GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 27, 2012

What A Welcoming, Flexible Council This Is!

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

The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.

GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT

Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.

DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how  a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.

LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.

ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.

AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.

Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)

We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.

 

November 16, 2012

Shame! Shame! Shame!

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

This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.

Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.

Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity,  jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”

However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”

 
Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.

In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.

In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
 Community needs
 Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
 Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
 Government policy on open space contributions
 Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
 Access for all abilities
 Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
 Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
 Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
 and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.

Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
 providing opportunities for participants,
 conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
 exhibiting good governance
 respecting public facilities
 and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.

In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.

Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”

 

November 15, 2012

Hot Air Galore!

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

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz

PILLING: strategy for new policy  is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’

MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.

PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS,  LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.

MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.

SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.

MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.

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

GESAC COURT USAGE

PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.

LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.

DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.

HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.

PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

November 13, 2012

Too Late She Cried……..

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[19] Comments 

This post features a report on the 12 storey application on Dandenong Road. We ask readers to carefully assess the arguments presented by each councillor since we feel they are extraordinary and in fact, represent an admission of total failure to plan and protect residential amenity.

Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Magee have now been on council for a period ranging from 9 to 4 years. Not once throughout this time have any of them been willing to address the issue of height limits in Glen Eira. Not once have any of them insisted (in public) that Glen Eira Council applies for interim or permanent height controls. Now we have the nonsense argument that since there is no policy we can’t knock back entirely such applications. But, with the planning zone reforms they will finally look at height controls. It’s anyone’s guess if these height controls will be anything less than 8 storeys for activity zones.

Here’s the ‘debate’. Lobo was on ‘leave of absence’ until December.

Esakoff moved an alternate motion. Instead of 12 storeys the application be reduced to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings and that only 20% of dwellings be reliant on artificial light and car parking be 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and not less than 48 retail car parking spaces. Seconded by Pilling.

ESAKOFF: said that her motion basically ‘halves’ the number of levels and reduced the number of units from 173 to 97. Her motion also ‘brings back the scale of the building where it will fit more comfortably into the surrounds’ but will still allow this development where it is “most appropriate along Dandenong Road”. Stated that she was concerned that there would be more traffic congestion along Koornangk Road therefore “the reduction in the number of dwellings is appropriate”….’although clearly there will still be an increase in car movements’. Concerned about the borrowed light and ‘my preference would be that all apartments’ have natural light but that this isn’t unusual these days when people go to VCAT. Even though council’s traffic department said that 35 car parks were sufficient for the retail section she felt that 48 should be available in ‘accordance with the requirements’. A sign would also have to be placed to let people know that no residential parking permits will be given out for this development so that people who are thinking of buying or renting will know the situation.

PILLING: supported Esakoff because it was ‘more modest’ even though the site is ‘right for development’ and is in a “fairly unique part of Carnegie’ but he does ‘have problems with the 12 storeys’. Went on to explain that in Carnegie currently most buildings are four stories even though VCAT did allow a couple of 5 storeys recently, so to go ‘from 5 to 12 is…too much for this area’. Said that “it was never envisaged that Carnegie would have 12 storey towers’ but that the alternative of 8 storeys “is appropriate”. Said that council needed to look at heights in some areas to give “better surety” to people.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he always wanted to be consistent in that ‘development should be reasonable’ but in this case he supports the officer’s recommendation for 12 storeys. Argued that he would agree with Pilling if this was in a ‘quiet residential street’ but this is on Dandenong Road with a railway line and ‘doesn’t impact on any housing’ or overshadowing. ‘Where else are we going to have high density housing?”. Said that the government supports high density housing but that he doesn’t want that in ‘our quiet residential streets’ or some of the main streets in Glen Eira, but Dandenong Road is okay. Went on to ask ‘why is 12 storeys wrong’? Agreed that there would be an impact on traffic though but that would happen regardless of whether it was 8 storeys or 12 storeys. Further, this is a ‘high quality building’ and not cheap and nasty. The area is mainly commercial/industrial and there’s nothing really nice about it and this would ‘improve the area’. If the application was for anywhere else he would support the alternate motion but not this time. “I see nothing wrong with this building in this particular site”.

MAGEE: said that he’s got his own little ‘checklist’ and that before he makes a decision he asks whether the application is in a Major Activity Centre, and this is. It also ‘meets the State Planning Policy Framework’. Asked ‘where are the reasons to object to this?’ It meets state planning policy, is in a Housing Diversity Area and that earlier in the year council voted to turn this ‘into a business 2 zone’, so ‘intense development is encouraged in that area’. Also part of the urban village policy ‘which encourages high residential density’ in these areas. Further no problems with director of public transport nor vic roads and parks, waste management and no-one thought there was an issue or problem. What the problem is, is that ‘the framework is not there….because we have set no height limits. There is no height limits set by us in the past’ but there is an ‘opportunity’ with the Minister’s planned new zones ‘we may be able to put some restrictions in ourselves’ then. Said that council can’t tell a developer to apply for a permit and then say we’re ‘not going to give it to you’ when council has put in these conditions and allowed things to happen. Said that vcat would approve it anyway because they’ll look at the fact that it’s in a Major Activity Centre and ‘tick, tick, tick tick’. Vcat won’t reduce it by 4 floors. Instead of reducing it ‘you’ve got to say’ reject it entirely. “we as a council have put this policy in place….the framework is not consistent with reducing it by 4 floors’…‘we’ve got to make sure in future that we do set height limits’ and this application shows ‘the failings’ of council in that they haven’t looked at height limits closely enough.

SOUNNESS: supported the officers recommendations for 12 storeys. “I feel that if the development is not there, then where?’ He didn’t find the grounds ‘sufficiently compelling’ to support the alternate motion.

DELAHUNTY: started off by saying that many ‘of us campaigned on the grounds of opposing inappropriate development’ . Said that Lipshutz had made her case for her in that Lipshutz admitted there were traffic problems, borrowed light. Felt that this development ‘was overly intense and that’s enough for me’

OKOTEL: Said that no policy has been developed on how tall buildings should be and felt that this decision would set a precedent for development in the area. Said that other buildings on opposite side of Dandenong Road are 3 storeys and apartments of ‘no more than 2 storeys’ so this would be ‘far, far greater’ than what’s there presently. This would also cause ‘pressure on existing amenities’ and ‘create further congestion’. Said that residents already have severe problems with Koornang Rd, and trains make this even worse. Stated that ‘in the absence of policy’ as to height limits then council must also consider what the community benefit will be so given congestion and the likelihood of many families with kids living in the area, she thinks there wouldn’t be overall community benefit.

HYAMS: ‘this is a really tough one’…’it certainly is the right place for more intense development’. It ‘might set a precedent’ but since it’s the only such block in the area then maybe it won’t set a precedent. No overlooking or overshadowing, near shops and trains, ‘so the ideal place for intense development’. Said that Esakoff’s proposal would equate to ‘intense development’  but ‘it fits this site’. ‘In the absence of height limits it’s up to us….to work out what we think the height should be’. Admitted that there is ‘chaos on Koornang Road’. Said that he didn’t think it ‘was ever put to Vic Roads that there should be ingress from Dandenong Road’ and if there ‘had been my decision might have been a bit different’. Said that he did like the changes to parking, private waste collection and no parking permits. He supported the motion for 8 storeys.

ESAKOFF: said that this was ‘an intense development even at the reduced level’. Height limits ‘can be put when we deal with the residential zones at the appropriate time…..but this is what we have on the table now’.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. VOTE WAS TIED 4 ALL. HYAMS USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION.

IN FAVOUR OF ESAKOFF’S MOTION WERE – ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS

AGAINST – PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE, LIPSHUTZ

 

November 12, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More Spin?

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

Item 9.7 of the current agenda features a four page report on the GESAC basketball allocations. Two things need to be highlighted:

  • The 90 hour court allocation agreement given to the Warriors has NOT BEEN FULFILLED despite what Burke would like us to believe
  • We have serious doubts as to whether the courts (and GESAC) are really paying for themselves

First, a little history to place things in context. The Warriors were finally awarded the EOI after much dilly-dallying in December 2011 and on Burke’s decision. GESAC did not open until May 2012. That gave the Warriors at least 5 months to get their act into full operation via a concerted recruitment drive – which they did according to their website and Facebook pages of this period. But, even as early as June 2011 the Warriors were trumpeting their success in gaining GESAC and their website featured the call for recruits even back then. That is over a year ago! Recruitment is still ongoing.

There are many statements within the Burke report that we take issue with. We will go through these sequentially.

  1. We’re supposed to believe this statement: “GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.” GESAC did not open at short notice. The progress was continually monitored according to media releases and Pool Steering Committee reports. More importantly, the courts themselves were part of  a separate contract, contingent on additional government funding. Furthermore, the courts were completed by December 2011, yet allowed to stand idle for 5 months waiting for the entire complex to open. No satisfactory reason has been provided as to why the courts were not opened earlier since they boast entirely separate access and their own facilities. The basketball season also started in December, so it would have made perfectly good sense to open the facility at this time. We suspect that the reason this did not happen was simply because the Oakleigh Warriors did not at that time have sufficient teams even though they had been recruiting for over half a year as we’ve stated above.
  2. Burke also asserts: “GESAC opened mid-season.” – ie in May. Hardly MID SEASON! The basketball winter season was 4 weeks old. Most Associations and the poor old Warriors were unable to get their full competition off and running EVEN though one of the stated reasons they won the EOI was because of their superior marketing of the game! In fact, in the months leading up to the opening they were marketing a competition that would be held in other stadiums until GESAC was completed….that competition never happened!
  3. Another statement – “The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened”.  Well, we are now in November and GESAC has been open for 6 months YET THE WARRIORS HAVE STILL NOT FULFILLED THEIR HOURLY ALLOCATION! Burke tries desperately to befuddle the picture with his irrelevant and bogus figures. We remind readers that the Warriors hired 90 hours of court time in the Friday to Sunday timeslot. They were awarded the EOI on the promise of paying over $4,000+ per week for these 90 hours. Now we’re told that the court time utilised by the Warriors in this timeslot only tallies 79 hours. That’s 11 hours less than the contract stipulated and just under $500 per week that GESAC and ratepayers are possibly losing out on. Please note that these figures are also the latest figures. What was going on in June, July, and August for example? How many court hours were standing idle during this time and how much revenue was lost? In fact, the question needs to be asked – Have the Warriors handed over, for the duration of these 6 months, $4,050 each week? This would now total close to $100,000. Has council received this payment from the Warriors or have they been given special dispensation with ratepayers subsidising their court time? That is the crucial question!
  4. Nothing in Burke’s report allays our fears in regard to the above. Citing casual bookings is irrelevant. The McKinnon Basketball Association lost out on the contract allegedly because they couldn’t match the promised payment of the Warriors. Now we find that the Warriors are not fulfilling the terms that were promised. We have to again ask: how well did Burke do his homework? What analysis, if any, was made of the Warriors’ capacity to pay the agreed to price, when recruiting had, and still is, ongoing?
  5. We have to also question whether GESAC will ever be used for Women’s BigV competitions since GESAC lacks separate change rooms and a function area for after match. So much for proper holistic planning!

There are countless questions that have never been answered by this council in relation to the finances, the staffing, and the additional costs accrued in delivering GESAC. Residents have been like mushrooms – kept in the dark. Perhaps at the very least we can get a little more honesty simply by refraining from calling this a $41.2 million dollar project and instead admitting that with interest payments, staffing, legal bills, outfittings, costs of traffic lights and extra parking, etc. etc. the project will come in at close to $60+ million – if not even more. Enough spin we say. How about full disclosure on all expenses (itemised) and actual income. It is high time that facts replaced spin and residents knew exactly how their money was being used.

The fiasco and discontent that the basketball allocations have caused is unforgiveable. As we see it, the root cause goes back once again to the abdication of councillor responsibility and leaving everything in the hands of officers. Our previous comments need to be repeated:

  • Councillors must ensure that they have a leading role in sporting allocations. This is achieved by careful analysis of the relevant delegations to officers.
  • Sporting allocation policy (if one in fact exists) must be made public as must the criteria for decisions. The community plan states that council policies will be available on the website. They aren’t! Transparency is the victim once more.
  • If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then why, oh why, has council been so reticent to provide the full information that we have referred to above?
 

November 9, 2012

Now For 12 Storeys

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[12] Comments 

Tuesday night’s council meeting will feature the planning application for a 12 storey building at 1056-60 Dandenong Rd. The report by Ron Torres recommends acceptance of this application for 173 dwellings and commercial space, PLUS a reduction in car parking requirements. The proposed layout includes: 50 one bedroom apartments and the rest 2 bedroom, plus 264 car spaces. Apart from a bit of tinkering here and there, the developer’s application has largely been accepted intact.

In this post we will simply highlight and comment on various extracts from the officer’s report.

  • The usual blurb about projected population increases feature prominently in the opening – ie.”Glen Eira, amongst other municipalities, is identified by the State Government to have opportunities for increased dwelling numbers. We of course note the irony that in numerous VCAT hearings council has repeatedly argued that Glen Eira has already exceeded its projected increase!  How council can therefore use one argument that its population trends have been met and then turn around and argue that there is still a need for ‘increased dwelling numbers’ is simply unbelievable, hypocritical and totally expedient. Consistency, logic, and a real concern for residents is nowhere to be found.
  • Whilst new to this precinct the residential land use is consistent with what planning policy is seeking to achieve. There we have it! This council sees nothing wrong with 12 storeys!
  • The land is located within a State Government designated Major Activity Centre with access to services, public transport, existing infrastructure and road networks that can accommodate this level of development.  Interesting that there is not one scrap of ‘evidence’ provided in this report to support this claim. But it gets even worse when we find this paragraph – In addition, the intensity and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with the vision for the Carnegie Urban Village. Please note that the Minister’s Planning Zone Reform leaves height limits largely up to council. Is this what residents can expect from Glen Eira Council – the acceptance of at least 12 storeys in all its Activity Centres?
  • A total of 50 out of the 173 dwellings are one bedroom dwellings (29% of the total). These one bedroom dwellings are located on the east side of the building and their single bedrooms rely on borrowed light (ie The rooms do not have a normal window)…..It is recommended that a maximum of 35 dwellings (20%)_ should rely on borrowed light. No comment is necessary here – it speaks for itself!
  • It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. But that’s okay it seems! Again, no facts, figures, analysis. We point out that the plan is to have left hand turn into Dandenong Road and right and left hand turns into Egan St. This wonderful sentence says it all – An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road  is considered to be significant advantage for this development site.

PS: Another item features the revamped minutes of the Local Law Committee. Tree registers dominate the minutes which state:

 “Classified Tree Register

The draft Local Law, selection criteria for classification and appeal provisions were discussed in detail. It was agreed to proceed with the process for finalising a proposed Local Law for community consultation in accordance with the Statutory requirements.”

We highlight this as another example of inaction by this council and its councillors. It should not take ten years for a council to fulfill a resolution. It should not take two years to “consult” with other councils as per other, committee meeting minutes. The public should not have to endure years of spin for no result. We draw readers’ attention to the following:

 

Minutes of 26th May 2003

 Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That Council send a letter to the Minister asking the Minister to protect the Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North and that Council Officers examine ways to protect this and other significant trees in the City.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

In these same minutes there was this public question which was taken on notice for a response –““Does Council have a significant tree register? If not then will this be undertaken by the soon to be appointed arborist?”

Yes, things certainly move at a glacial pace in Glen Eira – even when the mover of the 2003 motion has now been on council for eons and the chair of the Local Laws Committee likewise!

 

 

October 30, 2012

Cracking The Whip – Already!

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

Thursday night (8pm) will see the first meeting of this council. The agenda items make for interesting reading.

  • Council has generally left the frontispiece on its Agenda and Minute papers for Special Council Meetings blank apart from the date and logo. Not this time! There’s a nice little subliminal ‘message’ reading – “The primary object of a Council is to endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions.” – s3c(1) Local Government Act”.
  • Councillors, apart from signing the Oath of Office will also be “invited” to sign the Code of Conduct.
  • There are also 4 options in relation to the Mayoral election – 1. Vote for a 1 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 2. Vote for a 2 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 3. Defer till next Ordinary council meeting or (4) Defer until no later than 30th November.
  • There’s also a notice about Councillor Expenses policy and remuneration.

We’ve done a quick search to determine how other councils may be approaching the first meeting of the new councils. Whilst not too many agendas are up as yet on other councils’ websites, we have located the following – none of which make any mention of the election of Mayors, nor of the ‘offer’ to sign the Councillor Code of Conduct. Most councils appear to be taking the sensible option and allowing a couple of weeks for councillors to come together and work out who will nominate, and how they will each vote. (See: Port Phillip, Boroondara, as examples).

The outcomes of Thursday night’s meeting will reveal much about the new dynamics and the power structures within Council. Meanwhile, the administration is still up to its old tricks we feel.

 

October 16, 2012

Censorship, Mistruths, and Spin: The Hallmarks of Glen Eira Council

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

Magee was taken ill just before the start of the council meeting and hence was an ‘apology’. We wish him a speedy recovery.

LIPSHUTZ – moved that the minutes of the Local Laws committee be deferred until next council meeting. Pilling seconded. Reason was the the minutes in the agenda weren’t ‘as full as they should be’ and that they didn’t reflect what occured, so more ‘fulsome’ minutes are required. Did say that the committee has been looking at Local Law 326 (organised sport). Said that there had been plenty of press coverage on the frisbee story and that they’d been told that kids had ‘been fined’. That then became a ‘story not that they were fined but that they would have to get an allocation’. Said he asked officers what happened and they told him that a complaint had been made that about ’30 or 40′ people were playing with ‘football boots’ across cricket pitches. A ranger investigated and found that this wasn’t true – there wasn’t any football boots and nothing about cricket pitches. In the end ‘Yoav Silverstein contacted Council’ to ask about an allocation. ‘He was told that a one off allocation cost $120 or a 6 month allocation cost $300’. Said that this is the same for eveyrone if they wanted a barbecue. Said that the ‘whole purpose’ of allocations was to provide ‘certainty’ and paying ‘means they have priority’ but it ‘doesn’t mean’ that if kids want to play frisbee they need an allocation. Claimed that there had been a ‘total blowup by the press’. Said that the ‘truth is that no-one was warned off…..welcome to play….no fine….. Went on to say that the law should be reviewed and the reason it hasn’t been dealt with as yet is because ‘our corporate counsel has been involved idn other matters’ such as the VCAT ‘which has kept her quite busy’. In the next council the ‘whole local law will be reviewed’ which is ‘far better’ than doing it piecemeal and so ‘do the whole local law as one’. assured everyone that no permit is required if they want to play ‘catchy’, football. ‘but if you are an organised sport’ then you do need a permit. Went on to say that council has ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’ and in this instance the law has been ‘enforced reasonably’ and ‘no-one has been fined’.

PENHALLURIACK – said he was pleased that no one was fined. Said that this issue with the local law 326 had been going on for quite a whiile. Said that Mr Varvodic was fined and then the fine withdrawn and they organised a permit. The definition of ‘organised’ has been something that he’s tried to get the Local Law Committee to look at for a long time and clarify because ‘it’s fine for Cr Lipshutz to say reasonable laws reasonably enforced but sometimes the law is not reasonable’ . Said a law is only ‘reasonable’ when it can be understood by the public. this law can’t be easily interpreted. Said he doesn’t know what ‘organised’ means any more than Lipshutz does. Said he was pleased that the ‘ex-chairman (Lipshutz)’ of the Local Laws Committee was ‘now going to be working on it’ because ‘it is long overdue’.

HYAMS – when the Local Laws Committee gets together in the new council he hoped that ‘they would get around to looking at the Alcohol free area’ in Bentleigh as ‘has been agreed they should’.

TANG: said that the meeting discussed the Tree register and there was discussion about how the laws could be enforced and there were ‘sub-issues’ that should be ‘captured in any subsequent minutes’. Admitted that the issue of organised sport has been around from even before he was on council – schleppers football team – but they were more ‘frequent’. Didn’t think this was about one individual but how to interpret what ‘organised sport’ means. Problems not about the law but ‘how you interpret it’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it was a ‘definitional problem’ and that the Local Laws Committee ‘would deal with that’. Said that he didn’t believe it was ‘coincidence’ that the issue has come up ‘two weeks’ before the election in order to ’embarrass council’ and that the reports in the media are ‘totally wrong’ and that journalists should have made ‘proper enquiry’ when the ‘allegation is simply not true’.

Public questions

At least 15 questions that we know of were declared invalid on the excuse of the electoral act and hence were not read out, much less answered. This is reprehensible since none of the questions had anything to do with ‘electoral matters’ – in short, it was another instance of avoiding accountability and responding to residents’ concerns. Even those questions which were responded to, failed to answer the question asked, or basically indulged in semantics and dissembling.

Question 1: asked if Council’s submission on the Planned Zoning Reforms would be made public. The answer stated that the ‘submission’ was already available on council’s website. Untrue and incorrect. What is available on council’s website is not the actual submission, but the Akehurst ‘report’ which was tabled at council on the 4th September 2012! The public has not seen what went in to the department! So much for transparency and answering public questions honestly!

Question 3 – asked for the results of the ‘monitoring’ of Frisbee games in Caulfield Park. The response said that there’s a “regular gathering’ in Caulfield Park by people playing ‘what appears to be’ Frisbee!

Question 4 – asked about the traffic management plans for major events at Caulfield Racecourse saying that for the past 3 events this had been substandard – either they notices went out too late, or they were incorrect. Wanted to know what Council had done about this. The response went into the need for traffic management plans to be provided and that in September Council had received from the MRC the plan for the spring racing carnival. It said that residents would be notified ‘at least 2 weeks’ prior to the events. The MRC provided notice after the 2 week deadline so that they ‘didn’t meet’ the requirements and ‘council will be drawing this to the attention of the MRC’. Big deal we say! The second part of the question remains unanswered, and as with the Camping and Caravan show, council has done nothing but a little tap on the wrist!

At this point Penhalluriack rose and said that he notified Hyams about the situation on Saturday morning – and wanted to ask Burke if any officer had gone out to ‘look at the barriers’. Also said that ‘this seems to be a consistent complaint’ from residents living in the area.

Hyams then said that this wasn’t the time to ask officers questions because that should have been done at Item 11.3 of the agenda!

Penhalluriack then said that he hadn’t ‘had the time to formalise my own response’ to the public question and that he was commenting on the answer that had been given. Since he told Hyams about this on Saturday morning he’d ‘like to think that council went out and did something about it’ because the barriers ‘were in the wrong place’ and the ‘wrong times’

Question 5 – asked about the now out of date Road Safety Strategy and why even the old one isn’t on the website and when the latest one will be prepared. The response was that the 2007-2012 strategy ‘was at an end’ and that a new one was ‘being developed’ and that when the new one is adopted it will be up on the website. Terrific! We didn’t know that ‘strategies’ disappear into the ether!

Question 6 asked about ‘advocacy’ for rail separation and whether council would table the documents related to its ‘advocacy’. The response was merely a listing of ‘submissions’ to various departments, and meetings attended by officers and councillors. Residents are obviously not going to get a look at these ‘submissions’, nor reports back from most of these meetings!

BURKE THEN STATED THAT ‘A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ‘HAVE BEEN RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE CHAIR AS THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL’S CARETAKER POLICY’ REGARDING ‘ELECTORAL MATTERS’!!!!! CENSORSHIP REIGNS SUPREME ONCE AGAIN! 

PS: we’ve just broken another record – 1,335 hits for the day!

 

September 26, 2012

Desperate Despots?

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

From Monday night’s Council Meeting.

QUESTIONS TO OFFICERS

PENHALLURIACK: “I ask Mr Burke when allocations are likely to be made for the Koornang Park oval for the 2013 football season, and similarly for the main oval at Princes Park.   Further, are the Caulfield Bears F.C. and the Ajax Seniors F.C. being considered for ground allocations at these grounds for the 2013 season?  Finally will councillors be advised of the details of your considerations well in advance of the allocations being made, and given an opportunity to contribute from their local knowledge and experience in these matters before your decision is confirmed to the successful clubs.”

BURKE: Read out a prepared answer. He began by saying that 3 weeks ago there was a report to council about ground allocations for winter and that this involved over 200 teams and that ‘allocations need to be managed as a whole’ and that because of ground conditions ‘this may involve changes for a season’ and sometimes with ‘short notice….summer season is just getting underway’ and the winter allocations will be looked at in ‘late February 2013’. So, winter allocations ‘aren’t being considered at this time’ then ‘it follows’ that these clubs that Penhalluriack mentioned are also not being considered now. Allocations are ‘managed by the Recreation Department’ and ‘councillors have been advised on several occasions’ that the system used in Glen Eira is followed by other councils. He then went on and said that the Local Government Act ‘prohibits councillors’ from directing officers in carrying out their duties but that ‘there are no prohibitions on councillors commenting on’ anything and that ‘such comments will be welcomed’.

PENHALLURIACK: began with ‘the greatest respect to Mr Burke, he didn’t answer the question’ since he had asked for dates and that Burke had ‘skirted around the issues’ and included ‘generalities’ and that ‘he has not answered the question’.

HYAMS: said that Burke did say that allocations would be done in late February.

BURKE: ‘For the record I object to the term ‘skirting around’.

 

September 24, 2012

Time For A Change: #3

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

Tonight’s council meeting exemplified in spades why change is desperately needed in Glen Eira. The most persuasive argument for change comes from the ludicrous statements and arguments put up by Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang. This was most evident in his comments on Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report and in the ‘debate’ on the financial report. We will concentrate on the latter for this post.

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that the financial report is ‘appropriate’ and again shows how well council is going. On GESAC there were some ‘ill informed’ people who by claiming that council had to hand over $3 million ‘should have known’ that this is all part of the adjudication process and that council was still ‘confident’ that it would be ‘successful’ in getting its liquidated damages – but this would take time. Went on to speak about the superannuation fund stating that the ‘shortfall’ can be ‘paid off over 15 years’. On council debt he said that there ‘are some who say it is disturbing – I’m not sure why’ since treasury has given a ‘clear marker on how to manage it’. Council has also been ‘commended’ on ‘how we’ve handled our financies’ ….’cash balances are healthy’. Swabey and team should be ‘commended’.

COMMENT: Amazing how a current debt of over $23 million dollars – one of the highest in the state – is not ‘disturbing’!!!!!

TANG: echoed the 3 issues and said that ‘we’ve tracking ahead of schedule’  in terms of surplus but this doesn’t mean ‘we can do any more in terms of capital works’  Council’s approach is to ‘accelerate capital works’ when there’s a greater than expected surplus. ‘I know there’s a bit of argey-bargey’ as to whether debt repayments should be accelerated or capital works. Spoke about the next council starting on one more pavilion if the surplus continues. Said that GESAC is going better than forecast in that they thought that residents would be paying ‘interest and borrowings’ off rates but the money is coming in from ‘door takings’. Magee had mentioned earlier that he expected usage to be ‘dropping’ , but Tang corrected him by calling it ‘usage stabilising’. So if it stays at 7000 members then it will be ‘less of a call on ratepayers’.

COMMENT: have we missed something here? If door takings are covering costs, then how can there still be a ‘call on ratepayers’?

PENHALLURIACK: Started off by saying that debt on GESAC is ‘a long term debt’. Said that the interest rate is 8.06% and council is stuck paying this rate when over the past year interest rates have dropped dramatically – yet Glen Eira is still paying this for the next 15 years. ‘The cost in this first financial year is almost $3 million’. This will be a ‘burden’ on ratepayers ‘which we can’t do anything at all about’. As a result ‘we need to take a fresh look at where we can save money’. Like any business, if ‘we spend more than our income we’re going to go broke’….’I look at council as a business and as a business I think we can do better’. Claimed that he was confident that rates could be ‘kept to a zero increase’ . Said that council needed to look at its overall expenditure and ask ‘is this good value’ for money? ‘Have we got a cost benefit?’

PILLING: Said he disagreed with Penhalluriack because council wasn’t ‘just a business’ but also services and facilities. Said they could approach it as a business but run it for the community.

PENHALLURIACK: wanted to answer this.

HYAMS: ‘are you saying that your comments were taken out of context or misinterpreted?’

PENHALLURIACK: yes. Hyams then permitted the comments where Penhalluriack said ‘business for the social benefit of the community’.

HYAMS: said he wanted to make a ‘few comments’ about Penhalluriack’s comments. Claimed that cost for council go up around 4% per year because of material costs. Glen Eira also has an ‘infrastructure gap that we need to keep on spending to close that gap’ because if we don’t it will end up costing more. So, ‘bearing in mind that we have the third lowest rates in Melbourne’ Hyams said ‘that our policies are actually very sound and responsible’ and that to say there can be a zero rate increase ‘would be completely irresponsible…..result in far fewer services’. Gave example of deferring Murrumbeena park development. Currently this is costing $750,000 but if put back it would then cost $1 million because there wouldn’t be the government grant. Said that the call for zero rate increase was a ‘nice election gimick’ and Hyams would ‘like to think that our public isn’t likely to fall for that one’. Rephrased and said that the public would realise that this wouldn’t result in ‘council providing goods and services…that it should’.’

FORGE: ‘took exception’ to the statement that zero rates is an ‘election gimick’. Said that there were plenty of things that council can spend ‘less money on’ and gave example of the concrete plinthing in Caulfield park where as Camden councillors they didn’t want this, but rest of councillors voted for it. Went on to say that some works ‘needn’t be large but they all add up’ . Glen Eira might be one of the ‘best performing councils’…’but there’s no reason why we can’t do better’.

TANG: Said that he wasn’t standing for election, but he’d like to ask the question of Penhalluriack that if he were campaigning on a zero percent rate rise  that like the Republicans did in the US, ‘surely you would put together an alternate budget’? Asked Forge and Penhalluriack ‘Have you put together an alternate budget that goes through…how you would’ achieve a zero rate increase….rather than making motherhood statements?

PENHALLURIACK: Said that he was the ‘only councillor’ who presented a right of reply to the budget. Said that he had ‘set out a number of areas and they certainly weren’t motherhood statements…..achieve a zero rate increase’. Most important was ‘that we don’t employ any new staff’. Said that there are many good staff. They’re getting 3.7% increase and rest of community is getting about 2% wage increase. Said that state and federal governments are laying off staff. Said that the figures he produced showed ‘clearly’ that it was ‘quite easy’ to save many millions of dollars by ‘not increasing the staff allocation’. Also claimed that it wasn’t true that we need more staff to run GESAC. ‘we’ve already taken on a lot of staff to run gesac’ and don’t need to increase like ‘we’ve been doing for the last 3 years by some 30%….it’s scandalous, it’s not necessary….it should not be done and if we were running a genuine business we would be out of work….’

FORGE: said that it was ‘far too early’ to be that specific and that it can be looked at over the next 4 to 6 months and see ‘where we can delay things’ ….we know there are many ways we can reduce spending and delay spending’.

PENHALLURIACK : withdrew his use of the word ‘scandalous’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘we are one of the lowest councils’ for rates. Said that saving money and having a zero rate increase by not having staff ‘begs the question’ since COUNCIL DOES NOT EMPLOY STAFF ‘WE ONLY EMPLOY ONE PERSON, THE CEO’. Said it was ‘beyond our capacity as councillors to determine what staff should be employed’. Admitted there had been a ‘significant staff increase’ but that was due to GESAC and it is necessary because of the ‘issue of safety’. Said that council has been ‘commended’ on how it manages risk. Also have ‘one of the lowest expenditure on assessment ratios’. Went on to say that at budget time ‘every councillor comes along with their pet projects’…..’we as council prioritise those issues’. Said that people like Forge and Penhalluriack can talk about rate cuts but with the 4% increase anyway this will mean cuts in ‘services’. Agreed that council should be run in a ‘business like way’ and it is because of external and internal auditors so it is ‘being run like a business’…’what we have been doing is remedying the infrastructure gap’. Said that he and others when they came on council were told of this gap and that this is a city where ‘drains are over 100 years old (so the report) demonstrates that council is on the right track’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: Lipshutz’s claim that it is ‘beyond our capacity to determine what staff should be employed’ is not only laughable, but symptomatic of the cow towing culture and legal mumbo jumbo that so befuddles most of these individuals. Councillors do not only appoint the CEO – they also set policy, strategic direction and yes, even budgets via a formal vote that becomes a council resolution and makes it incumbent on the CEO to carry out those resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion. The CEO is the SERVANT of councillors. He has the right to appoint staff but only within the parameters set by councillors. For example:Council has the power to pass any resolution it likes, including one which says ‘no funding will be made available for new staff for the next two years’. How the CEO then decides to deploy the existing staff to cover services is up to him.

It’s also quite fascinating that Lipshutz mentions 100 year old drains and the ‘infrastructure gap’. We’ve already put up posts which clearly show that spending on drains has in fact not kept up with inflation and this is after the disastrous floods of last year. Other infrastructure is obviously more important to Newton and the gang!

A comment also needs to be made on Tang’s attempted mischief. Councillors do NOT prepare budgets. That is the role of officers. Councillors role is to analyse, dissect, question, and make decisions on the proposals put before them and make some proposals themselves and receive comprehensive advice and accurate figures. To therefore ask Penhalluriack and Forge whether they have prepared an alternate budget is like asking Obama (since he’s used the American analogy) whether he has written every word of his election speech. The nuts and bolts belong to the underlings – in this case the speech writers and in Glen Eira’s case the officers. BUT it is for councillors to make the final decisions on whether or not to accept, adopt, amend, question, refute, suggest, and pass the relevant documents and budgets. In Glen Eira critical analyses by councillors is, we believe, non-existent on most occasions. Everything is ceded to those who were not elected by residents yet who evidently control every facet of what happens in this council. This can only happen because of the willing or unwilling compliance of 5 councillors. That’s why it’s definitely time for a change! We are firmly of the opinion that residents clearly want councillors who will work with and for the community and not for unelected bureaucrats that are not directly accountable to those who pay their very, very handsome wages.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »