

It’s amazing that if this is in fact a ‘policy’, it is not to be found in ANY MINUTES of ANY COUNCIL MEETING!

What’s even more revealing is that Council itself refers to this phrase, not as a ‘policy’, but as a ‘motto’. We direct readers’ attention to the Quarterly Reports  Sections 13.9 and 13.10 – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Sevices_Report_June_2009.pdf

We highlight this issue as it again goes to the heart of good governance. Policies are meant to be tabled, endorsed, and ratified at full council meetings. ‘Reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ thus remains a figment of the imagination, a convenient slogan that is capable of camouflaging abuse, discrimination, and lack of accountability. There are no guidelines, no criteria, no public dissemination, of how, when, and why such a MOTTO will be interpreted and implemented. Nor is it clear whether this ‘motto’ applies to all laws, or just certain ones. If someone is two minutes late back to their car only to find a parking fine, will ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ also apply?

The past few months have seen repeated public questions from a social soccer group. They seek answers to why, when they have a permit costing $1600, council does not fine other groups who do not have a permit, and who repeatedly use sporting grounds that are not allocated to them. These questions have invariably focused on the meaning of council’s oft used phrase ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. In this instance, we surmise the following:

1. It would be too embarrassing to go through another ‘kids in the park’ fiasco where John Brumby, Ian Thorpe and other luminaries castigated Council severely for their actions in threatening to fine a bunch of school kids for running around Princes Park.
2. $1600 is chicken feed compared to the permit fees paid by other clubs – so this group of social soccer players is ‘expendable’!

But, all this begs the question of good governance and councillors’ failure to question and act. Their simple ‘request’ to be ‘consulted’ before fines are enacted is laughable. What does this mean in reality and will it apply to all infringement notices, or just to the social soccer people? Why aren’t the public privy to all so-called ‘policies’? When will councillors actually do their jobs and SET POLICY, that is open, transparent, and in the best interests of all community members. To hide behind slogans that are trotted out whenever convenient is not good government!

It’s only taken a week, but seems that there is some movement at the station. In an absolutely dramatic move, the media release of the Inspector’s findings has finally made it onto the Glen Eira homepage!! No more hunting about on an impossible website, no more attempts to sidestep what the Leader and Glen Eira Debates has publicised. There it is, in full public view! Mind you, this is only the MEDIA RELEASE! The actual report is still off limits so it seems. Such courage from councillors is to be commended. Yes, we are moving at a snail’s pace towards transparency and accountability as recommended by the report! Well done councillors!

We have finally received a copy of the Municipal Inspector’s Report and have uploaded it into our permanent archive, under the heading INSPECTOR’S REPORT.

A short foreward first! We believe that the report was released to the media last Wednesday, without the knowledge of all councillors. In other words, there was a leak! Further, we have also learnt that once an individual went to council chambers requesting a copy of the findings, the service desk were under instructions to call down someone like Paul Burke, or other directors.

The media having in its possession the report, sought feedback from community members. The report has thus been widely distributed and we now place it for all to see on our website. Please read it carefully, and offer your comments. The findings, the processes adopted by certain individuals within council, are of major concern.

POSTSCRIPT: We’ve taken up a suggestion made by one of our readers and uploaded both the 1998 Walsh Report and the 2005 Whelan Report. Wonderful symmetry here – Walsh, Whelan, Wolf and Walker! These earlier reports are now also archived under  Whelan and Walsh Reports on the left hand side of the homepage.

48 hours down and still no sign of the Municipal Inspector’s findings on Council’s website! What’s the holdup? Why can’t such a simple thing be seen to immediately? Makes us think that perhaps the ‘in camera’ discussion did not augur well for the community; that councillors may be reluctant to release the report in a format that is easily accessible 24 hours per day, can be sent around to all and sundry, and which may contain some major (or minor) embarrassment for certain individuals.

Expecting residents to roll up to Council, hat in hand, asking for a copy is simply not good enough in 2010. Besides, this council has often cried ‘wolf’ when it comes to photocopying costs on such things as public submissions and public questions. So how much will it cost to print off perhaps hundreds and hundreds of the Municipal Inspector’s report!

Come on councillors. Show some guts – fulfil your obligations to govern in an open and democratic manner. Hiding behind the service desk does you no credit!

Media release from council, Wednesday 1/9/2010 

Investigation makes recommendations 

 Glen Eira City Council has now officially received the findings of a Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate (Inspectorate) investigation into the Council.  

The Inspectorate investigated complaints about the Council and individual Councillors. The Inspectorate also investigated complaints about the performance of Council officers. The investigation found no prosecutable breaches, but made a number of recommendations to improve business practice and the community’s perception of Council. In relation to Council officers, the investigation made no adverse findings and no recommendations. The first complaint was received in November 2009. Of 43 complaints received, both prior to and subsequent to the investigation being made public, 27 were investigated. 

The recommendations include comprehensive Councillor training, ensuring consistency in the accuracy of minutes of all meetings, electronic mail procedures, ensuring committees are properly constituted and the need to avoid unauthorised opinion on behalf of Council. 

Other than the recommendations made, the Inspectorate has determined that no further action is warranted in relation to the complaints. It is apparent that a number of complaints were dismissed as there was no evidence to support a breach of the act. 

To the extent that the Inspector had concerns with councillors’ accountability and transparency, they related to conduct concerning the CEO reappointment process and contract that properly took place confidentially. There was no suggestion that the Council or councillors were improperly concealing any activities or deliberations from the public, rather that proper records had not been kept. 

The functions of the Inspectorate include:  

• breaches of the Local Government Act 1989  
• Investigating allegations against councillors and senior council officers concerning Local Government Act 1989
• Conducting compliance audits with all Victorian local councils for requirements under the Local Government Act, 1989
• Monitoring the corporate governance of councils
• Monitoring electoral provisions
• Undertaking prosecutions for breaches of the Local Government Act;
• Recommendations for matters to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
• Provide recommendations to councils for continuous improvement
• Providing advice through the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to the Minister for Local Government where there is serious failure of corporate governance.

The following article appeared in yesterday’s Caulfield Leader –

Letter uproar: Councillors slam former deputy over CEO allegations

“GLEN Eira councillors have strongly denied former deputy mayor Helen Whiteside’s claims of ‘‘bad governance’’ and ‘‘unacceptable behaviour’’ while continuing to suppress her threepage letter of resignation.  

Councillors were to vote on whether to release the letter at last week’s council meeting, but Cr Michael Lipshutz moved a motion to just ‘‘note’’ her resignation instead. Though Cr Jim Magee pushed for it to be made public, his requests were largely ignored.

Mrs Whiteside has provided more detail about her decision to quit on July 30. She said she wanted to know why the cost of reappointing chief executive Andrew Newton – who has held the role for 10 years – soared from $6500 to $44,000. Mr Newton was reappointed for two years in April. ‘‘I was aware of the cost and how it was escalating,’’ Mrs Whiteside said. ‘‘I was on the committee and I was not kept in the loop. I was appalled the cost of reappointing him was over $44,000 when I left office.’’

Mayor Steven Tang refuted suggestions of bad behaviour. ‘‘To the extent former councillor Whiteside’s comments are based on attributing ulterior motives to opposing views, I reject this inference wholeheartedly,’’ he said.

Cr Michael Lipshutz said he was saddened and disappointed ‘‘that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice denigrating in such an untruthful way the council and her colleagues’’. Cr Margaret Esakoff is the new deputy mayor.” (end of article)

It is with sheer amazement that we read Whiteside’s ‘explanation’ for her departure. If this is not disingenuous then we don’t know what is! Professed concern for ratepayers $44,000 is ‘noble’ – but hey! This information was made public months and months ago via a public question. So it’s only now that Whiteside quits? Why the silence for months and months? Perhaps the real reason is not our hard earned cash being spent, but the simple fact that her preference was a five year term for Newton. Seems that her admitted ‘disappointment’ at the two year contract is a more plausible reason. Further, given Magee’s support of this position, then of course he would also push for the release of her letter.

Then we have the ‘other side’ – Lipshutz and co. Seems that their tirade against Whiteside and the resultant bad publicity, has cautioned them to write the following epistle which appeared in today’s Moorabbin Leader under the tag line We’re Here to Help –

“We write in response to an article ‘Glen Eira councillor walks out’ (Leader August 11^th).  As Glen Eira councillors we have sworn an oath to undertake the duties of the office of councillor in the best interests of the people of the municipal district of Glen Eira.

We understand that in representing the people of Glen Eira we will disagree from time to time.

We respect each other’s right to hold informed but different views and have always understood that disagreement does not mean disharmony.

We encourage a spirit of debate at council where councillors may respectfully take diametrically opposed positions on one issue and then strongly agree on the next. These differences do not affect our ability to maintain professional and cordial relationships.

We look forward to welcoming our new councillor colleague and offer him or her all the assistance required  to fully and effectively represent the Glen Eira community.”

City of Glen Eira councillors.

We can now really rest assured that the ‘spirit of debate’ is alive and well and that there is no ‘disharmony’ within the wonderful ‘club’ that is Glen Eira!

Lipshutz in his tirade again Whiteside claimed:

“all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern.”

‘No voting pattern’ – you’ve got to be kidding. Residents have been repeatedly told that councillors engage in ‘robust’ and ‘vigorous’ debate. Pity is, that this does not occur in the Council chambers – only behind the veil of secrecy of councillor briefings. Councillor briefing meetings are meant to ‘inform’, not to orchestrate voting patterns that will later be performed for the gallery in the council chambers.

As evidence of the above, we ask readers to consider the following table. We have gone through the minutes of every council meeting since the election of the current crop of councillors and added up the number of resolutions put to the vote, and the actual number that were passed unanimously. The results are staggering – just on 90% of resolutions/recommendations have been passed unanimously. The vast majority that were merely ‘carried’, involved planning applications. Even here, the ‘carried’ vote overwhelmingly supported the officer recommendations. Paltry amendments came into play only when there were plenty of objectors!

The stuff that really mattered, such as major policies, and shoddy/misleading reports by council officers, were to an incredible degree accepted fully and generally without amendment. The last council meeting which was jam packed with important strategies that will determine future directions were all passed unanimously with some innocuous amendments such as ‘advocating’ to state and federal governments.

Please note that in the numbers provided we did not count such votes as leave of absence, confirmation of previous minutes, etc. 

The table is a sad indictment on the gross failure of Glen Eira Council to conduct itself with integrity. Add to the table the even more startling fact that most votes are taken with little or no debate, then the whole governance process reeks with repetitive breaches, over an extended period of time, of the provisions of the Local Government Act for open, transparent, and honest conduct of Council meetings. Clearly the whole council should be sacked.

From the minutes of August 8th 2010 Council Meeting –

Right of reply

(a) Cr Lipshutz – “I wish to make a personal statement and it arises from an article in The Leader that was published today.

Helen Whiteside was first elected in 2005 with me. Indeed we campaigned together and worked closely together since that time. We are not only colleagues but friends, showing very similar views as to what sort of city we wanted Glen Eira to be. Accordingly while I wish to pay tribute to the significant work Helen performed as a Councillor, I have to say I am saddened and disappointed that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice in denigrating in such an untruthful way the Council and her colleagues. Colleagues who honoured her by electing her as a Mayor and a Council which she once lead.

I firmly believe that we were elected to make decisions on behalf of residents but equally as a functioning democracy we don’t always win every battle. You win some. You lose some. But essentially the Council or indeed any level of government to function properly there must be respect that the majority decision prevails. One does not take one’s bat and ball home merely because you lost a vote. You didn’t agree with the umpire’s decision. Regrettably, Helen has been unable to accept the majority decision. I recall that when she was first elected, she was faced by attack by certain members of the public about her role as a nurse. She wanted to resign. When she was elected I said only the preferences from Cr Penhalluriack and me she was miffed and wanted to resign. In each case, she was successfully prevailed upon to remain. In this case she could not accept the decision with respect to the re-appointment of the CEO and removed herself from her colleagues. She fomented dissent and division and ceased to be a team player.

 In a leading article in The Leader she cites her reason for resigning as the continued investigation by the Local Government Investigation and Compliance Inspectorate, the re-appointment of the CEO and some Councillors’ unacceptable behaviour.

It is my considered view that Council has worked well, co-operatively and respectfully to each other and Officers. I am unaware as to any matter of such magnitude as would warrant a resignation and indeed all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern. Councillors look at issues and decide on issues and not on personalities. It is decidedly healthy that there are differences of opinion and that those opinions whether expressed here in the chamber or elsewhere are stated without fear. On occasions debate and discussions have been robust but in all the time that I have been a Councillor we have always been able to agree to disagree. There’s only one Councillor in all the time that I have been on Council has been unable to do so – it has been Helen who removed herself in recent times from the Councillor Group. Clearly she does not wish to be associated with the other 8 Councillors. Who was guilty of bad behaviour? 

Helen has also raised the ongoing investigation. Let it be clear that the Inspectors have told me that the Inspectorate will investigate any matter brought before them no matter how spurious. This Council and every Councillor has not only fully cooperated with the Inspectorate but has afforded the Inspectorate access to every document for which a request has been made. I totally and categorically reject any suggestion that Councillors have not complied with the Municipal Inspector’s requests. 

Any suggestion or any or innuendo to the contrary is absolutely false. Helen has also asserted that there has been no that there have been decisions made leading to bad governance. Regrettably again she forms that view because she was a minority position. While we can always do things better I am confident that Councillors are well aware of the need for good governance and we have complied with all requirements. 

I can respect that Helen in keeping with her record of threatening to resign when the going gets tough has now resigned but I find it unacceptable and inappropriate that in doing so she has demeaned and denigrated the organisation that she has led as a Mayor.

It is sad that Helen has sour grapes towards her colleagues but to suggest that Council is not united, to suggest that Councillors are or have been engaged in bad behaviour or that there are significant governance issues is not just incorrect but is plainly wrong. 

I, for one, have never considered resigning, nor will I. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I will be serving my full term and I am committed to ensuring this Council continues to work as it has to date: co-operatively, respectfully and diligently. When I lose a vote, I will not pack up and leave.”