Councillor Performance
Archived Posts from this Category
October 1, 2016
September 28, 2016
For The Record!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Planning[23] Comments
Election packs will soon be arriving in letter boxes and residents will be casting their votes. We therefore ask everyone to carefully consider the document we have uploaded HERE. It is a long document but a very important one since it records, in chronological order, how each of these remaining 8 incumbents voted on planning applications throughout their 4 years on council.
Residents have been assailed with comments in the Candidate Statements as to how these councillors will ‘protect neighbourhood character’ (Esakoff); how they will ‘ensure development is fair’(Sounness); how they will oppose ‘inappropriate development’ (Ho, Hyams, Okotel,Lobo). Then there are the few for whom planning does not even rate a mention (Pilling, Magee) or we get the minimalist claims of Delahunty (‘I’ve extended the heritage overlay to protect Camden Ward’s oldest buildings).
When planning for the past decade has been in the forefront of community angst such statements deserve to be scrutinised and evaluated. Have these incumbents really practiced what they now preach? What consideration over the past 4 years have they really given to opposing inappropriate development? What evidence is there to support their claims that they give a damn about neighbourhood character? Because surely, if they did, then much could have been done since November 2012 to address the woeful planning scheme and ensure that developers do not have such an easy time of it. And if they really and truly cared about ‘overdevelopment’ then the zones and their schedules would have been much more ‘neighbourhood friendly’.
The document we’ve uploaded contains the following:
- All councillor decisions on planning (except for a couple on child care applications)
- Who voted for what and who moved and seconded motions
- The officer recommendations and then councillors’ decision
- Where VCAT has become involved we also cite some of the member’s comments (please note that there are some VCAT cases pending from the later decisions)
- We also highlight again the fact that on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION that these councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the number of apartments and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Not because VCAT is woeful, but because for 4 long years these councillors have refused to accept the fact that the fault lies largely with them and with the planning scheme. Please also remember that it has taken the Minister’s intervention to even get this council to review its incompetent and out of date planning scheme!
- Thus for all the talk and crocodile tears shed by councillors in the past 4 years, their voting record belies their professed concern. Appraising the voting patterns, the most consistent councillor in voting against development is Lobo – and even he is inconsistent!
- The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that Glen Eira’s councillors have failed residents completely and ALL MUST FALL ON THEIR RECORD! We urge residents to ensure that they can no longer have any say in what buildings go up in Glen Eira!
Here’s another link to the document
September 28, 2016
The ‘Right People’ – Rosstown
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning[7] Comments
The Lib/Lab show is also on in earnest in Rosstown. Labor too pushes the boundaries with its preferences but nowhere near how blatant the Libs are in Tucker. Determining who is truly ‘independent’ is difficult given that the phrase ‘inappropriate development’ is on practically everyone’s lips – as are countless other slogans.
What irks us most is the cry to ‘keep rates low’ – especially from incumbents across the board. The truth is that Glen Eira for the past decade has had one of the highest annual rate increases in the state – 6.5% apart from one year when conscience got the better of them and they voted in an increase of slightly less. Were it not for the current rate capping, then the original proposal was that the 2016/17 budget would also include a 6.5% rate increase. Then of course, we need to consider the financial management and oversight provided by these incumbents. Council is now back up to the huge debt of $24 million, yet still splurges on mega palaces and still cannot bring in projects under budget and on time.
Our position remains unchanged. If residents want a council that listens, that acts in concert with its community, then there is no option but to replace all incumbents.
Here is the Rosstown candidate information in full (uploaded HERE) and some individual statements –
September 27, 2016
The ‘Right People’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning[21] Comments
When it comes to winning an election it would appear that all notions of ‘fair play’, and individual integrity go out the window. Dirty tricks dominate and collusion makes for some strange bedfellows. Promises are nothing more than fairy tales or straight out fibs. All of this is made crystal clear with the publication of the ‘candidate statements’ that raise the question of who is the ‘right person’ and how much they should be trusted with the stewardship of Glen Eira.
In this post we will concentrate on Tucker Ward and ask readers to note:
- How the Libs have engaged in highly dubious legal and (un)ethical tactics by publishing their defacto preferences in these statements – something that the legislation forbids!
- How Magee (the once Labor) man is so anxious to be re-elected that he has joined this circus and preferenced the brother and sister act for the Libs. We are told that he intends to ‘rejoin’ the Labor party after the election. We sincerely hope that they show him the door in much the same way that the Greens have excommunicated Pilling.
- Statement after statement is either meaningless slogans or bare faced lies. For example, Okotel claims to have ‘fought hard against inappropriate development and striven to preserve the character of Tucker Ward’. Beside the point that she was previously a Rosstown Ward councillor and not Tucker, her ‘fight’ to preserve ‘character’ in Tucker does not bear up to scrutiny when we find she has voted in favour of permits for the following (and we only concentrate on her voting pattern in Tucker) –
8 Railway Crescent, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 10 units
451 South Road, Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 12 units
261 Centre Road, Bentleigh – now 5 storeys, 31 units
674 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 8 units
730 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 21 units
115 Poath Road, Murrumbeena – 6 and 7 storeys, 39 units
22-26 Bent St, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 36 units
670 Centre Road Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 50 units (later increased to 67 units & part of Brown’s Road)
14-18 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 55 units
817 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 24 units
23 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 34 units
10-12 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 35 units
15-19 Vickery Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 39 units (VCAT gave the developer his 4 storeys and 47 units)
So much for ‘preserving the character of Tucker’!!!!!!! We also remind readers that her record on tree protection, notice of motion, etc. is equally abysmal and that her presence in council was perceived by many as merely Esakoff’s clone!
We’ve uploaded the full document for Tucker Ward HERE but thought we would also highlight the following statements! Many should at least be good for a laugh! (Click to enlarge)
September 25, 2016
More On Hyams!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[17] Comments
Several weeks ago Hyams & Delahunty were interviewed on the JAir radio station. Below we present the opening section with Hyams. The audio goes for 5.24 minutes.
As per usual with Hyams he is not averse to making statements that are misleading, incorrect, and blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Here are some examples:
HYAMS: What’s going on in Glen Eira is actually a lot less than what’s been going in some of the neighbouring municipalities
COMMENT
Dead wrong! We have compiled data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on building permits for the past 5 years and uploaded the 2015/16 data HERE so that readers can check for themselves. What residents need to realise is:
- Of our ‘neighbouring municipalities’ Bayside, Kingston, Port Phillip, and Monash have had less development over the past 5 years! The only ‘neighbours’ with greater numbers are Stonnington and Boroondara – and there are some good reasons for this!
- Glen Eira has 2.8% zoned Commercial. Stonnington according to the recent State of Play Reports has 8%, Boroondar has 3.6% and Port Phillip has 12% plus this latter municipality being in the unique position of being ‘capital city’ zone and a tourist hub. In these municipalities the majority of new development occurs in these commercial areas, whereas in Glen Eira, the overwhelming majority of new dwellings are in our quiet residential streets – thanks to the zoning and the small percent zoned commercial.
- The number of houses built in Glen Eira is small compared to many other municipalities – thus development in Glen Eira is primarily apartment blocks
- Other municipalities are double or triple the size of Glen Eira which already has the highest density per kilometre in the Southern Region. The impact on density and liveability is thus far greater in Glen Eira than say Kingston.
- Victoria in Future 2016’s projections (UPLOADED HERE) indicate that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira will require an additional 11,800+ new dwellings to meet its population needs. The figures on building permits show that in Glen Eira more than half of this target has been reached in the space of 5 years AND these figures DO NOT INCLUDE THE 1500+ UNITS FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE AND POTENTIALLY ANOTHER 4000+ FOR VIRGINIA ESTATE. At this rate, Glen Eira will meet its ‘target’ not in 2031 but in 2020. Then what?
Please consider the following table carefully. The figures in parenthesis represent the number of houses with building permits for that year.
There are plenty of other statements that amount to arrant nonsense and we believe designed to deliberately mislead:
- Minimal change areas have had 50% site coverage, 25% permeability, and 4 metre setbacks since Amendment C25 which was gazetted in 2004. The only thing the zones have changed is making 8 metres mandatory and 2 dwellings per site – and not as Hyams so inaccurately portrays that these ‘additional’ protections are a result of the zones! What he also neglects to mention is that even this ‘protection’ is not sacrosanct if the size of the lot happens to be larger than its surrounding blocks of land. In Glen Eira at the time of the introduction of the new zones there were 1,795 lots of land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which were greater than 800 square metres. (Source: DEWLP document procured under FOI)
- There are no setbacks to the Residential Growth Zones apart from ResCode. They have been there since time immemorial and again have nothing to do with the zones!
- Developers buy up multiple blocks because they can squeeze more units on and this is explicitly encouraged in the Planning Scheme!
- Glen Eira does not have 78% zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – it has just under 70%
But the best line must be – It’s not like we changed the zones to allow more development without telling anyone…..
Really? Is that why the zones were introduced in secret and public question responses were nothing but lies and all such responses ‘signed off’ by councillors without a single murmur?
There’s much, more more that could be said on Hyams’ performance on JAir. We will leave it to our readers to comment further.
September 23, 2016
Newsflash: Lobo ‘defamed’ by Hyams & et.al
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[35] Comments
Damning report on Glen Eira councillors but no action to be taken
Chad Van Estrop, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
September 23, 2016 2:30pm
A DAMNING confidential report has found Glen Eira councillors have defamed each other, come “nose to nose” during confrontations and acted as “judge and jury” to matters of infighting.
But according to a copy of the report, seen by Leader, council chief executive Rebecca McKenzie has said “no further action” would be required as a result of the findings by Frances O’Brien QC.
Ms O’Brien was appointed in May to investigate bullying allegations and advise on how to implement the council’s standards of conduct.
The report found:
■ Council defamed Oscar Lobo when censuring him for an alleged anti-semitic slur;
■ “Childish, silly and disparaging” email exchanges between Cr Jamie Hyams and Cr Lobo breached the councillor code of conduct;
■ An email sent by Michael Lipshutz to Cr Lobo asking if he worked at a bank linked to terrorists was “discriminatory and not innocuous.”
The report also lifts the lid on an ugly spat at a citizenship ceremony this year where Cr Hyams called Cr Lobo a “f**kwit” and Cr Lobo said Cr Hyams was a “little s**t” and the men came “nose to nose”.
Ms O’Brien said in her report that she did not accept that either of the two councillors had “ever been provoked such as to justify the conduct or language they have used”.
And she said their conduct during an increasingly unworkable four-year term “would be unacceptable in any workplace”.
Glen Eira council has blown $18,000 on the report meaning almost $45,000 has been spent this term to tackle infighting.
Leader understands senior council officers were not interviewed by Ms O’Brien for the report.
In July Ms McKenzie said the report made “no recommendations for further action under council’s code of conduct”.
But an April email from mayor Neil Pilling to councillors stated Ms O’Brien was brought in as an “independent arbiter” which meant her recommendations were not legally binding.
In the fall out from the O’Brien report an internal conduct panel has been established for councillors to report disagreements but council insiders have labelled it a “toothless tiger”.
Cr Hyams said he couldn’t comment on the contents of the report.
“There has been a process to resolve the issues and I respect that process,” he said.
Cr Lobo refused to comment on the report.
Ms O’Brien, a senior barrister with extensive experience in employment law and forensic examination of evidence, was one of three members of a commission established to examine workplace culture at Geelong Council earlier this year. That council was sacked in April.
++++++++++
COMMENT
Making matters even worse is the fact that this Council has refused to publish the report, or to take action against all miscreants – especially Hyams!
There has been absolutely no respect for public monies splurged on lawyers. We have received an email from a resident who applied to council under the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation to gain access to the report. This was refused. The resident then appealed to the FOI Commissioner and in the past few days has received the email we present below – from ‘specialist’ lawyers hired by council to prevent the publication of the report. We can only ask:
- How much more of ratepayers’ money are these councillors prepared to spend in order to protect themselves?
- How much longer will bullying and vilification be condoned by these councillors?
September 23, 2016
September 22, 2016
Andonopoulos Flyer
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[9] Comments
September 21, 2016
Is This Kosher & Have The Dirty Tricks Already Started?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016[19] Comments
Not for the first time has Mr De’Ath run into a little controversy regarding his electioneering. Last election it was his failure for proper authorisation and the explanation was that it was the printer’s fault and that he had retrieved all of the ‘incorrect’ flyers as soon as he could! Unfortunately, many thousands had already gone out! No ‘penalty’ from the electoral office of course!
This time around we have a far more serious potential breach. Candidates are not permitted to include their how-to-vote preferences in the election packs that will go out to residents. They are required to provide a 200 word pitch about themselves. Below is De’Ath’s effort. It clearly indicates preferences and whom to vote for. In our opinion this is a breach of the legislation.
September 20, 2016
What A Sad, Sad, Night!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance[11] Comments
Lobo arrived approximately 15 minutes late and apologised for his lateness. We also assume that he had not been present at the pre-meeting Councillor Assembly since he asked for the relevant papers. Whether this was his choice, or he was told not to attend, we do not know.
The first sign of trouble started with Item 9.16 (Caulfield Racecourse) when this was moved up earlier on the agenda. Following Delahunty, Lipshutz and Hyams speaking on this item, Pilling called on Magee. Lobo claimed that he had put his hand up first. Pilling said he only saw Magee and Lobo said ‘okay’ and that Magee could speak first. Magee expressed his concern about Mike Symons and the Minister’s letter to Trustees, requiring them to resign as well as tenants resigning as well. (The letter will be in the minutes). Lobo acknowledged Penhalluriack’s work on the racecourse and ‘many others’. Said that he knows how ‘frustrated’ councillors were when the councillor trustees ‘were not reporting to us’ what has happening. Said he didn’t know what ‘criteria was used’ for the appointment of trustees. Said ‘I appreciate Cr Magee’s stand’ of setting up his tent and ‘going home to sleep in the night’ because ‘he was scared of foxes’.
MAGEE: rose with a point of order not ‘just on relevance but also fact’. Went on to say that ‘Cr Lobo has told a blatant untruth’.
LOBO: ‘I was there in a parked car at 11 o’clock’ and it was his word against Magee’s.
Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw’ his comment. Lobo insisted that Magee ‘has told a fairytale’. Lobo then responded to Pilling that ‘for your satisfaction I will’ withdraw the comment. Finished up by saying it was ‘disappointing’ that Pilling approves of horseracing.
Next bout of altercation occurred over Item 9.3 – the Claire St potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Magee moved motion and spoke about his ‘liking’ for the Planning Scheme. Said in part that ‘while this is our planning scheme it is incumbent on anyone who sits in this room to accept that this is what our residents want’. Went on to say that ‘it is disappointing that new councillors’ come in and ‘say I want to change it’. ‘I think that’s wrong’ because ‘you have to have consideration for what’s put in front of you’ and ‘what your community has said what they wanted’. ‘It’s not all about you. It’s not all about what you want’. It’s ‘what our community wants’ and they are ‘very clear’ following the reviews and consultation. In the past the community ‘told us they were happy with this’ but ‘wanted a few extra things’ like mandatory height limits and ‘greater setbacks’ and ‘that’s exactly what we put in’. Said that with the zones ‘we got exactly what our residents were telling us they want’. Said that with the building boom and the fact that VCAT now doesn’t apply council policy like it used to, that is ‘what brought on the’ planning scheme review. (We will report in full on this item in the days ahead).
Hyams, Lipshutz and Sounness then spoke. (again we will report on this later).
LOBO: said that when Akehurst ‘did the drawing’ for the new zones, and ‘I was told off’ by Lipshutz, that Akehurst is an architect and ‘we have another now’ in Ron Torres. Said that Claire St was ‘designated for development because of the McKinnon zone’ and the railway station. Height was ‘not the point. The sky was the limit’ and he was told this by Magee. Went on to say that in the assemblies they ‘agreed’ that the zones ‘would not change’ and that VCAT ‘will approve’. ‘Now the wheel of fortune seems to be going the other way around’.
LIPSHUTZ: got up with a point of order that Lobo should stick to the ‘facts’ and he claimed that it is ‘not true’ that they were told that ”VCAT would approve’ the new zones’.
PILLING: said that ‘I understand that is the case’ and asked Lobo to withdraw his comment.
LOBO: ‘withdraw because the way you are playing partial’!
HYAMS: Lobo should ‘withdraw that comment because it is defamatory’.
LOBO: ‘shusshh’
PILLING: again asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to ‘comment on the issue at hand’.
LOBO: withdrew his comment and told Pilling to ‘make your decisions properly’. Pilling responded ‘I will’. Went on to say that ‘Claire St was supposed to be the sky’s the limit’
HYAMS: said it was never the ‘sky’s the limit’ and there’s a height limit of 10.5 metres in Claire St. Pilling reiterated the 3 storey height limit.
LOBO: said that to challenge Claire St is a ‘waste of time, money’ as is the money spent on the open space for Nina Court. If Council was ‘really serious’ then they ‘should never’ have bought that ‘Caulfield house’. ‘a waste of money’. Said he wanted to ask the CEO a question – ‘How much does it cost for reports’?
CEO replied that that ‘it would depend’ on the ‘nature of the report’ and how much time had to be spent on it. Lobo then asked if ‘for the next meeting could we have a break down?’
PILLING: ‘as the ceo has said, it is virtually impossible to identify every report’ and that ‘I think the request is not practical’.
HYAMS: on another point of order saying that if Lobo wants officers to do this work then he ‘needs’ to do a Request for a Report and then councillors would decide if they wanted that report. Lobo said he doesn’t want the report because ‘it is costing money’ and in this council ‘going to the toilet’ elicits ‘a report’.
LIPSHUTZ: point of order saying that Lobo’s comment is ‘totally inappropriate’ and that he ‘should be asked to sit down now’ and his reference to toilets is ‘absolutely disgusting’ and ‘outrageous and he should be told to sit down’.
PILLING: cited section 236 from the Local Law saying that when a councillor speaks it should be relevant to the motion and that this is about Claire St. Said ‘I will be giving you one more opportunity to talk to this motion’ or “I will be asking you to sit down’. ‘Last chance’.
LOBO: said he needed to ‘ask a question from Ron Torres’. Said he has forgotten the answer that Torres gave him ‘about 5 months ago’ why when residents object ‘do you send those objections first to the builders?’ ‘Who is paying you money? The residents’.
PILLING: another point of order under Section 236 of the Local Law. Under the section ‘defamatory’. Asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to sit down.
Lobo refused to withdraw his comment. Hyams then made another point of order saying that he ‘hoped’ that Lobo wasn’t saying that Torres ‘was being paid by developers’ and that what he meant was that since residents paid Torres then ‘he should have care for residents’.
PILLING: said it ‘was unclear’ about the ‘accusation’ and asked Lobo to ‘clarify the comment you have made’.
LOBO: repeated that ‘I am sitting down’. So ‘take me to a Code of Conduct and spend another $50,000’
Pilling then asked for other speakers.
All quiet on the Western Front until the next item on the Better Apartments. Lobo put his hand up to speak next and Pilling ‘cautioned’ him saying that he has powers under the Local Law to remove him from the chamber if he ‘disrupts’ the meeting. Pilling wants him to ‘participate’ but to ‘stay relevant’ to the item. Said he is ‘loathe to use it’ (ie removal). Lobo didn’t speak in the end.
Again quiet until Item on the Open space implementation. Delahunty moved motion and spoke first and refuted Lobo’s earlier claims that open space is a ‘waste of money’. (full report to come). Lobo then asked Pilling if he could ask a question ‘in defence’? Pilling said he would give him the ‘opportunity’ Hyams spoke next.
LOBO: said that he will ‘respect’ Delahunty ‘not as a member of any party’ but for her intelligence, ‘and passion’. Delahunty walked out at this point. Lobo continued with ‘Just do it’ (quoting Delahunty earlier) and saying that ‘you can’t just do it’ because ‘you will have problems’ later. Esakoff and Sounness then ‘filled in a minute’ until Delahunty returned to ‘sum up’.
Pilling then asked Lobo to leave the chamber under Local Law 244 saying that he will ‘not tolerate any more destructive behaviour’. Lobo responded with ‘You can’t ask me to leave’ and Pilling replied “i am asking you to leave’. Lobo stated ‘I will not go’. Pilling then asked Jones to ‘escort’ Lobo from the chamber. Lobo remained seated in his chair and said ‘You should announce to people what you have done to me’. Pilling then in a much louder voice said that ‘I have made a decision. I have the power and I’m using it’. A shouting match between Pilling and Lobo ensued with such comments as ‘you are not a fair man’; ‘get the police’, ‘this is not your council’. Pilling then said ‘I’m adjourning the meeting until the police come to escort you out’. Lobo kept calling out and Pilling told him to ‘please be quiet’. Lobo said he was speaking for the ‘residents’. Jones approached Lobo and the latter told him not to speak to him. Lobo repeated several times ‘get the police’ and ‘show me democracy’; ‘very mean and cruel’; ‘spoil my family life’ and ‘because of all of you I’m getting a divorce’. To Pilling – ‘you are a puppet’. ‘Bring handcuffs’. Councillors in the meantime had got up and left the chamber. Lobo walked out and the meeting resumed after a few minutes.
Glen Eira Debates 