GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

January 18, 2012

Consultation: Transport Strategy

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Once again we have to marvel at how other councils conduct their consultation in comparison to the pseudo consultation methods that characterise Glen Eira’s approach. Presented below is a diagram taken directly from the Bayside Council website depicting their timeline for community consultation on an Integrated Transport Strategy. Please note:

  • Two rounds of consultation
  • Dissemination of both background and discussion papers – both with provision for feedback
  • Draft follows consultation
  • That this can all be achieved within a 4 month timeframe

 

December 8, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[10] Comments 

Council playing favourites, racing club claims

5 Dec 11 @  02:33pm by James Twining

A RIFT has emerged between Moonee Valley’s racing club and council over the draft racecourse master plan, just weeks after the proposal was officially submitted.

The club says it was “excluded” from a public information session run by the council last Thursday night but that the rival Save Moonee Ponds residents’ group – campaigning against the club’s draft master plan and rezoning – was given a platform to slam the proposal at the meeting.

Club spokesman Brian O’Neil said the club was “perplexed” by SMP being given floor time at the information session, attended by more than 100 people.

“The (club) is extremely disappointed that council excluded it from (the) information meeting, yet gave a resident action group a 30-minute presentation and a seat at the head table from which to voice their opposition to our proposals,” Mr O’Neil said.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the council was approached by SMP for support.

“Save Moonee Ponds is a newly formed community group,” he said.

“They are not a large profitable organisation like the Moonee Valley Racecourse.

“Save Moonee Ponds approached council for some support to help them raise awareness of their group and issues. We thought the best place to do that was when we were getting the community together for our information evenings.”

Mr Smith said the community meetings – another was held on Sunday – were to share information about the planning process and not to go into detail about what was proposed.

He said the racing club would “definitely” be involved in the formal consultation process, to start in the first half of 2012.

By way of further contrasts we’ve uploaded 2 presentations – one by the Moonee Valley Council and the other by the Save Moonee Ponds Group. Please note:

  • The fact that this council features resident advocacy groups material on its official website
  • The council’s ‘consultation’ will include online surveys, facebook pages, etc. (see their presentation)

Even these two simple things are a standout in comparison to the Glen Eira methods employed for the C60 and the Centre of the Racecourse debacle.

// Comments

 Julie Vulin writes: Posted on 6 Dec 11 at  08:56am

Yes, SMP is not a large profitable organisation with deep pockets and endless resources such as MVRC. As YOU say, SMP is a community group.  MVRC’s let the cat out of the bag – they are not under threat of going out of business, they’re greedy business people with no regard for the community of Moonee Valley.  The community already know who MVRC is, now we need them to honestly and fully know what they propose to do to ruin it – that’s where grassroots SMP comes in to play.  Mr. Browell, Mr. O’Neil, please come to the next community meeting, allow us to ask questions that you’ll give direct answers to, such as why are you being so contentious and not considering a reasonable development appropriate for a residential location not on a category 1 road!

Annie Spilar writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  08:01pm

Oh please MVRC… are you really serious?  I mean, the MVRC ‘consulted’ the general public didn’t they?  Oh no, that’s right, they just set up a room to view the proposal and didn’t offer any consultative process with the community.  Hence, ‘Save Moonee Ponds’ was born.  The last form of communication I had from MVRC was a letter basically saying, this is happening and if we don’t get what we want, we will move elsewhere.  Again, I fail to see where the consultation is happening between MVRC and the residents. SMP is merely the name given to us, the residents, who are saddened and dismayed at what is happening to our community, rather than naming us all individually.  Work with ‘us’ MVRC… so far, I have only seen you work against us.

Sarah writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  06:31pm

I am “perplexed” that the Moonee Valley Racing Club suddenly wants to be involved in community information sessions. The MVRC held their own information sessions, at which they presented their submission. They then promised further consultation with the community prior to their submission, which was never delivered.  The MVRC had ample time and opportunity to consult with the community prior to making a submission, but they chose to ignore the concerns raised and plough ahead with their submission anyway. There is nothing wrong with getting the community debate going about the issues surrounding the masterplan.  Council was perfectly justified in allowing the residents to get up and talk about their views in an organised manner. The discussion held by Save Moonee Ponds did not “slam” the proposal and was in fact positive about the prospects for development at the Moonee Valley Racecourse, including the long term survival of the club. The MVRC are feeling “excluded” because their proposal is largely unwanted by the community and they simply don’t like what they are hearing.

John Westwood writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  05:49pm

Making no satisfactory concessions to the community, apart from an extra exit, it’s outrageous that MVRC thinks that those who are trying to represent the community are being shown favours, unreasonably so, when Moonee Ponds will be affected by 20 years of dirt and noise in such a hostile development. New residents living in the MVRC development will have their open space reduced to 1/2 a meter, according to Sunday’s Forum at The Clocktower. So where are the children going to play? Go to school? Or, for that matter, get there? Thankyou Mr. Neville Smith for pointing out Save Moonee Ponds does not stand to make any profit in trying to spare homes, the neighbourhood, schools, infrastructure, amenity, heritage and the environment. Instead of complaining, why don’t they try negotiating a proposal the community can live with.

 

November 16, 2011

Letters To the Editor

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 
  • 16 Nov 2011
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

Residents’ warnings go unheeded by council

 I write in support of a neighbour’s concerns (‘‘Spotlight on centre’’, November 2) about car parking being built as part of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre project. Residents were assured there would be ample off-road parking.

After removing a number of beautiful trees, Gardeners Rd residents are to be faced with an ugly carpark with floodlighting, which apparently will be left on until 11pm.

Glen Eira Council has shown throughout the whole building process a complete disregard for the rights of residents surrounding the project. Surely it must now be admitted, as residents warned, that there was not enough space for three basketball courts without major traffic and parking problems in surrounding streets.

 

November 15, 2011

Petition: A Reminder

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[7] Comments 

We wish to remind readers that residents are busily collecting a petition to go to Council next week (22nd November). According to the Council guidelines, this must be presented 2 working days prior to the meeting. So we ask all those interested to please download the petition , get it signed and return to POBOX 322 Elsternwick. 3185.

PS: we’ve been asked to inform people that if it is too difficult, or too late to mail the completed petition forms, then they can email this site (gedebates@gmail.com) and they will be picked up from residents’ homes.

 

 

November 11, 2011

A State First?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[9] Comments 

It looks like Glen Eira residents are taking the matter of the CEO appointment process into their own hands. A petition (to be tabled at the 22nd November meeting), calls upon councillors to advertise the position prior to any appointment. The relevant wording of the petition is:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the firm conviction that that in order to ensure that the best possible candidate is selected for the position of Chief Executive Officer of Glen Eira, councillors should “test the waters”  by advertising the position. Your petitioners therefore pray and demand that the position of CEO is advertised widely”.

In support of this action we’ve uploaded the petition form and ask those readers interested in either signing or helping out to:

  1. Print off the requisite form
  2. Get your friends, neighbours, and others who agree with the proposition to sign, and
  3. Forward completed forms to: PO.BOX 322, ELSTERNWICK.  3185.

Please note that signed sheets need to be completed by next Thursday in order to be collated and then submitted to Council for the 22nd November.

 

 

November 9, 2011

Thank God For The Cleaners!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[6] Comments 

History does repeat itself, but this is definitely becoming an all-time farce.  The front doors leading to council chambers were again locked last night. The side doors from the car park were also locked. Only the acute hearing of a cleaner prevented a total lock out.

As per usual, the meeting last approximately 3 minutes. A little stumble by Lipshutz over accepting the previous minutes, and then the big one – motion to move in camera. Moved Lipshutz and seconded (surprise? surprise?) by Lobo.

 

October 25, 2011

Annual Report: Fact Or Fiction?

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

From Officer’s Report for tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

Public open space

We increased public open space by purchasing two properties for $1.92 million to enlarge Packer Park, Carnegie. We also decided to return the former Packer Park bowls green to public open space and consulted the community on the landscaping to be provided. We reached agreement with the Melbourne Racing Club for greater public use of the centre of Caulfield Racecourse, including a playground and picnic area, dog off-leash area and junior soccer pitch.

Responsiveness

We achieved an approval rate of 86 per cent in the independent survey of community satisfaction, including first in the state for interaction and responsiveness in dealing with the public. We conducted a public review of the Planning Scheme and are implementing improvements including the transition between housing diversity areas and minimal change areas.

Our staff members

We continued to invest in development, leadership and wellbeing programs for our staff members. Fifty staff members were recognised for their performance against our values — Teamwork, Initiative, Leadership, Customer Service and Respect. Staff turnover remained low at 8.87 per cent.

 

October 18, 2011

Censorship In The Guise Of ‘Harassment’

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[21] Comments 

Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:

“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?

2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”

That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang)  has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:

  • the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
  • the attempt to avoid scrutiny
  • the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
  • the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
  • the failure to be accountable and transparent

We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why

  • this question was deemed to be harassment
  • and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.

Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?

 

October 10, 2011

Caulfield Park Conservatory

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

Neil Pilling has highlighted another important item on Tuesday night’s agenda (9.3) – the call for Expressions of Interest to convert the conservatory at Caulfield Park into an 80 seat café/restaurant. We applaud Cr. Pilling for his stance that instead of wasting more money on such EOI processes, the funds would be better spent on actually fixing and conserving the building!

The current state of the conservatory requires full investigation and answers to these questions:

  • Why has this important historical building been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it has? Why have priorities been  given to ‘concrete plinthing’ ahead of preservation?
  • How many more times will the old and spurious argument that something will cost too much to renovate/develop/preserve, so let’s get rid of it, be used to justify a pre-planned agenda – ie. swimming pools, maternal centres, libraries, etc. etc.?
  • Why is ‘consultation’ following the call for ‘expressions of interest’ and not the other way around? Previous ‘consultation’ (ie survey) is now obsolete, skewed, and irrelevant – especially since no real proposal was featured in this ‘survey’.
  • How does this support the already existing businesses in the area?
  • What environmental and social impact will this have on the park and its surrounds?
  • How much open space will be lost?
  • Can the area accommodate more parking?
  • What happens if there are no bona fide EOIs? Will council allow this site to simply perish?
 

October 7, 2011

More Hide & Seek!!

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

An alarming new trend in Council decision making has become increasingly obvious over the past few months. Major issues are suddenly not being handled by full council but are introduced, discussed, and deliberated upon through the secret and unaccountable advisory committees! Even worse, is that Officer’s reports presented to these committees never see the light of day! Apart from the Environment Committee, none have external representation, agendas aren’t published beforehand, and the public are definitely not invited. This is again highlighted in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

It strikes us as strange that important Planning Scheme matters such as ‘impervious surfaces’, ‘Open space strategy’, ‘Environmentally Sound Design’ should be relegated to the Environment Committee alone and not full council so that proper debate, motions, resolutions and most importantly, officers’ reports are available for public scrutiny. We present the following
extracts from the Environment Committee ‘minutes’ and direct readers attention to:

  • Reports are to come back to the Committee, not council
  • Presentations are to the Committee alone. Why not to the public as well?
  • Note the failure to (include the) answer CL’s query on C60!
  • Note the dampeners always seem to come from Officers!

We do however acknowledge the efforts made by Cr. Pilling in relation to these issues!

“Open Space Strategy

Cr Pilling noted that Council had endorsed the Committee recommendation to consider a report on this matter.

CL (resident) sought information on population growth and enquired if the impact of the proposed Caulfield development had
been considered.

Action: Officers will enquire as to progress on preparing the report with the relevant Director and advise the Committee. Officers will provide the Committee with Glen Eira’s latest population projections. 

9.0 Sustainable Design in Planning Process

Cr Pilling suggested that a broader approach is needed to be in step with surrounding Councils who have already implemented some form of voluntary ESD requirements in their planning processes.

RR (resident) circulated a separate report on the matter.

The Chair acknowledged the challenges of using what is currently a voluntary scheme noting that having adequate provisions in the state policy section of the Planning Scheme would be far more effective as it would be enforceable.

DAF (Peter Waite: officer) noted there had historically been some concern in the community over councils using the planning application process to introduce matters outside of the scope of the Planning Scheme.

 JG (resident) stated that the introduction of a voluntary scheme would provide relevant information to developers which may not be readily available and developers could promote the ESD benefits at the point of sale.

Cr Pilling felt that as most neighbouring councils where using STEPs, Council should also.

Councillors carried unanimously the following recommendation to Council (moved by Cr Pilling, seconded by Cr Tang)

Action: Officers will invite a representative from a council that has recently introduced ESD controls (within last five years e.g. Boroondara, Bayside) to address the Committee at the next meeting. Officers will seek to provide further information to the next meeting about the effectiveness of voluntary ESD schemes at other
councils. 

COMMUNITY PLAN & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY  

This is another example where major decisions have primarily been channelled through a committee. Residents have not seen any of the public submissions, nor the rationale for the selection of community reps on the Steering Committee. Worse still is the proposed timeline and terms of reference for this latter committee. No mention of voting rights, community reps outnumbered by councillors, and inexplicably, the committee will CEASE IN FEBRUARY 2012 (unless reinvigorated by council) when the overall consultation proposals are still ongoing – especially the first draft, review, and dissemination. Further, there is no plan to include community reps on the Consultation Committee!

The terms of reference for both are:

“Community Consultation Committee Terms of Reference

Role of the Committee

The role and function of the Advisory Committee is to act as a steering committee to assist Council by providing recommendations in relation to reviewing, improving and broadening the ways Council consults with all residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community.

Membership

Council will appoint members on an annual basis. The Advisory Committee will comprise:

Four Councillors
(including Chairperson)

Mayor – ex-officio

Meetings

Meetings shall be held at least four times annually.

Reporting

Advisory Committee recommendations will be submitted to the next appropriate Ordinary Council Meeting for determination.

Community Plan Steering Committee

A steering committee shall be established to oversee the development of a new Community Plan consisting of the Community Consultation Committee and representation of up to three external members.

Sunset Clause

Unless extended by Council Resolution, this advisory committee shall cease to exist on 28 February 2012.”

Last but not least, there is the NON APPEARANCE of the minutes of the Special Committee regarding CEO reappointment. For a 3 minute meeting, it shouldn’t take this long to put up some palty minutes! But even stranger is the fact that the entire AGENDA for this meeting has now disappeared from the Council website. It seems that this no longer exists!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »