GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

May 8, 2024

Our Rights Being Reduced!

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

Glen Eira clearly makes up its own rules as it goes along, regardless of whether or not these rules are in accordance with its adopted policies and governance rules and which are still current. Recent meetings provide us with conclusive evidence of these machinations.  We refer to public participation and written questions to council.

Public Participation

Out of nowhere we are now being informed that residents in the public participation section of a council meeting have only 3 minutes in which to address council. Also, that the time allotted will be no longer than 15 minutes. Why? When was this decision made? And by whom? Most importantly, this new ‘law/policy’ is NOT IN ACCORD with the existing (2020) policy that clearly states at clause B(15) –

Members of the public addressing the Ordinary council Meeting are permitted to speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes (unless granted an extension of time by the Chairperson)

At last week’s council meeting one resident politely asked if he could have a 15 second extension. This was refused by Cade. Please listen carefully to this audio –

Neither the current guidelines nor the Local Law state the duration of public participation or the public question sections. Yet throughout most of this year we are told that they will last 15 minutes only. It’s important to note that the so called ‘guidelines’ which determine procedures have NOT BEEN AMENDED at the time of writing.

Public Questions

When compared to other councils we again fall short. Here’s what they do:

Monash – Public question time is limited to 30 minutes, unless otherwise resolved by Council.

Darebin – Public Question Time will not exceed 30 minutes in duration unless extended by resolution of Council through a procedural motion, in which case, it may only be extended for one (1) period of up to 30 minutes.

Merribek – The time provided for questions of Council and community statements will not exceed 30 minutes in duration, unless by resolution of Council, in which case, the time may be extended for one period of up to 30 minutes.

Boroondara – The time allocation of 15 minutes may be extended by resolution of Council.

Hobson’s Bay – Twenty minutes will be allocated in the agenda for Public Question Time. However, the Chairperson may vary the time allocated depending on the business to be considered at the meeting. No resolution of Council is required to extend Public Question Time.

Maribyrnong – Public question time will not exceed 15 minutes in duration unless the Councillors present unanimously agree to the time extension, in which case Public Question Time can be extended for further blocks of 15 minutes.

We certainly accept that when a contentious issue arises, there may be numerous residents who wish to address council meetings or submit a public question. Given the length of some agendas, it may therefore not be possible to allow everyone to speak or to answer all the public questions. But we would also argue, that if an issue is so contentious and/or divisive, that it has caused a massive public response, then the onus is on council to provide as much time as possible for councillors to listen to their constituents. Councillors must be provided with the right to extend both public participation times and public question times. Otherwise the perception remains that all council is doing is attempting to limit as much as possible resident voices.

All of the above is important because the draft governance rules and the associated policies are now out for public consultation. They basically seek to legally cement what has been happening this year, and hence are unacceptable.

Unlike other councils, Glen Eira’s governance rules in regard to public participation and public questions are basically bereft of important detail. What becomes the ruling factor are the so called ‘policies’. Whilst neighbouring councils itemise all aspects and procedures, Glen Eira relies primarily on the policies. Why? We believe that this action is designed to side-step the need for public consultation which a formal amendment requires as part of Local Law procedures. It also allows council to tinker repeatedly with these policies as they see fit. This is not sound governance and certainly not in the public interest.

The latest drafts for public participation and for public questions specify a 15 minute time limit. They do not provide any time duration for a resident addressing council in the public participation format. Everything is left open to the ‘discretion’ of the Chairperson (ie mayor). Nor are we told whether residents must be present in chamber for their question to be read out and answered as stipulated in the 2020 changes.

These above points are important because council has always operated on the principle that if it isn’t in the ‘rules’ then we don’t have to do it! Or conversely, because it isn’t in the rules, we can do it! One should expect that something as important as governance rules be spelt out to the nth degree. Not only do these new proposed rules represent a deterioration in governance at Glen Eira, they also further sideline councillors and residents.   

 

May 1, 2024

Snowed Under!

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

We have to question what is really happening with consultation in Glen Eira. Residents and councillors are literally snowed under with a plethora of current consultations. After tonight’s council meeting there will be seven issues that are currently open for input/submissions. Very soon, another 2 important planning items will be added – the Bentleigh and Elsternwick structure plans.

Questions abound! Why so many, why now, and how vital are they all at this point in time? And most importantly, what impact does a deluge of consultations have on community feedback and on councillors themselves? Was it really necessary that we now have a consultation on gambling, or even the economic plan? Considering that the budget will be discussed tonight, then surely this should precede an ‘economic plan’ so that the budget would set the parameters.

It is asking a lot for residents to partake in any meaningful manner on these consultations. Admittedly, not every issue will be of concern to all residents. Some may be interested in the annual budget, and not in gambling policy. People will pick and choose and decide if they have the time and energy to provide feedback. Glen Eira will of course continue the rhetoric that it cares about consultation and consults regularly. Over the years however, feedback on many of these consultations have been extremely poor – apart from the really contentious issues such as the Inkerman bike path, or the Queen’s Avenue cycling path. Yet, council has never really investigated why there has been a low feedback rate, and nor have they come up with any answers.

If there is simply apathy, then it is incumbent on council to explore why. Could it possibly be that once bitten twice shy?  When people have taken the time to provide feedback and then discover that nothing they have said has been responded to or even listed in summary reports they give up and believe that council simply doesn’t listen or act upon their suggestions? This would be enough to put anyone off from trying again! A truly responsive council is one that monitors and investigates the results of all its consultations. We don’t believe this is happening in Glen Eira!

 We have long advocated for the following to occur:

  • A short succinct summary of proposals that don’t require residents to plough through hundreds of pages (mostly of spin) prior to submitting their feedback
  • Surveys that are deliberately open ended instead of question upon question that is geared to garner the required response.
  • The involvement of councillors and the consultation committee in vetting questions and processes prior to consultation

In the next month or so residents and councillors will be confronted with up to 9 consultations occurring simultaneously. That is nothing but a recipe for disaster! But is this what council really wants?

 

March 23, 2024

Heritage: Bayside Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Bayside council completed a Panel Hearing during February 2024 for its heritage proposed amendment C192.  The report is not yet available. What is significant in this council’s approach to preserving heritage when compared to Glen Eira is the insistence on the ‘value’ of heritage to the entire community.  The Glen Eira approach has simply stated that because council has identified certain areas as suitable for ‘housing growth’ heritage can be overlooked!

Bayside council’s submission to the recent planning panel is fascinating when seen in the light of Glen Eira’s approach.  Our council tells us repeatedly that there could be serious ‘social’ and ‘economic’ drawbacks if certain sites are allowed to remain in the existing heritage overlays. They can therefore be removed. Bayside counters such views with the following extracts from its formal submission. We’ve uploaded several sections from this document.  Please note the differences in approach and what this means for heritage preservation.

 

March 20, 2024

Heritage Versus Development!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Despite persistent claims from councillors and this administration that preserving heritage is vitally important, last night’s council meeting provided conclusive proof that in the choice between facilitating development or preserving heritage listed sites, heritage would always lose.  

The issue surfaced with the proposed amendment to the Elsternwick heritage study which is now seeking ministerial approval for advertising. Repeated time and time again throughout the various attachments we find the following (verbatim) paragraph:

Including these sites within a Heritage Overlay would negatively impact on potential future housing growth within locations that Council has resolved to allocate to housing growth. This inconsistency has social and economic implications. When balancing Council’s adopted strategy for housing growth opportunities in these locations with heritage protection, it is considered that in these two instances, housing growth should prevail.

We note that there is no explanation of what these ‘social and economic implications’ are, nor how they are assessed and verified. Surely the preservation of heritage buildings has its own wider,  ‘social’ benefits?

All of this stems back to 2019 when council attempted to have amendment C203 accepted. The Minister or department decided at that time that not all the nominated precincts be included because this would impede development. A department letter to council stated:

“At this stage it is not considered appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay more extensively in Elsternwick given that Council is yet to seek authorisation for a planning scheme amendment to implement the Elsternwick Structure Plan. Doing so could, by default, lead to heritage controls becoming the primary driver for development outcomes within the Elsternwick Activity Centre.

Council’s response? Not a whimper! No public questioning of the legality and common sense in 2019 and not again in 2024. Council meekly accepted the decision and has now enshrined this in the latest amendment attempt. The result is the continued loss of heritage buildings in Glen Eira, and particularly in Elsternwick.

When Amendment C203 finally went to a planning panel, the members were not averse to stating clearly their disapproval of the imposed conditions. We have uploaded two pages from the panel report at the conclusion of this post. Their conclusions questioned the legality and evidence for the exclusion of the nominated precincts. They found that the amendment:

1. Is counter to Planning Practice Notes 1, 58 and 60 and that

2. Development potential is not a valid criterion when considering heritage potential.

3. Development potential is NOT prioritised above any other criteria in the planning provisions

4. No valid justification has been provided for the exclusion of the precincts

5. Contravenes Plan Melbourne where heritage is said to be ‘fundamental’ (Clause 4.4.3) to the state’s cultural identity.

Last night’s officer’s report  confirms what an absolute shambles planning, and particularly heritage has been in Glen Eira. The latest amendment is simply trying to largely rectify the indifference and errors of the past when countless streets containing confirmed heritage overlays were rezoned as Residential Growth Zones (RGA and 4 storeys) when they should not have been! Here’s what the latest heritage report states:

The application of the RGZ in these almost exclusively residential Heritage Overlay areas is contrary to the guidance of PPN91 (Planning Practice Note 91 – Using the Residential Zones), which identifies that there will be difficulty in reconciling the conflicting objectives of substantial housing change (through the application of the RGZ) and the conservation of existing buildings (by applying the Heritage Overlay).

In other words, the introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster for heritage. Many sites in these heritage overlays have now been demolished and replaced with 4 storey apartment blocks as a result. We remind readers that we are yet to see a full and decent review of this zoning!!!!!

Our argument is simple. If something is determined to be worthy of heritage listing then it MUST take precedence over development potential. Council chooses the alternative – development always comes first!

The vote last night was 7 to 2. The opposing councillors were Esakoff and Parasol and NOT because they were against the removal of so many heritage sites, but because they wanted one nominated dwelling removed from being included in the overlay, even though it is surrounded by heritage cited properties! So much for giving a damn about heritage in Glen Eira!!!!!

Here’s the Planning Panel report comments –

 

February 25, 2024

Tree Protection: The Need For Full Transparency

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

Council is proposing a new Local Law designed to protect not only SIGNIFICANT trees, but also canopy trees on private property which qualify under height and width criteria. This is certainly an improvement and should protect more existing trees. However, how many existing canopy trees will actually be covered by the proposal(s) depends to a large extent on how well the upcoming Local Law is written and what is its true intent. What also needs to be considered is to what extent all decisions will be fully transparent and who will make these decisions. Will it be left entirely in the hands of officers, or will councillors have the final say as in numerous other councils on which permit applications are granted or refused?

The officer’s report includes the following paragraphs on this last point:

The above is very ambiguous. We are told that officers will presumably undertake the initial assessment when there has been a permit application, and this is fair enough. The final paragraph however clearly states that there will be an ‘internal review process’ but only for those applicants who have requested a review. Thus, if a permit has been granted, then there is no need for a review! Officer’s will have made the decision and that’s the end of it with no councillor involvement, or no objection rights by anyone it would seem.

The paragraph continues that a report will be prepared but this is dependent on whether or not the applicant has chosen to seek a review as stated previously. What remains unclear is whether the officer report will also cover applications that have been granted a permit ‘internally’ and whether the tabled report is there simply for ‘noting’ or for councillors to make actual decisions? Even with the existing significant Tree register local law, councillors are sidelined and all decisions are made by officers. There is therefore no transparency and no accountability for decision making. We suspect that the proposed new law will be the same. Surely the onus on council is to clear up any ambiguity  and to ensure residents that trees will be fully protected.

There are other issues with the proposals as well. Here is our take on these:

Clause 2(b)of the proposed Local Law states that a permit is required to prune or direct, authorise or allow to be pruned a Classified Tree or a Canopy. But we then get the ‘exemption’ that this clause does not apply if Council is notified within five (5) working days of the commencement of the pruning.

 This may sound quite innocuous, but it has major repercussions. Why the 5 days grace? Most pruning would be concluded well within 5 days. If an applicant then calls council and says ‘I’ve pruned my tree’ what evidence exists that the pruning was in accordance with the 10% maximum reduction of canopy allowed? What evidence do we have that the branches were less than 10cm in width?

Bayside, by contrast, has processes that would ensure the pruning is done legally. They insist on:

  • Photos taken BEFORE and AFTER
  • That the work be done by a qualified arborist
  • That the arborist has to sign off by certifying the work done.

NONE of the above applies in Glen Eira!!! This leaves a huge loop hole that can easily be taken advantage of.

Compounding the problem we then get this additional clause regarding pruning:

Subclause (2)(b) does not apply to pruning, which is carried out to the following specifications—

(a) up to a maximum of 10% of the Classified Tree’s or Canopy Tree’s total volume within 12 calendar Months

We assume that this means there can be numerous episodes of lopping throughout a 12 month period. But given that no permit is required we again lack evidence that only 10% has been lopped? Nor are we told whether or not each lopping requires council to be notified – even within the 5 day period.

One other change to the current Local Law is also worth commenting upon. Please read the following carefully:

Questions abound. Consider this scenario – No permit has been applied for. A neighbour complains to council  that a large canopy tree is being removed next door. According to the current Local Law, the property could be entered by a council officer and inspected. With the proposed new law, this could only happen if the owner of the tree has ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. If he/she hasn’t, then they the new law does not provide them with the power to investigate and potentially call a halt to the tree removal!

CONCLUSION

Whilst these proposed changes are definitely an improvement and an attempt to protect our existing canopy trees, they simply do not go far enough. We fully accept that there may be situations where a tree presents a major health risk due to storms, etc and should be lopped/removed in the name of safety. But, there are far too many loopholes in the proposed new law that can be exploited. All that is required is that clauses such as Bayside and other councils have is included and that the essential role of monitoring evaluations occurs by councillors. What role councillors will play needs to be spelt out clearly. This has not been done.

Leaving everything in the hands of officers does not engender full transparency and accountability in decision making. Bayside for example also publishes on a regular basis a list of permits granted for the removal of trees. There is nothing in this proposed law which will ensure that decisions on whether to refuse or grant a permit will ultimately be made in the full council chamber so that all residents can see and listen to the evidence.

ONE FINAL POINT. All of the above of course is dependent on whether a planning permit for the site has been granted. The permit could and often does include permission to remove existing trees. Given that planning permits are largely decided by officers and that at least 15 objections are required before the application can go to council, this again places enormous power in the hands of officers.

 

February 4, 2024

Landsdcaping & The Housing Strategy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Tuesday’s council agenda features the latest version of the Housing Strategy. Readers will remember that there was a huge outcry surrounding the proposal that all GRZ sites would have the mandatory garden requirement removed. On a positive note, this idea has now been abandoned!!!!!

Readers should also remember the persistent claims that council is fully committed to improving landscaping, increasing tree canopy across all of Glen Eira, and implementing the Urban Forest Strategy. The claim then was that with the removal of the mandatory garden requirement this would ensure better landscaping opportunities. So what has council done now to ensure that our tree canopy increases and all principles behind climate change and the growth of the Urban Forest is well on track?

Included below are the pages from the agenda (p144-145) which outline all the new landscaping proposals. The writing in red (and crossed out) shows what is currently in the planning scheme and the green notations are the new recommendations.

Please notice the following:

  • The stated objective on page 144 is to: To strengthen landscape character across Glen Eira. If this is the case, then why are we told that apartments are ‘excluded’!!!!!! Surely apartments, and all GRZ and RGZ areas which would feature apartments are equally part of Glen Eira and deserve some decent landscaping?
  • Gone entirely is the following from the planning scheme: The provision of a minimum of one 8 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of the front boundary. There is also the requirement for canopy trees in rear setbacks as stated with the following: The provision of a minimum of one 6 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of rear boundary in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. However, the resulting new schedules to the NRZ and GRZ zoning completely alter the above standards. All that we now get are these miniscule requirements –

FOR SOME SITES ZONED NRZ the schedules state:

Retain or provide canopy cover equivalent to at least 22 per cent of the site area, including at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback with a minimum mature height equal to the height of the roof OR THE EVEN WORSE ‘STANDARD’ OF – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback.

 FOR THE GRZ AND RGZ ZONING ALL WE GET IS – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one canopy tree within the front setback

Please note that NO MENTION IS MADE OF REAR GARDEN REQUIREMENTS!!!!! Furthermore,  given the reduction of both front, and rear setbacks in some of the proposed schedules, the end result can only be a further deterioration of our tree canopy and the sabotage of all council climate change policies.

Instead of using this opportunity to increase permeability in the GRZ, or at least maintain RESCODE street setbacks, council has forgotten all its promises, its policies, and its commitment to genuine climate change strategies. In short, this new version of the Housing Strategy, is nothing more than a return to the future in that single zoning and their schedules cover all GRZ and RGZ zones whilst others in the NRZ have increased site coverage, and a reduction in their current permeability requirements. In short, we are going backwards in order to cram as many new dwellings into Glen Eira as possible, and regardless of whether or not we need this development!

 

December 20, 2023

Tweedledum & Tweedledee!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Last night’s council meeting confirmed the latest Tweedledum and Tweedledee union between Magee and Cade. As there were only 6 councillors present, Cade exercised her second vote on several important items to ensure that the motions passed.  Zhang was absent as was Athanasopolous – again!

On the May Street issue as to whether this was a ‘road at law’ the vote to note the officer’s report was – Magee, Esakoff, Cade and opposed Zmood and Parasol. Pennicuik abstained. Cade used her casting vote to ensure it got through.

On the Glasshouse relocation at the Caulfield Racecourse Magee moved an amendment that the Queens Road gate be closed from 10pm until 7am instead of being open till 4am every day. Once this was the substantive motion it basically precluded the alternative motion that Szmood foreshadowed. Voting for this amendment were Magee, Cade, Esakoff and opposed Pennicuik, Szmood and Parasol. Cade again used her casting vote to grant the permit.

Thus two major issues got through with plenty of misleading statements by Magee. For example:

  • The MRC has done everything that it was allowed to do! Really? Does this include coming in and removing 42 trees many of them heritage listed, plus buildings, only to be halted by a Heritage Victoria injunction?
  • The May Street issue is over and there’s nothing more that can be done he claimed. Not so! We believe that the ombudsman is now involved. This is just the first step! Both Pennicuik and Szmood stated that they were unsure as to the current status of May St. They implied that the council decision to not recognise May St as a ‘road at law’ lacked all the necessary ‘certainty’.  

In our view, Cade’s performance thus far does not augur well for what may be in store in 2024. Since becoming deputy mayor, and now mayor,  Cade’s performances have seen a 180 degree about face. We remind readers that she voted AGAINST the first Carnegie structure plan as well as the Housing Strategy. One has to query why this sudden turn around and will it continue? Or will she come to truly represent her constituents?

PS: We forgot to mention another item which surely belongs in the world of Monty Python given its nonsensical process. This involved the Hawthorn Road application. Szmood moved an alternate motion that the proposed 4 storey development be reduced to 3 storeys. Supporting this motion were: Pennicuik, Zmood and Esakoff. Opposing the motion were: Parasol, Magee and Cade. Yet, when it came to her casting vote Cade decided to vote FOR THE MOTION!!!! How on earth can you vote AGAINST the alternative and then with your second vote, support it?!!!!!!!!!

 

December 2, 2023

More Sleight Of Hand?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Not for the first time do we have council handing over full control of planning to the Minister and the Department. We ask readers to carefully compare and consider the following screen dumps. They involve adopted amendments and the resolution to send the amendment to the Minister seeking approval for advertising and formal submissions.

The Whitehorse resolution contains no mention of the Minister or the Department as does the Glen Eira one. One may quibble as to the interpretation of ‘intent’ but giving the Minister the right to change whatever he likes can still fit into ‘intent’ given that this basically means to produce documentation for land use.

Here are a couple of other resolutions from Boroondara and Stonnington. Again, note the absence of mention of Minister and/or department.

So why has Glen Eira resorted to the inclusion of this phrasing when other councils haven’t?  The repercussions can be immense as proven previously with the increased heights for Carnegie and Elsternwick through the interim DDO’s. It also means that residents will not have any future say – it will be fait accompli. Instead of ensuring that what was decided upon remains, this clause simply allows more changes without community input.

 

November 24, 2023

Bentleigh Structure Plan – Feedback Summary

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

Once again a whopping agenda that lumps together some of the most important planning issues that confront the community. These are:

  • Bentleigh Structure Plan community feedback
  • Bentleigh East  Neighbourhood Centre amendment
  • Elsternwick Structure Plan amendment
  • Carnegie Structure Plan amendment

Very little has changed in regard to the Major Activity Centres, especially in relation to heights, and overshadowing. All this despite the fact that the majority of responses were opposed to various recommendations in the structure plans and the mooted DDO’s. Carnegie did not even have community consultation following the abandonment of version one (ie Amendment C184)!!!!!!!

We will deal with each of the above as separate posts beginning with the Bentleigh consultation summary.

Bentleigh Community Feedback ‘summary’

  • There were 106 survey responses, 17 emails and a petition of 221 signatories. Council states that it sent out 4,101 letters to surrounding households. The feedback equates to a pathetic 2.56% response rate for the survey. Why? Are Bentleigh residents so apathetic that they don’t care? Have residents given up on believing that their voices can affect outcomes in Glen Eira? Or is there something drastically wrong with the way in which council communicates its intentions? We have yet to see any analyses EVER of why feedback is so low and what can be done to improve this. It serves council well to simply go through the motions of ‘consultation’ despite the fact that survey after survey has been anything but a genuine attempt to elicit relevant and valid responses.
  • Again, we are not privy to the raw data. No publication of the responses as has happened in the past. Instead we have a ‘doctored’ summary that falls far short of reporting on what was actually said/written.
  • Language used remains a problem. The officer’s report is vague and imprecise with terminology such as ‘mixed responses’, ‘about half’, ‘support for accommodating growth’, ‘some support’, etc. Very little is quantified.
  • The summary report itself is nothing more than a public relations exercise. For example: On ‘retaining character’ we find this conclusion in the report – 55 percent of participants indicated that accommodating growth above the commercial strip was better than doing it in other parts of Bentleigh. Ostensibly this sounds like a majority are in favour, but one must query the value of the question itself. There could very well be support for greater density in the commercial core, but THIS DOES NOT MEAN that respondents are in favour of 8 storeys (discretionary) adjacent to heritage homes. The value of any response and what conclusions might be drawn are 100% dependent on the quality of the questions asked. The online survey as we’ve commented on before was carefully engineered to avoid as much as possible any responses that could be interpreted as ‘negative’ or opposed to the recommendations of the structure plan.  
  • The above criticisms can also be directed to this conclusion – 51% of participants indicated they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that measures such as height limits and upper-level setbacks for new development would help to retain the character of Centre Road. Of course people want height limits. But we were never asked what those height limits should be!!!!!!!
  • On page 4 of the summary report we are told that 20 percent of participants indicated they would like a building height limit reduction in the centre when asked about retaining character in a growing centre. This sounds like a clear minority in favour of reduced height limits. But this  alleged 20% is only from those individuals who took the option to write something in the text boxes. And again, no question asked what is an appropriate height limit?
  • More concerning is that the above cited 20% does not correlate with what is then presented in the following table:

 We’ve highlighted all those responses which could be seen as pertaining to the issue of height. The totals are far in excess of the previously stated 20%!!!!!! However, without full publication of all the responses then it is not possible to determine whether the 20% is anywhere near accurate or council’s fudging of the responses. Transparency is again the victim in this reporting.

CONCLUSION(S)

Until this council is prepared to undertake genuine consultation that includes full oversight by councillors and the community engagement committee in the drafting of survey questions then residents cannot hope to be participants in anything but a carefully orchestrated farce that fulfils legal requirements and nothing else. Nor can residents have any confidence in the resulting feedback summaries when the raw data is with-held. When council fights so hard to avoid full disclosure one must surely doubt the results.

As stated earlier, there must be a full analyses of why consultation in Glen Eira is such a failure in terms of community feedback. This should start at the first stage of notification to residents – are they provided with enough detail to engage their interest/concern? Are they expected to undertake hours of reading that involves hundreds of pages instead of succinct summaries? And how many residents have simply given up because they don’t believe that anything they put forward will eventuate? This isn’t apathy we believe. It is simply distrust of council and the predetermined nature of all decision making. If residents truly believed that council was ready to listen and act, then we are confident that feedback would quadruple and that residents could actually believe that council was acting on their behalf. Sadly this is not the modus operandi of Glen Eira City Council!

 

November 1, 2023

Wherefore Art Consistency & Transparency?

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

Lockdowns in Melbourne ended in late 2021. Throughout the past few years council meetings were held in public with residents present in the gallery. During this ‘return to normal’ all public questions asked, irrespective of whether the questioner was present in the gallery or not, were read out, answered, and recorded in the minutes. Yet at the last council meeting without any explanation, council resorted to its ridiculous policy of NOT reading out and answering questions if the resident was not present in the chamber. Nor were the questions recorded in the minutes. Even more bizarre is the fact that previously absent questioners’ names WERE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. Not for the last meeting!

There are other questionable practices that require explanation. For example: historically, all proposed amendments were noted in the ensuing minutes, whether or not they were seconded and if they were seconded a vote taken as to whether the amendment became the substantive motion. Again, the current minutes from last council meeting fail to record an amendment moved by Zyngier and seconded by Pennicuik. Admittedly minutes are not supposed to be a Hansard recording of what was said. But they do have to record what decisions are made in council meetings and the voting on the issue. So we now have another subtle change in what is recorded without explanation and without reference to long standing previous practice.

A quick perusal of previous and recent minutes reveals that on the following dates council minutes DID record amendments as well as the resulting vote(s) in the minutes. The dates are: 8th  June 2021; 9th August 2022; 8th February 2023 and 28th February 2023.

Council’s approach to its governance rules and the lack of consistency certainly requires examination and explanation. But this is more than a simple case of lack of consistency. It harkens back to the central issue of lack of transparency and questions how well this council acts in accordance with its own policies, practices and legislation.

PS: here’s a couple more examples of what a mess council’s governance rules are – or more precisely, how little that is done is in accordance with the existing policies.

  1. The publishing of agendas. According to the governance rules, agendas will be available on the Friday post noon before every ordinary council meeting. Over the past year or so, agendas have come out either late Wednesday afternoon, Thursday, and even late Friday – well after the supposed 12pm time line.
  2. Public questions. We now have the farcical situation that at every council meeting there has to be a motion to bring forward the public question section nearer the beginning rather than towards the end of the meeting as pronounced in the governance rules.

Surely all that is required is for the Local Law to once and for all enshrine the simply procedures so that public questions are heard at the start of all council meetings and that definitive times are imposed on the publishing of agendas.

The governance rules also need to make it absolutely clear as to what will feature in the minutes and the constraints of word limit, and questioners’ presence in council chambers be removed. As it currently stands some questions are well and truly over 150 words, yet are permitted. Others that might be 156 words are deemed to have exceeded the limit and are not read out. The hallmark of what’s been happening is not only inconsistency, but raises the question of why bother having rules and regulations to begin with if they can so easily be ignored and bypassed when it suits.

 

Next Page »