GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

June 9, 2014

Secrecy Versus Transparency!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

This paragraph featured in our post of March 23^rd, 2011 –

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

Item 9.11 in the current agenda is another case where secrecy rules the roost – the Municipal Emergency Management Plan. For a council which has one of the highest flood risks in the metropolitan area and where hundreds of homes and businesses were inundated by the floods of February 2011 it is frankly unconscionable that the following statement is made by Waite –

A copy of the current version of the Plan is available in the Councillors’ Room for Councillors to view. As it contains personal information, it is not a public document.

There can be no excuse as to why this document is kept under wraps, especially not when it has the potential to impact on countless lives. Residents have every right to know exactly what the ‘changes’ are and how well positioned this council is in order to respond to any kind of large-scale emergency. Resorting to claims of ‘personal information’ simply will not do – and especially not when all of the following councils (to name but a few!) see no problem in publishing their Emergency Plans on their websites!

As always, the focus needs to be on councillors and whether they have the will to ensure that such practices are put to an end.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-moreland/emergency-management/municipal-emergency-management-plan.html

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Municipal-Emergency-Management-Plan.html

http://www.centralgoldfields.com.au/?id=23510100B6A0B1D9AEE15DBACA25799900168F98

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/MEMP.aspx

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/governance/documents/item/b9ccbf99.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=municipal+emergency+plan

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Services-and-Support/Emergency-Information/Emergency-Information

May 29, 2014

Notice Of Motion

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

The next Kingston Council Meeting set down for June 2^nd should be well worth watching on their live streaming. Several Notices of Motion stand out for their call for greater transparency and accountability and hence overall governance practices. None of these, of course, could ever happen in Glen Eira given the current status of Meeting Procedures as well as a culture that shuns public scrutiny on all matters.

Here are the most ‘interesting’ items –

(Councillor Bearsley) – I Move

A. That council launches an independent review of the following areas in order of priority:

a. Community Engagement

b. Economic Development

c. Communications

d. Statutory Planning

B. That council scopes a tender process for an efficiency and effectiveness report for whole of council to be compiled by a reputable accounting/auditing firm and completed no later than August 2014.

C. That council develops an annual assessment and review process of efficiency and effectiveness of the council organisation with appropriate reporting measures which improve accountability and transparency.

D. That performance reporting KPIs be incorporated as part of an annual review.

(Cr Eden) – I move that:

Kingston Council seek to appoint an independently appointed observer to explore whether there are poor practices at Kingston Council, and whether Councillors have been acting in a questionable manner with respect to Planning matters.

(Cr Bearsley) – I move :

I move that planning officers prepare a report that details all developments, over the past two years, that have significantly breached the approved permit conditions and required amendment/resolution. The report is to indicate the breach, address, owner/applicant and final outcome. The report should include ways Kingston identify and minimise such breaches occurring and be provided by the 30th June.

(Cr Eden) – I move :

1. Council record the ‘in camera’ part of the Council meeting, so that if & when the item(s) are later made public the debate / discussion accompanying the confidential item will also be available to the public.

2. That officers report to Council on the reasons for ‘glitches / errors’ in the live recording and streaming of council meetings, and possible actions to rectify these problems, including:

a) That officers explore alternative mechanisms for recording the sound generated at meetings to ensure that regardless of whether the person speaking has their microphone on, their comments will be recorded – this will ensure if there is debate /discussions around the room that such comments are captured.

b) Officers implement a system to ensure that the live recording / streaming is working during meetings, and that Councillors are immediately notified if there are ‘technical issues’.

++++++++++

Another agenda item includes an indepth report on items declared ‘confidential’ which is well worth reading.

May 26, 2014

Delahunty: Right Of Reply

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[25] Comments

11.2 Right of reply
(a) Cr Delahunty.

“I feel that my decision making has been misrepresented by comments made by the friends of Caulfield Park president David Wilde and reported in today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader on-line and I seek to restore the balance to the public debate. In other mediums by the same person purporting to represent the entire group I and one of my colleagues was described as grossly incompetent and treacherous. In a further public flyer it was intimated that I said the conservatory was an icon and that I was hypocritical and deceptive. In yet another piece of correspondence I along with other Councillors were described as arrogant and deceptive. About these comments I would like to say that I will always defend the rights of people to disagree with me but I will not stand by and allow unprofessional and seemingly contradictory insults to be used. I condemn those comments as I have done in the past.

So onto the misrepresentation of my decision making in the comments today. The comments today suggest that we have snubbed our nose at the community. So to address the survey results. The report showed that the structural issues were so great that retention as the community called for was not really an option. Instead, as I spoke about at the Council Meeting
at the time the conservatory would have been a substantially new one if we were to go ahead with it. I therefore felt that the community consultation was based on a now unrealistic premise that there was an option to actually retain the conservatory in the first place. The advice we received also said there is no heritage value in to current structure. Instead it is largely, like my house, owed to 1970s architecture.

The cost is significant not as the comments say today merely insignificant and I take all decisions on costs very seriously regardless of how minor they might seem in the overall budget. The comments today also suggest that we should be condemned for the money we are spending on open space in other areas of the municipality areas that do not have parks let alone ones as large as Caulfield Park. Areas where residents get into a car to drive to find access to public space. It is money well spent and it is spent at the behest of the wider municipality. We could go back into consultation and check with the community and we could ask. So substantially the question would probably be; would you like to build a pretty much new conservatory using elements of an old conservatory without any historical significance in Caulfield Park for around half a million dollars at the very least. If so, please nominate which areas of Glen Eira you would like us to remove services from or which areas of open space you would like us to forego in order to provide this or please indicate if you are happy to have your rates increased to accommodate this expenditure. See, I don’t need to spend more ratepayers money to have this conversation because I already know what the answer will be. With the cost of living increases that families are facing in Glen Eira in the face of a cruel Federal Budget it seems rather elitist to insist that Council reach into the pockets of residents to deliver a conservatory to Caulfield Park and I hope this goes some way to balancing the public debate in this area.”

May 20, 2014

Arrogance, Disrespect & Betrayal

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

Tonight’s council meeting could arguably be said to represent the nadir of councillor/community relations. At the start of the meeting Esakoff began to give her ‘report’ on the MAV State Conference. She actually started to disclose not only some motions which Glen Eira council had put forward, but how they voted! A first – but always after the fact and never as a tabled document for a full Council Resolution but discussed and decided in secret assembly meetings.

Following about a minute of her report, approximately 50 to 60 residents carrying placards entered the chamber and once assembled started chanting ‘Save the Conservatory’. The chants continued for about 4 to 5 minutes. THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME ESAKOFF CONTINUED SPEAKING AS IF NOTHING WAS HAPPENING. NO COUNCILLOR UTTERED A WORD ALTHOUGH AT ONE POINT PILLING DID ‘CONFER’ WITH BURKE. Whilst many may regard disrupting a council meeting as inappropriate, in our view, what is even more inappropriate is that Esakoff’s actions speak volumes. Not only is this totally ignoring ratepayers and refusing to even acknowledge their presence, but it embodies the ‘us and them’ mentality which is the hallmark of this council and its attitudes and treatment of residents. The latter simply do not exist. Their opinions, aspirations, and even presence in chamber, does not matter! This is more than rudeness. It says very, very clearly ‘get stuffed’ to residents and we will continue along in the same autocratic and anti-community fashion.

The complete betrayal by the ever growing ‘gang’ was in relation to the C60 Development plans. It was voted in by 6 to 3 with some pathetic little cosmetic amendments put up by Lipshutz – ie peak hour times were now 8.00am; more visitor car parking which still doesn’t cover the loss of existing car parking spots. Trivial, insignificant, and just tinkering. The arguments presented were woeful in their inconsistency and in their self-serving. We will report on this in detail in the next day or so. Suffice to say that those who voted to accept the Development Plans were (and this shouldn’t be a surprise) –

LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, PILLING, OKOTEL AND SOUNNESS.

Voting against were – LOBO, MAGEE AND DELAHUNTY

The big screen was voted in unanimously (Okotel had left the meeting at this stage). More fun and games were evident by the fact that both Hyams and Esakoff left the chamber, but not by declaring a conflict of interest – but this time a ‘personal interest’ as Trustees. Lipshutz not only stayed in chamber – he seconded the motion and voted!

May 20, 2014

Conservatory

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

Residents to rally to save Caulfield Park conservatory

Andrea Kellett
May 20, 2014 12:00PM

A PROTEST is planned at Glen Eira Council tonight by people angry about the council’s decision to demolish the Caulfield Park conservatory.

The Friends of Caulfield Park say the council have thumbed their collective noses at the community by dumping plans last month to restore and repair the ageing glasshouse because it would cost too much.

Protesters are being urged to gather 15 minutes before tonight’s meeting at the town hall.

Organisers say they want the community to “demonstrate through your presence your disgust at the hypocrisy of a council who pretend to consult us, the community, and then decide it is a bit expensive, even though they are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars on open space elsewhere’’.

Last month’s council backflip came seven months after councillors voted unanimously to restore and repair the ageing public building and replant its gardens after a survey found that was what the community preferred.

Friends president David Wilde said councillors had let the community down and labelled the decision an “act of destruction’’.

“The community’s least preferred option was demolition but, for comparatively modest cost reasons, this is what the council has opted to do,’’ Mr Wilde said.

“The conservatory is an historic artefact, purchased from Rippon Lea in 1949, but allowed to fall into disrepair over many years.’’

The council received eight tenders to restore the conservatory; their average was almost double the budget to do the work; and Mayor Neil Pilling said those costs had to be weighed up.

The nearby amphitheatre will also be demolished.

Tonight’s meeting starts at 7.30pm, at the town hall on Hawthorn Rd

May 1, 2014

Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[30] Comments

Next Wednesday, the 7th May, will see the Planning Conference for the Big Screen at Caulfield Racecourse take place.

TIME: 6.30pm

CHAIR: Cr Jim Magee

VENUE: Town Hall

We can only hope that this time:

doors will not be locked
that clear directions are provided to residents so they can find the exact location
that enough plans are provided to go around
that the MRC deigns to appear and answer questions, and
that in future Council consider that 6.30pm is NOT the best time for such meetings if their objective is to truly engage with residents!

+++++++++++++

PS: and if any further evidence was needed to prove how Glen Eira City Council operates in contrast to its neighbours, we provide the following:

Residents and councillors reject State Government call for greater housing density in Boroondara

Greg Gliddon
Progress Leader
May 01, 2014 10:36AM

Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew Guy for an increase to the proportion of residential growth zones in the municipality. Source: News Limited

ANGRY residents and councillors have rejected last-minute planning zone changes that would see more neighbourhoods opened up to 13.5m-high residential developments.

More than 600 residents packed into the Camberwell Town Hall this week to hear councillors unanimously reject a planning scheme amendment that would see a greater proportion of residential areas allocated the Residential Growth Zone.

It was originally planned for 0.8 per cent of areas to be given the zone, under amendment C190. Planning Minister Matthew Guy asked for this to be increased to 2.5 per cent, under amendment C199.

A total of 123 residents wanted to speak at the special planning committee meeting, of which 52 were heard. The meeting stretched into the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Cr Jim Parke described the proposed changes as “utter nonsense”.

“What was put forward (originally) is a great outcome for Boroondara and council had every right to expect they would be approved by the minister,” Cr Parke said.

“Not for one moment did council tend to alter the protection of our city. It goes to show with the depth of feeling here tonight, that should also be conveyed to our local state members.”

Boroondara Residents Association President Jack Roach said there had been an unnecessary delay in approving the C190 amendment, which many people had found “unacceptable and detrimental” to the region.

“We request the minister approve C190 without delay,” he said.

‘There are 700 people here tonight who do not like this growth. These added bits are an insult to us all and the minister has to be told the people are not happy with this.”

The Leader asked Mr Guy’s office for a response to the meeting and details of when he plans to finalise planning scheme amendment C190.

A spokesman for Mr Guy said “An independent advisory committee is considering the merits of this issue and will give a recommendation back to the minister.”

++++++++++

And from Council Minutes 29/4 –

It has become apparent overtime, the Gallery feel we should have the opportunity to be able to speak as we are a democratic country. Instead we’re being gagged. Afterall we the ratepayers are paying the Councillors wages. So a motion should and needs to be passed on the above. During a meeting with the Mayor (Neil Pilling) last month he said he would agree to the idea of the Gallery being able to voice questions with certain restrictions. EG: time restraints. If the Councillors are discussing a particular subject the Gallery should be able to interject and ask a question by raising their hand, which is allowable in VCAT. What’s the point of attending Council Meetings monthly when we the ratepayers can’t voice our opinions.

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Over recent years Council has considered the issue of meeting procedures including the provision for a public question time.
Council, by a majority decision, decided not to change the current format.”

April 28, 2014

Caulfield Park Conservatory – Again, & Again, & Again & Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Here we go again, with the continuing saga of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. The Council agenda for Tuesday night contains this set of recommendations/’options’ authored by that ubiquitous entity – Mr Nobody!

Options include, but are not limited to:

a. select a tender for the restoration of the conservatory and accept the significantly increased cost;

b. remove the conservatory and return the area to open space including new plantings of exotic species – estimated cost $75k;

c. remove the conservatory and amphitheatre and return both areas to open space including new plantings of exotic species –estimated cost $140k;

d. undertake consultation on alternative proposals;

e. other action as directed.

7. Recommendation

That Council give direction.

Residents may well ask:

Didn’t Council really know that the cost of refurbishment would be more than the amount budgeted for less than a year ago? Or is this officer’s report just another example of fudging the truth? For example we urge readers to return to somee of our earlier posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/council-meeting-caulfield-park-conservatory/ and https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/the-conservatory-debate/) where Lipshutz , arguing for the café option, states that ‘keeping the conservatory’ would be $300,000 to $400,000. That was October 2011!
Since when has the realisation of increased cost been a deterrent to find extra money by this council? We note the 2 GESAC car park extensions; the blow out from 6 million to ten million for the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and now the mooted 7 million to 9 million for the Booran Road Reservoir! Finding extra money for these mega palaces has never been a problem in the past.
Why has the conservatory been allowed to become so run down year after year? To the best of our knowledge the only funds allocated to any kind of work on the conservatory was $100k in 2007/8. Since then it’s basically been allowed to rot!
How many more goes should residents expect on the issue of the conservatory? How many more resolutions regarding ‘full restoration’ need to be carried before anything is done?
As the minutes of April 2013 tells us –

Council has considered the matter at its Ordinary Meetings of 13 December 2006, 14 December 2010 and 11 October 2011. On the last occasion Council resolved:

“(a) That Council recognises the heritage value of the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(b) That Council determine not to proceed with and Expression of Interest campaign for the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(c) That Council considers funding in the 2012/13 budget for the repairs and full restoration of the Caulfield Park Conservatory.

Carried”

That resolution of course went nowhere since the cafe option reared its ugly head once more only to be soundly trounced by community views in the ensuing ‘consultation’. It’s certainly time that councillors accept what the community wants and that they ensure that ‘full restoration’ and adequate maintenance is carried out immediately. Eight years of neglect and pussy footing around has to stop.

March 17, 2014

More Smoke & Mirrors & Policy On The Run

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

Tomorrow night’s agenda features Item 9.7 – Redan Road proposed ‘restructuring’ and the removal of 11 car parking spots; installation of a bike path, and preference for “landscaped kerbs”. We have been informed of the following:

92% of residents living in the street are NOT in favour of the landscaped kerbs since they argue that the street cannot afford to lose these parking spots. They are not opposed to speed humps, just the removal of invaluable parking spots. This has resulted in two separate petitions to councillors
The plan provided to residents is factually incorrect in terms of its measurements according to residents. Council refuses to acknowledge this.
Nowhere in the extant Bicycle Strategy is there any mention of the need to install bike paths in Redan St.
Countless other streets throughout the municipality also have cars ‘speeding’ and are hence unsafe according to council’s definition. Yet, despite numerous and ongoing resident complaints regarding countless other streets with far higher volumes of traffic, these have remained untouched for years – so why the sudden interest in Redan St?
Repeated letters and emails to individual councillors such as Delahunty have not been answered.
Pilling appears to be content to sign off on faulty and inaccurate information – raising the question as to the quality of councillors’ decision making when the information they are provided with is highly dubious.

But there’s much, much more involved in this sudden need to change Redan St and we believe it fits in very nicely with the Caulfield Village proposal. The entire emphases of the Development Plan focuses on Caulfield Park as providing the necessary open space. (The Centre of the Racecourse barely rates a mention). Hence Redan St. as access to Caulfield Park becomes vital. More questions then become necessary – ie why ratepayers instead of the MRC/developer should be footing the bill for any works that ‘complement’ the Caulfield Village proposals? We’re already witnessing millions upon millions being spent on drainage in the immediate vicinity. Is this just another ‘expense’ that has been landed in residents’ laps via a fully compliant council?

March 16, 2014

Agenda Lowlights

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Records Of Assembly

Cr Pilling – Need to take care with Council information provided to the Councillor Group as some seems to be shared outside of the group.

Cr Hyams – Councillor Code of Conduct has a requirement that all Councillors read Council briefing and Agenda Papers.

Cr Hyams – Cr Lobo has foreshadowed a Right of Reply at the next Council Meeting. Councillor Code of Conduct regulates what Councillors can say about other Councillors.

Cr Lobo – Councillor Code of Conduct, information being passed to other persons.

Cr Lobo – Does the Councillor Code of Conduct govern behaviour outside of Council duties.

Visitor Car Parking

Car parking, which includes visitor parking and access, is often identified as a key issue. Applicants typically respond by redesigning a proposal. Those that do not amend their proposal risk having their application refused or modified by Council through conditions. This risk, in effect, encourages applicants to provide an adequate amount of visitor car parking.

Continuing this approach is preferred. This ensures that:

Visitor parking is not given higher priority than other valid planning matters, such as amenity impacts on neighbours, scale, and open space.

Visitor car parking is correctly assessed in the wider planning context, which includes consideration of the particular parking conditions in the area.

The integrity of Council’s fast track processes is maintained.

Consultation Committee

A paper determining community preferences for consultation using a community wide questionnaire was tabled. The committee noted that the process of sending a hard copy questionnaire to all members of the community cannot guarantee that a representative sample of the community completes the questionnaire. The statistically reliable method is stratified random sampling; different subgroups are established and a questionnaire is distributed to a random selection of respondents in the subgroup.

Council’s 2013 Community Satisfaction Survey included a question on residents preferred method of communication from Council. The results gave a clear indication that a multi method communication approach is required to ensure all sections of the population are provided with the best chance to participate in community engagement opportunities.

Racecourse

In order to encourage the involvement by the Valuer General, Council could

Write to the Trustees advocating for them to involve the Valuer General
Write to the Valuer General, including a copy of this Item
Write to the Minister for Crown Lands.

March 8, 2014

More MRC Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

The Car Parking Management Plan for the whole of the land states that for major events the following car parking spots within the racecourse are available (from page 6 of the Plan) – Kambrook Road entrance (674 spaces); Guineas Car park (536 spaces) and centre of the racecourse (3000 spaces). The claim is that all of these are sufficient to cater for demand – especially for the Caravan and Camping Show which draws the largest crowds and puts the greatest demand on car parking spaces.

It’s a pity that the consultants haven’t included a full and accurate picture of what actually happens with the Kambrook and Guineas car parks during the Caravan and Camping Show. They disappear and are replaced (of course) with caravans and camping gear. That means that 1210 sp0aces that the MRC is banking on to support its unsupportable claims do NOT EXIST. Where these 1210 cars end up is obvious – in all quiet surrounding residential streets!

The map below (for all those who haven’t driven past the grounds) provides a clear picture of the nonsense that is contained within the Parking Management Plan.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates