GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

March 25, 2014

Hyams’ Little Temper Tantrums!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[53] Comments 

Former Glen Eira mayor defends public meeting slur

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 21, 2014 11:00AM

A GLEN Eira Council critic has accused two-time mayor and current councillor Jamie Hyams of calling her a “bitch’’ at a public meeting, but he says her account is not accurate.

Rosetta Manaszewicz aired her complaint via a public question at the council’s March 18 meeting and has challenged the council to bring him to account.

She said that at a planning conference on March 3 Cr Hyams “called me, among other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?’’.

Cr Hyams said he used the word, but offered a different account of how he used it, saying he used it as a verb, describing her behaviour.

“You have misrepresented or misheard the words,’’ he said in his reply speech.

He said she contributed to a blog that was relentless in its criticism of the council and the blog carried “baseless and highly defamatory’’ comments about councillors.

Ms Manaszewicz insists Cr Hyams used the word as a noun, to describe her.

Both agree the exchange took place in the foyer of the Caulfield Park Pavillion before a Caulfield Village planning conference, both agree the word was used and both are refusing to back down on their accounts.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was showing a petition to a resident at the time. She said Cr Hyams’ words were unprovoked and something needed to be done.

“There was no misinterpretation in what was said,’’ Ms Manaszewicz said.

“I just think it’s appalling for an elected representative.’’

Cr Mary Delahunty weighed in.

“To refer to someone’s actions as bitching, or indeed to call them a bitch, is derogatory, used in a sexist manner, it’s unacceptable and I’m genuinely aggrieved that council has lowered itself to such a level that a response such as that is read out at an official meeting,’’ Cr Delahunty said.

Last year, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd forced the resignation of the candidate for the safe Labor seat of Hotham, Geoff Lake, amid revelations he verbally abused a wheelchair-bound fellow councillor at a 2002 Monash Council meeting, calling her a “f—ing bitch’’.

That matter went to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission at the time and Mr Lake made admissions and apologised.

Glen Eira Council did not answer Ms Manaszewicz’s questions, instead taking them on notice.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/former-glen-eira-mayor-defends-public-meeting-slur/story-fngnvlpt-1226861034823

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

The public question & Hyams’ response:

On March 3rd at the Caulfield Village planning conference two time ex-mayor Hyams called me, amongst other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does Council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?

The Mayor responded. He said: There are several parts to this question. The first part I can invite Cr Hyams to respond. The second part relates to a Council position. Because of the time constraints we ran out of time to come to a collective Council position so I will take the second part On Notice.

Cr Hyams provided a response. He said: “You have misrepresented or misheard the words I used. I didn’t call you a bitch. I used the word as a verb to the effect that you just bitch. It is possible I also used the word whine and said you whine and bitch, but I don’t think so.

The context was that I came across you trying to have a resident sign a petition that called for a Royal Commission into, among other things, alleged conflict of interest of councillor trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, of which I am one. Had this been the sole cause of my comments, they would have been unwarranted. However, that is far from the case.

Glen Eira Council is, by any measure, a well-performing Council. We consistently perform well in public surveys, our rates are among the lowest in Melbourne and the Auditor General regularly praises our performance and compliance. Recent achievements such as GESAC and the new residential planning zones have been widely lauded by many both within Glen Eira and from other councils. Just to name a few of our successes.

You, however, appear to devote a large part of your life to attempting to make this Council look as bad as possible. You are an administrator of and major contributor to an anonymous hate blog that is relentless in its criticism of this Council. In the time
that I read it, I never once saw a post (as opposed to a comment) that had anything positive to say about this Council, and while I have not bothered reading it in over a year, others have assured me that nothing has changed.

You are often seen at Council consultations trying to propagate your critical views around the entrance and I am also assured by others who attend Council meetings that at the end of each meeting, you chase after any journalists who attend to try to have them write about your negative impressions of the meeting.

To give just a few specific examples, when Crs Esakoff, Lipshutz and I were appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, you organised and submitted a petition calling for us to be replaced as trustees because, according to you, we did not adequately represent the community. You somehow thought that your opinion and those of the 100 or so who you managed to have sign your petition were more important than the nearly 17,000 residents and ratepayers of Glen Eira who voted for one of the three of us to represent them, returning us first in our respective wards.

Your blog has also carried baseless and highly defamatory allegations that I and other councillors have been corrupt in our dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club and the C60 development, and I am reliably informed that you have been personally
circulating these allegations. I am still considering my options in relation to that matter.

In 2009, you were pushing for a review of Council’s dog off-leash areas, and adamant that Harlock Jackson should carry out the review. This was done, by Harlock Jackson, and resulted in a considerable increase in off-leash areas across Glen Eira. However, you still strongly criticised the review and the process, including at a public consultation meeting held by Harlock Jackson as part of the review.

I believe that Councillors are entitled to express their feelings as long as they do so in a way that accords with the expectations of our civic society, and, in this case, for many reasons including those set out above, my comments were acceptable.”

Cr Delahunty. Statement pursuant to Glen Eira Local Law 232(2)(f).

“I accept that Council has taken part of the Public Question on notice but I am aggrieved by the reply in such that it seeks to somehow wash away the language that was used. I find the language that was used to be offensive no matter whether or not you agree with the persons views. I don’t think it’s appropriate for elected representatives, adults, anyone to refer to someone’s actions as bitching or to call them a bitch is derogatory, is used in a really sexist manner is completely unacceptable. I don’t think views held that differ will ever make that acceptable and I am genuinely aggrieved that the Council has literally lowered itself to the level whereby that sort of response was read out at an official meeting. It is sad.”

 

March 24, 2014

What A Joke!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

An astute reader has raised a very interesting point about Tuesday night’s council meeting. It concerns the little private tete a tete between Newton and Okotel when both left the chamber. Okotel was seeking ‘advice’ after being challenged by Delahunty.  Newton presumably provided this ‘advice’. This raises countless questions in itself:

  1. We do not remember such an incident ever taking place in Glen Eira before. The ‘normal’ course of events is that all ‘advice’ has been provided in chamber and usually by Burke. Why was this conducted outside of chamber?
  2. Could the question of potential conflict of interest be applied to Newton himself since he was an integral part of the ‘negotiating team’ for the ‘agreement’ which involved crown land in the centre of the racecourse?
  3. Okotel’s explanation featured conversations that took place in the pre-meeting. Council’s code of conduct precludes a councillor from making public any information from such meetings unless it has the approval of the ‘councillor group’. Since 3 councillors were not in the chamber, and others were definitely not asked for their agreement, we wonder whether Okotel in fact breached the code of conduct?!!!!!!!

What all of this shows is the circus that parades as good governance in Glen Eira.

 

March 22, 2014

Records Of Assembly

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

Lipshutz moved to accept. Seconded by Okotel

Lipshutz had ‘nothing to add’. Lobo spoke ‘against’.

LOBO: said that in the past he had ‘expressed my reservations’ about the records of assembly in that the minutes are ‘altered, changed, replaced’. Agreed that there couldn’t be ‘details’ but that council shouldn’t ‘be permitted without the consensus of everyone’ to change things.Thought that ‘changing and replacing’ would have ‘implications’ down the track ‘such as conflicts of interest’.

PILLING: said that he knows that Lobo has raised this before but he was confident that ‘process’ was being followed and it’s ‘good’ to be ‘diligent in the upkeeping’ of the ‘policies’.  

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that ‘no one is changing these minutes’ and if they come to council ‘they are the minutes’ and if councillors decide to change anything ‘they do so at this meeting’ and ‘nowhere else’. Even though Lobo has raised the issue he agrees with Pilling that ‘process is being followed’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

 

March 20, 2014

Item 9.3 – Part 2

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

MAGEE: outlined the leases – $45,000 for ‘head lease’; Neerim Road stables ‘$10,000 a year’. Explained how much properties near the racecourse pay and noted a McDonald’s store pays $180,000 rent per annum and Hungry Jacks pays $271,000 per annum in rent. All the racecourse is paying is ‘around $80,000’.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s much that we don’t know’ and she certainly didn’t know as much as Magee but she does know some things by ‘virtue of having met with people from the MRC’. Said that she knows that leases are currently being ‘negotiated’ and that they’ve ‘expired’ but been ‘extended’ to give more time to the negotiations. Stated that there had been 2 separate valuations – by two sections of the trust. These two valuations are so vastly different that ‘they can’t come to agreement’ about how much to charge. As a result an ‘independent body must be involved’ and that’s the valuer general. Also said that to get this done then council has to ‘take the steps’ that Magee proposes. Stated that council’s position was that it wasn’t getting the ‘commercial returns’ from crown land and therefore it was an ‘inappropriate situation’ for residents everywhere. Even though this might be a little ‘late’ given the current lease negotiations when both valuations from the trust are ‘so different’ it’s still important to ‘take a stand right now’. (time extnesion at this point). Stated that council thought the reserve should be ‘governed by a committee of management’ and the money from the rents go back to the governing body which will ‘disperse that’ for the 3 purposes that were in the original grant – ie public park and recreation. This would be very ‘timely’ when considered against the need for ‘how much public open space in that part of Caulfield’ given population increase and that these people shouldn’t be ‘looking out the window at horses training and nothing else’ on the racecourse.’ Essential that all commercial activities on the land be ‘valued properly’. What ‘really’ makes ‘me sick’ is the ‘pokies on crown land’ and therefore ‘government subsidised gambling’. Didn’t want to ‘put up with’ this and it was ‘an absolute disgrace’.

PILLING THEN ASKED IF MAGEE AND DELAHUNTY WOULD BE PREPARED TO REMOVE PART 2A OF THEIR MOTION. BOTH REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL. Pilling then asked for speakers against the motion.

OKOTEL: said that she wasn’t against the entire motion just part 2A. Thought it was ‘important’ that there is an independent ‘watch dog’ to see exactly what the land’s worth and she ‘endorses’ the comments on that. She was against 2A because the negotiations had been ongoing for some time and were ‘about to conclude’ so to ask the Minister now ‘to step in’ is poor because ‘my understanding is that the minister would be reluctant to step in’. Also if council asked him then the outcome might only be to ‘frustrate the negotiations’ and could only damage the ‘relationships’ that council has with the MRC and therefore ‘not be to the benefit of residents’. Didn’t think that having both 2A and 2B ‘doesn’t make sense’ since it should be ‘either/or’. She thought that the ‘best for the public interest’ would only be the motion about the valuer general coming in to ‘review the lease when it is finalised’. At that stage council would be ‘informed as to what is in the lease’ and therefore that’s preferable to the current situation where ‘we’re in the dark’. Said that once the lease is signed then ‘it will be brought to light’ and then council may ‘have input into it’.

SOUNNESS: realised that council has got ‘representatives’ (ie councillor reps) and that they’re trying to represent council ‘as best as possible’ but they’re ‘only 3 voices’. Said he ‘recognised’ that the trust was an ‘opaque body’ and a lot of ‘questionable decisions’ in its history. Thought that this was ‘a bit of a risky manoeuvre’ when one set of decisions are replaced with another and ‘that may not necessarily produce a good outcome’. He’d ‘heard’ a lot about the racecourse and it was a major issue and would ‘always be messy’. His ‘experience’ of such bodies is that they ‘do occasionally go rogue’ but they can be brought back ‘into line’ with ‘political will’. Gave the example of Fox and the sea front land. So he thought this was a ‘risky scenario’ but overall ‘still a worthwhile one’.

LOBO: judging by what Magee has outlined it ‘looks like Mickey Mouse’ is ‘handling the place’. Asked if this was ‘democracy in Australia and Glen Eira in particular’. Claimed that there’s no democracy but ‘soft dictatorship’ . Pilling then interrupted and said that the comments were ‘unwarranted’. Lobo responded with ‘okay’. Thought that the 8500 sq metres was ‘daylight robbery’ and that council didn’t get ‘a cent’ from any of the money collected. Crown land he claimed was given to the people but it’s ‘only council’ who are fighting and that ‘the people of Glen Eira have to get together’ and ‘not only write on blogs’ or ‘letters’. Urged people to ‘make yourself known’ and to ‘shake them up’. Said that the motion ‘may be a bit late’  but it’s like a ‘child being born at the last moment’ and decisions have to be made. Stated that the councillor trustees ‘should work’ towards getting the best for residents because it’s residents ‘who have put us in’ and the trustees ‘don’t tell us anything confidential’. People can’t go to meetings. Everyone has to ‘take the bull by the horn’ and if not this will continue ‘for another 150 years’.

DELAHUNTY THEN ASKED OKOTEL THAT SINCE SHE SAID SHE HAD ‘FURTHER INFORMATION’ IN THAT THE LEASES NEGOTIATIONS WERE ‘ABOUT TO CONCLUDE’ whether Okotel could ‘elaborate on her understanding of that’ and ‘how she’s come to that understanding’.

OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding comes from confidential discussions’. Wanted ‘advice’ then about what she could say. Pilling then said that she could clarify what she meant and whether ‘she meant to say those words’.DELAHUNTY THEN INTERVENED AND SAID THAT IF OKOTEL IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ‘CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE’ WHO HAVE ALREADY DECLARED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THEN SHE SHOULD ALSO LEAVE THE ROOM AND NOT BE PART OF THE DEBATE. Pilling said that ‘it’s up to her to clarify’. OKOTEL THEN AGAIN WANTED TO ‘TAKE ADVICE’. At this point major confusion with Burke muttering in Pilling’s ear. He then basically ‘adjourned’ whilst Okotel and Newton left the chamber. They returned in about 2 to 3 minutes.

People in the gallery then complained that they couldn’t hear what she was saying – ‘not a word’.

OKOTEL: said that she had this question ‘in my mind’ in the ‘pre-meeting’ and that the 3 councillors weren’t in that meeting. Said that in this meeting she asked ‘how far away’ are the negotiations from being completed and that she thought this was ‘pertinent’ as to whether there would ‘be time’ for the ‘minister to get involved’ and that Magee told her ‘that we don’t have much time’. Reiterated that Magee said this whilst the others weren’t in the room.

Pilling then asked Delahunty if this ‘satisfied’ her.

DELAHUNTY: ‘it does’ but it confirms that it’s ‘conjecture and not actual knowledge’. Then asked if ‘any councillor’ has spoken to or ‘been lobbied by any of the three councillors who have declared a conflict of interest and left the room’. All councillors said ‘no’.

PILLING: agreed with Okotel on 2A because it was ‘pretty late in the piece’  and it’s a ‘blunt instrument’. Said that 2A in its second part ‘doesn’t achieve what we want’ . It’s got ‘limited value’ . Said he ‘acknowledge the general passion’ but wasn’t ‘sure this is the best way to go’. thought 2A was ‘counter-productive’ and that blame should be laid on ‘successive state governments’.

MAGEE: one of the valuations was ‘just on one million dollars a year’. Said that he’s got ‘no issues’ the MRC ‘as an entity’. They do a ‘great job in administering the racecourse’ and they do what ‘they’re allowed to do’. Nor does he have issues with ‘our three council trustees’. claimed that they’ve been ‘very generous’ to him ‘with their information’ and they’ve ‘told council what they’re allowed to discuss’ and he ‘respects how they’re conducting themselves’. Said that in July 2012 he wrote a letter to the Premier asking for appropriate ‘governance arrangements’ relating to leases. Said that ‘shortly after that I was removed’ and that’s the first time in 150 that a trustee hasn’t been reappointed. The only response he got from the Premier was that the matter was in the hands of Minister Smith and he hasn’t heard from Smith. Went on and referred to the Select Committee on crown lands emphasising that this committee represented all political parties. Since 2008 ‘not one action has taken place’ since the report. (an extension of one minute). Read from the report regarding lack of minutes,meetings closed to public and lack of public park. Ended up by saying that the Trustees weren’t the right body ‘to administer’ the leases or the land and it ‘should be a committee of management’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR: MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, SOUNNESS. VOTING AGAINST: PILLING AND OKOTEL

PS: we are in error. It has been pointed out to us that when Delahunty asked each councillor if they had been lobbied by any of Hyams, Lipshutz or Esakoff that Pilling did not answer the question. We wonder why!

 

March 19, 2014

Item 9.3: Racecourse & Valuer General – Part 1

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

We’ve broken discussion on this item into 2 parts due to its length.

Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect conflict of interest’. Magee moved an alternate ‘motion/recommendation’ apart from ‘noting the report’. Also included was that the Minister for Crown Lands be approached and asked to ‘take over’ lease negotiations with the MRC; for the Valuer General to review the leases ‘before it gets signed’ and to complete a ‘review of all current leases’. Magee also asked for a ‘review’ of the landswap and that the Auditor General ‘conduct an audit performance’. He also wanted government to go back to the Select Committee Review and consider their recommendations. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said the issue was ‘complex’ and that he’d been a trustee, chairman of the trustees and also on the lease committee. Stated that he’s a ‘hoarder’ and kept a lot of information. This was a ‘serious’ matter and wanted a ‘serious’ response from minister and government. The Trustees are about to ‘enter’ into a 21 year lease with the MRC and ‘that’s fine’ but ‘when you look at’ history’, ‘makeup’ and ‘track record’ of the Trustees then it isn’t fine because since some of the trustees are members of the MRC then they are ‘adjudicating on a lease to themselves’. He also thought that ‘at least 2 other members’ belong to the MRC. This makes him think that there is some conflict of interest. Quoted from the minutes of a Trustee meeting from 2011 where (reading) it said that Magee raised the issue of conflict of interest and the resolution was that ‘advice’ be sought from the Government Solicitor. They got an answer and Magee quoted again and paraphrased from the long letter that ‘the public can reasonably form the view that conflict exists’. Also mention of ‘improper influences’.

Went on to say that the current chairman also tabled documents at meetings  that ‘he believes’ that there was a conflict of interest with the MRC members. The chairman (Greg Sword) ‘also sits on the lease committee’. So even though they ‘know’ there is a conflict of interest ‘the process continues’.

Stated that the trustees do include ‘experienced’ and ‘decent’ people. Referred to the landswap from 2009 of the ‘Tabaret carpark’ and the land at the end of Glen Eira Road was part of the deal. The Trustees ‘might have’ thought this was a ‘good deal’ and voted for it.

AT THIS POINT PILLING SAID THAT MAGEE HAD ‘REACHED’ HIS FIVE MINUTES. MAGEE ASKED FOR AN ‘EXTENSION OF TEN MINUTES’. Pilling said that he would give Magee 2 minutes. Magee said that after all these years, this is ‘a very serious issue’ and wasn’t happy with 2 minutes. Also said that he thought it was ‘incumbent on me to explain’ all the information that he’s got. Pilling then stated that he was worried about other councillors getting a say. Delahunty then moved that Magee gets a 10 minute extension. This was seconded by Lobo. Put to the vote and PILLING USED HIS CASTING VOTE TO DEFEAT THE MOTION. VOTING FOR: Lobo, Magee, Delahunty. Against: Okotel, Sounness and Pilling. (Mutterings from the gallery at this point!)

Magee then continued for a lesser time allocation after Delahunty moved another motion.

MAGEE: quoted again from the minutes relating to the landswap where he raised the issue of the ‘status’ of the landswap and whether it would be ‘returned to the Crown’. Said that this means that the Trustees ‘had no idea what they were voting for’ and that they were ‘giving away 8500’ sq metres and they ‘got back nothing’. The trustees job is to ‘protect the reserve’ and all they’ve done is to ‘give away 8500 square metres’. Magee then read from the minutes his question as to whether the landswap or any part of it was to ‘become part of the reserve’ and whether they knew. ‘No’ was the answer. Magee then asked the rhetorical question about how they could be responsible for land that they ‘gave away’ without even knowing they’d given it away. Also asked what they thought at the time and what advice they’d been given and which of the trustees who voted for and against the landswap. Magee said that he asked this 3 times wanting to see the minutes of these meetings. THEY COULDN’T FIND THE MINUTES – ‘THE MINUTES HAD BEEN LOST’. So here’s a ‘group’ about to sign a 21 year lease for a 2 billion dollar asset and they can’t even do the proper paperwork. Magee then cited 2010 minutes on ‘2 leases’ where there hadn’t been ‘any advice on what the value was’. These leases and the relevant paperwork also ‘couldn’t be located’ he read from the minutes. Amazingly the trustees end up asking the ‘person they leased it to, to give them a copy’. The lease for Aquinita Lodge to the Freeman Brothers was also incapable of ‘being located by the Trust’. Said that the Trustees ‘are not capable’ of administering the reserve and ‘doing the right thing’.

Said that when he became chairman the first question he asked was ‘what is the racecourse worth?’ They asked the Valuer General who recommended a certain company who has done leases for big sites like Southbank etc.Magee then itemised some of the leases – ie Grandstand – $45,000pa.

Pilling then told Magee that his 5 mintues are up and that he should ‘consider other councillors’ and that he’s got the 3 minute summation time ‘at the end’. Magee said he would be ‘as quick as I can’.  Delahunty then moved that Magee be given 2 minutes extension. Seconded by Lobo. This time only Okotel and Pilling voted against.

 

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.
 

February 27, 2014

Public Questions

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

Another two instances reveal what a joke Council Minutes are turning into. The (infamous) Lipshutz Right of Reply fails to include his little ‘addendum’ that was not in the printed agenda version. This in itself calls into question council’s Local Law since it specifies that all rights of reply have to be published in the agenda. Lipshutz’s concluding paragraph (relating the experience of a relative under Nazism) was not in the agenda. This was an ‘add on’ and has now been left out of the draft minutes.

The far more important omission from the minutes relates to a public question where a resident asked why previous minutes did not include the Delahunty phrase ‘be provided’. By excluding this phrase, the administration is not ORDERED to produce the vital traffic management studies on surrounding streets to the Caulfield Village Development. The fact that time and again councillors sit in silence and accept the distortion of history without a whimper should give residents an insight into the machinations that occur in this council and the integrity of those who sit in chambers.

Below are a selection of these public questions and their non-answers.

Question – On December 17th 2013 Cr Delahunty stated that Council had undertaken some ‘recent’ traffic studies on Queen’s Avenue, Eskdale Road and the surrounds of Sir John Monash Drive. I ask:
(1) Why have these studies not been placed in the public domain so that residents may be privy to all relevant information that could help inform their submissions to the MRC Development Plan?
(2) Why have the minutes of this December 17th meeting not included Delahunty’s words that the studies be ‘provided’ – presumably to councillors and potentially the public?
(3) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with hard copies of these studies? If so, when?
(4) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with verbal reports of these studies? If so, when?”

Response –

1. Generally ‘traffic studies’ are undertaken by Council on an ongoing basis. Detailed traffic studies have been (and are continuing to be) undertaken by Caulfield Village’s traffic engineers to determine the extent and appropriateness of the required traffic management works as part of Amendment C60. These studies have been placed in the public domain. In turn, Council’s traffic engineers are reviewing the traffic studies to ensure that the appropriate analysis is undertaken.
2. At the Council Meeting on 4 February 2014 Council unanimously confirmed the Minutes of the 17 December 2013 Council Meeting without any changes to the Minutes.
3. Councillors were provided with written advice in January 2014 that provided information about the Queens Avenue / Normanby Road intersection, the Queens Avenue / Sir John Monash Drive roundabout, Eskdale Road and pedestrian conditions in Queens Avenue.
4. I refer you to 3 above.”

COMMENT

It should be carefully noted that ‘reviewing’ the MRC’s traffic studies is not what Delahunty requested. Secondly ‘written advice’ is not the same as providing councillors with the hard copy studies themselves. It is more than likely that it is a short memo crafted by the admin. We further believe that no councillor has as yet clapped eyes on the traffic studies.

Question – In 2011 Council rejected C60 Panel’s view that there shouldn’t be preferred maximum height limits near Monash University. On 10 October 2013 Council voted not to oppose the changes sought by the developer through Ministerial Amendment C111, to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the Caulfield Mixed Use Incorporated Plan, which removed height limits from that portion of C60.

What were Council’s reasons for supporting the removal of height limits from a portion of the precinct, and what were Council’s reasons for deciding to exempt balconies when assessing fit with the specified building envelope, which makes it inconsistent with the rest of the Planning Scheme, and why were the details of the changes being sought not included in the Agenda or Minutes? Was Council misled about the extent of the changes that it voted on and ultimately supported?

Response –

Council officers identified what was a DTPLI’s error with respect to the Smith Street height limits in the approved documentation for Amendment C111. The height limit was not proposed to be altered by Council under Amendment C111. The DTPLI has acknowledged its error and is currently in the process of reinstating the height limit within the Smith Street precinct to reflect the maximum height limit of 120m AHD (typically 20 storeys).

With respect to balcony projections, it is common for minor building intrusions to be disregarded in setback distances prescribed. The State Government’s Rescode specifically states that verandahs, porches, pergolas and eaves are allowable encroachments. It is noted that if Council is not ultimately happy with the extent of any balcony intrusions, it can either condition a development plan to alter or remove the intrusions or refuse the development plan outright.

COMMENT

Another example of the incompetence of both Council and the Department as we have previously commented. More importantly, the reference to ResCode is quite laughable and designed to camouflage the truth since ResCode does not apply to buildings of this proposed height. Add to this that to the best of our knowledge there is nothing in the MRC’s plans which indicate the EXTENT OF INTRUSION in the ‘sacrosanct’ set backs, nor is this spelt out in the officer’s report, and we have before us in this response the biggest con job of all time.

From the in camera items we have this notice:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

Note that the proceedings brought by Council have been settled by the payment to Council of $2,000,000.00 and that this part of the resolution be incorporated in the public Minutes of this Meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENT

This really does not tell us a thing since:

1. Council was still with-holding close to $2M from the original contract
2. It does not state who is paying for lawyers
3. Nor does it tell us if any penalties were applied
4. Nor does it tell us if the counter claim by Hansen and Yuncken is still going ahead

PS: And to completely shatter the myth of a ‘united’ councillor group here is the Lobo gem taken from the minutes –

Cr Lobo: “I foreshadow a right of reply at the next Council Meeting.
Cr Lipshutz is yet to apologise to me for asking me in writing if my previous employers in Middle East and I were involved in terrorism and then dismissing the written words as innocuous, a word he has used again in tonight’s
meeting.
When Councillor Lipshutz apologies to me in writing then he might be in a position to lecture on appropriate behaviour to the friends of Caulfield.

 

February 25, 2014

Shonky, Shonky, Shonky!

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

Tonight’s council meeting started with a whimper and ended with a real bang – especially in relation to the public questions and the Delahunty Request for a Report. Here is just a brief summary of what occurred. Details of all council’s shenanigans will be up over the next few days. The most important things to note are:

  • Glen Eira Debates takes a lot of the credit for pointing out the continual stuff ups that this Council and the Department oversees. Our recent post highlighted the discrepancy between the 2009 and the November 2013 ‘preferred height limits’ in the respective Incorporated Plans for the Caulfield Village. Well, lo and behold, this was another ‘clerical error’ and the Department is now working on correcting it!
  • Councillors have not got a copy of council’s ‘recent’ (pre December 2013) traffic analysis. The answer to this public question basically said that the Caulfield Village people (not to be confused with the Village People!) have done extensive studies and that’s what is basically relied upon. We wonder if these bunnies have even bothered to DEMAND access to these reports or as with the Redan St. stuff up they still maintain their unshakeable faith in the abilities of the traffic department?
  • Delahunty requested a report that sought the Valuer General’s estimation of the ‘value’ of the Caufield Racecourse Reserve. She stated that he had never been approached to provide a valuation. Please note: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF did NOT DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND VOTED ON THIS ITEM.
  • Pilling will be chairing the Planning Conference on Monday evening. We maintain that this represents ANOTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
  • Our final comment relates to the foreshadowing by Lobo of his Right of Reply to Lipshutz asking him (years ago now!) whether the banks he had worked for were in any way associated with terrorism?
 

February 6, 2014

More Smoke & Mirrors & Achieving Nothing!

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

This post features the ‘discussion’ on visitor car parking and Esakoff’s motion. Readers should focus on part (c)

Crs Esakoff/Okotel

That Council:

(a) Notes the report.

(b) Acknowledges that each multi-dwelling planning permit application contains a different set of circumstances. Therefore, the provision of onsite visitor car parking must be considered on the individual merits of the particular application being assessed.

(c) Request further investigation in to pathways, such as fast track assessment processes, that encourage and promote provision of adequate, accessible visitor car parking, especially in areas where parking demand is already high and in growth areas in general.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ESAKOFF: said that by inserting the extra clause in the motion that she ‘hoped’ to ‘encourage’ an extra pathway for ‘adequate and accessible visitor car parking’ – in particular in those areas where there is already ‘high demand’ for parking. Thought this meant ‘predominantly’ Carnegie and to ‘a lesser extent’ Bentleigh. Stated that parking rates are ‘discretionary’ and she thought that this motion was a ‘tool’ or a ‘mechanism to reduce building costs’ .  Went on to say that if visitor car parking is provided at all then it ‘shouldn’t be in car stackers’ in basements, but ‘we’re seeing more and more of them’. Her aim was to ‘promote’ and ‘encourage applicants’ to work within the ‘pathway’ ‘similar to the way we offer the faster and more efficient’ fast tracks programs or ‘pre-certification process’ and this could be done ‘via a tick all the box system’ and these can then be ‘swiftly’ and ‘efficiently be processed through the planning department’. Would also cut ‘costs for developers’ such as ‘saving time’ and reducing ‘angst in neighbourhoods’ where these applications apply. In turn, this would ‘then prevent another delay at VCAT’. All of this would mean a ‘faster and more efficient process’ that would also have to adhere to other planning components. But she’ fear(ed)’ that ‘we are degrading our present liveable city’ into a ‘nightmare’ for people living near activity centres. Admitted that not all councillors would agree with her because they wanted to reduce cars in these areas and providing car parking doesn’t do this in their view. On this she said that this is likely to be ‘a very slow change’ and is something for future generations. So, ‘in the meantime we need to address the problem’. Activity centres have changed from ‘predominantly retail’ to now have many residential apartments, and restaurants and cafes that are ‘open to very late at night’  so ‘parking demands are long into the evening’. She thought that ‘they can only get worse and not better’. Her motion therefore was aimed at ‘attacking this from a planning perspective’ and to ‘provide adequate provision now’.

COMMENT

Please note how devoid of anything relating to residents is the above argument. How on earth the equivalent of a fast track system or similar will CHANGE the outcomes of more or less visitor parking remains a total mystery. Once again this council creates the illusion of concern for residents, but fails to attack the central problem – ie. not processes but making dramatic changes to the Planning Scheme, such as parking overlays, parking precinct plans, and creating sound schedules that become mandatory!  It’s also illuminating that all of Esakoff’s little speech basically focuses on benefits to developers. Please also note that Esakoff is in favour of a ‘tick the box’ approach, when this has consistently been condemned by Hyams, for one, and overall Glen Eira policy statements!

OKOTEL: claimed that Esakoff had ‘covered all the points’ on the issue. Thought that it was ‘essential that we investigate pathways’ for visitor car parking especially since ‘we see more and more applciations’ in activity centres for waivers.  ‘This is something that will continue to happen under our current policy’ so council needs to ‘pay attention now’ and if they don’t it will ‘possibly cause a lot of problems’ such as accidents from traffic and people ‘enjoying’ their ‘municipality’. 

COMMENT: Okotel has unwittingly undermined Esakoff with her statement ‘this is something that will continue to happen under our current policy’. Exactly! Implicit in this statement is the acknowledgement that the Planning Scheme is a dud and however much tinkering there is with ‘process’, unless the Scheme changes, then all will stay the same! 

SOUNNESS: started by saying that dwelling and ‘having a place to park’ cars are linked. Having somewhere to park is ‘common sense’. Said he recognised that there are ‘benefits’ and that it’s important to know whether there is an ‘excess’ of ‘demand over supply’. The advice that has come from Traffic Management to staff  know how things ‘operate’ in other municipalities so having ‘more information’ is good. 

PILLING: said that Esakoff was probably referring to someone like him when she spoke about opposite viewpoints. He thought that ‘by encouraging visitor car parking brings more cars’. Thought that having more cars in places like ‘Koornang Road’ and Murrumbeena Road only ‘exacerbates the problem’. Said that he would ‘vote in favour’ because ‘it’s always good to have more information’. 

HYAMS: thought that people would be driving cars and hoping ‘that they would find somewhere to park’. Believed that developers should provide car parking that ‘at the least is recommended by ResCode’ instead of ‘trying to shift’ this onto streets and wanted to see developers ‘abide’ by this.

ESAKOFF: thought that ‘demand for car parking’ is going to creep into ‘our Minimal Change’ areas. Said that driving around ‘there’s very few car parking spaces left on the street’. Didn’t know if this is a result of more teenagers with cars or people ‘not using their garages’. Streets ‘are full now’ and ‘we’re going to be in a great deal of trouble’ if the problem ‘isn’t addressed now’. Admitted that there are other councils who aren’t providing any visitor parking but ‘they are predominantly inner suburbs’ and ‘what goes on’ in these suburbs is ‘not clearly what Glen Eirians want’. Went on to say that mothers with prams need to be able to park close to ‘where they’re going’ and this also applies to ‘the elderly’ and ‘the disabled’. Stated that there are ‘many reasons’ why people use and need cars. Hoped that ‘we can do something with this new pathway’ and that ‘it is a success’. 

COMMENT 

1. On the one hand Esakoff talks as if this nebulous ‘pathway’ is already in existence. Sounness and Pilling want ‘more information’. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in the motion that directs when or how, any ‘investigation’ and its ensuing ‘information’ will be (a) reported back to councillors (b) reported back to Council and a vote taken! Nor is there any clear direction as to exactly what is to be investigated – are we talking ‘supply and demand’? Area versus number of residents? Street availability for parking to accompany each application? And then what?  

Conclusion? Another useless exercise in public relations reliant on vagueness and which still leaves plenty of room for backroom decision making. In the meantime, the central problem (ie Planning Scheme) remains untouched! Well done councillors!

 

February 4, 2014

Council Meeting: Same Old, Same Old!

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

Both Lobo and Delahunty were apologies for tonight’s Council Meeting. Here are the lowlights:

  • Lipshutz played the race/religious card again in announcing that next council meeting he would be putting together a formal statement about the Friends of Caulfield Park’s newsletter which used the term “storm troopers” in response to Council dawn removal of 21 trees.
  • Visitor car parking item had Esakoff crying crocodile tears with her added clause to the motion that council investigate some tools to alleviate the worsening parking situation.
  • Car share trial got up – begging the question of course, as to why this couldn’t have been resolved one year ago
  • Public questions revealed that the Dover Street car park ‘redevelopment’ was to lose another tree but gain more yellow brick roads and concrete plinthing. The question called for details. The answer was ‘generalities’.
  • Apart from these items, this was a quick, self-congratulatory meeting where Glen Eira was ‘tracking well’ and compared to other councils, the best in the state according to some councillors!

Finally, and we will be making a major post on this tomorrow, the minutes were accepted without any correction. Needless to say, they are not an accurate or true reflection of a resolution that was passed on December 17th! Keep watching this space!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »