GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

September 21, 2012

A Really Transparent Council!

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

Several items on the agenda for Monday night’s council meeting provide further evidence as to why there must be radical change in Glen Eira. We will deal with these chronologically.

‘Retrospective’ Planning Permit

Not for the first time we discover that individuals, or organisations, have gone ahead and erected structures WITHOUT THE REQUISITE PLANNING PERMIT. What does Council do? Nothing! – except grant them what they want after the event! Residents should be asking:

  • Why wasn’t the original permit enforced?
  • What penalties, if any, did Council attempt to impose?
  • Why is unlawful behaviour so often ‘rewarded’ by this Council?

Even more disturbing in regard to this item is the fact that at the Delegated Planning Committee meeting, a somewhat strange event occurred. We quote from an email received from an objector: “The Chair declared a potential conflict of interest in that he had had many dealings in council with one of the proposers present but did not feel that this disqualified him. They knew each other by first names”.

What’s good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander. When councillors have to declare conflicts of interest at the drop of a hat, leave the room and not participate in any debate, it would seem that officers have no such strictures placed on them!

Then there are plenty of questions to ask about how Councillor led Planning Conferences are run and whether Planning Officers and councillors are in fact representing everyone impartially. Numerous reports have surfaced (ie. Mahvo St) about how residents are basically gagged and the stated purpose of ‘mediation’ is nothing more than another public relations exercise. If Council was fair dinkum then they should provide and publish all ‘satisfaction surveys’ that result from each of such meetings. Of course, the actual questions need to be carefully vetted first of all.  Such surveys used to appear in the minutes, but we guess it was becoming too ‘transparent’ and possibly too critical of the process so it was ditched. 

C93 Amendment

A paltry few  officers’ report pagesaccompanies this important policy change. Only ONE SENTENCE FROM THE PANEL REPORT is included. The Panel report itself is not attached, and thus residents who may want to read the objections and the recommendations for themselves have to either physically front up to council offices and MAYBE given access instead of this being placed on the website and in the agenda/minutes. We wonder how on earth councillors can be expected to make important policy decisions when we doubt that many of them would have read the Panel Report either.

Then we have this wonderful paragraph: “The State Government has recently released draft zones: Industrial, Residential, Commercial and Rural. It is recommended that this amendment proceed whether or not the new zones are approved as it removes duplication in the scheme”. Please note that no justification is given for this ‘recommendation’. Why the rush then? Why not wait and see what eventuates?

GESAC: pedestrian safety 

A 2 page report only. Again, no facts, no figures, no costings, no nothing. Another report will be forthcoming in the future it seems. As for the current state of affairs, we’re simply told: “The audit provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented. Five recommendations specifically related to disability access.

It follows that the car park complies with relevant traffic safety standards.” 

Financial Report: Hansen & Yuncken & Liquidated Damages

Not a shred of new information is forthcoming as to what is going on with this ‘adjudication’ nor why council had to hand back $3 million dollars! Watch this space is the ongoing message!

Tenders

3 seems to be the magical number in Glen Eira when it comes to tenders. We’ve noted before that many other councils publish their tender assessments, and the officers who sit on these panels. Not so in Glen Eira. Other councils also have many, many more criteria by which to evaluate their tenders. Not so in Glen Eira – 3 is the usual number even though the ensuing contracts may be worth millions of dollars! Nor are these criteria ever published. Long live transparency and accountability!

Finally, it is worth pointing out that as per usual every possible obstacle and delaying tactic is placed in the way of residents actually knowing what is going on. We highlight the following examples:

  • Even though the upcoming council meeting is scheduled A DAY EARLIER THAN NORMAL, the agenda items didn’t go up until well after 1pm on Friday afternoon on the website. That leaves the weekend and half of Monday for residents to familiarise themselves with the agenda and submit appropriate questions. There is absolutely no logical reason why the agenda could not have been put up on Thursday at the latest.
  • No sign of the Panel Reports for Amendments C87 and C93 to accompany the officers’ report and recommendations. Again, residents have to hunt through the Department’s website if they actually want to read what the Panels had to say. Why aren’t these important documents made accessible to residents? Or is this again part of the overall strategy to keep residents in the dark – as well as councillors perhaps? When the nonsense about this being an open and transparent council is continually trotted out, then it is obvious that there is absolutely no intention of ensuring that actions match words.
  • Woeful editing of agenda in that it is stated that records of assembly and committee meeting minutes be noted and recommendations accepted. The problem is that THERE ARE NO MINUTES OF ANY MEETINGS INCLUDED!!!!!!!
 

September 7, 2012

Censorship & Public Questions

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

For the second time in a row a resident’s public question has been edited. Vital information that clarifies the circumstances is thus being with-held, resulting in answers that are anything but accurate and reflecting what actually happened. The full question was:

Please find below two public questions for this week’s Council meeting (4 September 2012).

Please publish each public question in the Minutes in full. Please refrain from editing my public questions.  

Public Question 1

I refer to my earlier public question I posed directly to Mr Lipshutz for Council meeting 14 August 2012.

To recap, a group of Rowan Street Elsternwick residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 regarding Council’s decision to install 2 hr parking restrictions in the street based on only 8 of the total 15 properties responding to Council’s consultation.

Councillor Lipshutz in his reply to the public question at the 14 August Council meeting indicated that he had advised the residents group that Council Transport Planning department was to hold off implementation for a month. The installation was completed on 25 July to the absolute shock & amazement of the residents.

However, Councillor Lipshutz, we must beg to differ, following our meeting with you on 4 June or in subsequent exchange of emails, you gave NO INDICATION of a timeframe what so ever. In fact we the residents kept you informed frequently via email of progress we were making in collecting all 15 residents survey responses. In fact out last email to you on 13 July 2012 indicated that we had collected all but 2 responses  – at that stage the majority of respondents had indicated clearly that they were NOT IN FAVOUR of the restrictions.  

Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?

 COUNCIL’S VERSION AND RESPONSE –

Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?”

Cr Lipshutz responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. He said:

“ There was no so called residents group but rather there was a meeting with two residents of which you were one. As you will recall, following a questionnaire by Council, there were more non responses than responses and of the responses there was a majority that did not oppose parking restrictions being imposed. You may also recall that I advised you that if you wished to halt Council imposing those parking restrictions it would be necessary for you to move with alacrity in providing Council with evidence that a clear majority of residents opposed those restrictions. You undertook to do so and I accordingly requested that Council withhold action.

Council acceded to my request and initially there was no time frame discussed as it was my understanding that inasmuch as you were being proactive in obtaining responses there would be little delay.

I am informed that a period of 6 weeks ensued without the foreshadowed responses and accordingly Council thereupon proceeded. This took place at a time when I was on leave from Council and overseas.

The arrangement to withhold action was never open ended one and given that you did not comply with your end of the arrangement Council was not prepared to wait indefinitely. The ball was very much in your court to demonstrate that a clear majority of residents opposed the implementation of parking restrictions and it was not for Council to wait indefinitely.” 

SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

 “Please outline Council’s current parking restrictions enforcement strategy for Elsternwick. Please also provide statistics and data (i.e. frequency of inspection by date by name of street/road by result of enforcement activity (i.e. parking fine issued and amount or no parking fine) of Council parking restrictions enforcement activity in Elsternwick for 2011-12 & 2012-13 to date.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council enforces parking restrictions uniformly across the municipality. The fundamentals applying to enforcement include:-

 Ensuring residential streets in proximity of shopping centres are balancing the parking demands of residents, shoppers and shop keepers alike.

 Placing an emphasis on safety related offences in general.

 Placing an emphasis on school crossings and drop off/pick up around schools.

 Ensuring a turnover of customer car parking aimed at improving the economic viability of shopping centres.

The specific statistical data you requested is not available in the form you have requested it.”

 +++++++++++++++++

“Has Glen Eira City Council received a claim against it for a sum of $4.2M for incompleted payments to GESAC’s contractors or does Glen Eira City Council feel so aggrieved by the work undertaken by it’s contractor that it has withheld over 10% of the money it owes?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Agenda Item 9.20 in this Meeting is the Finance Report to the end of July 2012.

That Report states that Council had paid $36.99m against the contract awarded for $41.2m. The Report also states that the contractor had applied for adjudication under the Security of Payment Act. The application was for $4.2m. It would not be correct to say that the application involved either “incomplete payments” or “withholding money Council owes”.

The adjudication has been completed. As at today, Council has paid $39.99m against the construction contract that was let for $41.2m. The contract provides for processes to determine matters in dispute. These include claims which would result in deductions in Council’s favour as well as claims which would result in additional payments. Those processes are underway. Each monthly Finance report will include the status of expenditure under the contract at that time.

GESAC continues to cover all its operating costs and make a contribution towards the costs of borrowings.

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

 “I notice that the Crs Forge and Penhalluriack have erected a billboard pledging zero rate increases. I ask Cr Forge what services and capital works she intends to cut in order to achieve this outcome, and whether she has in fact previously voted in favour of rate rises. If Cr Forge is unable to answer this question at the council meeting, I ask how can she justify making such a public pledge without knowing how it will be achieved.”

Cr Forge responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. She said:

“There are many avenues that Council can reduce expenditure which would contribute to limiting additional rate increases. A good start would be to reduce new staff hirings and to rationalise staff replacement of those who leave.

There is also a cost saving to be had by deferring capital works and infrastructure programs. eg. Item 9.15 of tonight’s Agenda where Council spent approx. $750.00 on the Murrumbeena Park Play Space. We have to balance what is spent on ‘essentials’, viv a vis what would be ‘nice’ or ‘prestigious to have!

In regard to your question whether voted in favour of rate increases? Yes, I have in the year 2010 – 2011, to help with the costs of financing the GESAC development. I was not on Council when the GESAC development was approved.

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

 “My question relates to usage of the multi-purpose courts at GESAC and is in 2 parts: 1. It is clear to the casual observer when visiting GESAC that the courts are not utilised for significant periods of time during the weekend, therefore please advise what proportion of the hours allocated for use by the Warriors Basketball Club from Friday to Sunday are actually being utilised; 2. Given that the initial allocation was for only 12 months, how & when will interested parties be advised of the process to apply for allocations following expiry of the initial allocation.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, other sports, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more. The courts are not only for basketball.

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.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

On 15 May 2012, Councillors were advised:

“Opening at short notice has been fine for individuals Opening at short notice has not been fine for Seasonal activities. Many Clubs and teams have commitments at other venues. Seasonal activities will get fully underway from the start of the next Season(s). This is true of all Seasonal sports. GESAC is arranging casual hire of the courts. ”

No Club has breached its allocation agreement. GESAC is covering all its operating costs.

The Warriors Basketball Club is operating in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. The Warriors are currently utilising the facility against the following allocation

 Fridays the facility is used between 6.30pm – 10 pm against the allocation of 6pm – 11pm. This is subject to game allocations from the Victorian Junior Basketball League as Friday night is primarily for representative basketball games.

 Saturdays the facility is used between 9am – 6.30pm against the allocation of 8am – 7pm

 Sundays the facility is used between 9am – 10pm against the allocation of 9am – 11pm

In these allocated periods, the Warriors are currently utilising 57.5 hours a week against the allocation of 88.5 hours. This equates to around 2 courts being in use at all times on average and has been growing since the facility opened.

As President of the McKinnon Basketball Association, you would know that the representative basketball season is currently in its finals period. Due to this it should be noted that representative squad training and representative games which make up a large proportion of the court use on Friday nights and Sunday morning and afternoons are currently greatly reduced.

In relation to part 2 of your question, all sports will be operating in new Seasons from October 2012 (or earlier). Council will be reviewing allocations after the Council has had the opportunity to properly assess the utilisation rates in the new seasons and learn from the experience of the start up phase at GESAC.

 

September 5, 2012

GESAC, Hansen & Yuncken & Lawyers Galore!

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

The black hole of GESAC is clearly getting bigger and bigger – despite all the assurances from Lipshutz and the other financial whiz kids on council. After enduring a quite nauseating performance by Lipshutz on the audit committee minutes and how much the Auditor General had praised council for its performance and how it is an example to other councils, some of the truth finally emerged about the Hansen and Yuncken call for their money through another report by the auditor general which highlighted the call for ‘adjudication’ by Hansen & Yuncken.

The past few financial reports have consistently stated that Council is withholding over $4 million dollars as part of the ‘liquidated damages’. The building contract was $41.2 million and up til last month council had only handed over approximately $37 million. We now learn that the adjudication has in fact forced council to cough up $3 million of the money it was holding back. But, there’s much, much more to this as we report below.

LIPSHUTZ: on the Audit Committee minutes –  ‘we were praised for the transparent way we went about GESAC’….(Auditor General gave council) ‘profusive praise’ in how ‘we managed our finances’…’I was particularly chuffed and enthused’ as he said ‘we were an example to other councils’. …’leader in the field’…..

PILLING: reported on community grants and claimed that over $300,000 was given out (OUR COMMENT: note that this amount also includes government grants!!!!!)

PENHALLURIACK: said that he went to the Audit Committee meeting and that the Auditor General did praise Glen Eira but ‘it was in a non specific way’. Referred to a ‘report that the Auditor General has commissioned’ about GESAC and that there’s ‘an adjudication of almost $5 million dollars to be heard against Council…and that was in a separate report to the meeting’.

MAGEE: said he attended the meeting. Stated that council oversees a budget of over $100 million and over 130,000 residents. Council ‘very adequately allocates those funds’. Went on to explain about the external auditors and kept reassuring residents that the finances are being well handled. Stated that those in the gallery should be ‘well assured’ that the rates are ‘being well administered, well spent’. If money was being wasted then auditors would pick that up and ‘that’s not the case’.

HYAMS: asked Penhalluriack whether he said that ‘the Auditor General commissioned a report into GESAC’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not into GESAC. He commissioned his own report’.

HYAMS: asked Newton whether the Auditor General ‘commissioned a report as described by Cr Penhalluriack’?

NEWTON: ‘Not into GESAC, no’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was present and ‘did not hear anything of that nature’. Said that council’s got the money in the bank and that it then becomes ‘an issue between the builder and ourselves’. Claimed that none of this ‘comes as a surprise’ that it was ‘expected’. Went on again about the Auditor General and how council had a good ‘business plan’.

Towards the end of the meeting Hyams requested a report on the state of the basketball allocations at GESAC. Said that since GESAC opened in mid season that by the next meeting this situation should be ‘resolved’ and that the courts should be ‘in full operation’. Pilling seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

There was then one Public Question that asked ‘what proportion’ (of court time allocated to the Warriors from Friday to Sunday are actually) ‘being utilised’? Also wanted to know how interested parties would be advised about next years’ allocations since the Warrior one was for only 12 months.

The response was a wonderful sales job on what GESAC caters for; problems with builders, etc. Claimed that next season would see full use and that the warriors use of the courts was currently 57.5 hours instead of 80+ hours.

PENHALLURICK: SAID THAT ‘WE DIDN’T GET EARLY NOTICE OF THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS’ and that he would like to say something in ‘response to some of them’. Asked if the 57.5 hours ‘is being paid for’?

HYAMS: mumbled and fumbled his way through in response saying that the Local Law lets councillors put in individual responses but doesn’t allow ‘supplementary questions’ from councillors.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he would have provided his own answer ‘if I had notice of the question’. Went on to say that he was asking a question about the answer given.

HYAMS: ‘The Local Law doesn’t allow that’. Said that it could be a question on notice for next meeting.

PENHALLURIACK: claimed it was a silly local law. Hyams came back with you ‘probably voted for it’. Penhalluriack agreed.

Next public question asked about the liquidated damages and why council was withholding 10% of the money it owes to the builder. Hyams then read out the answer quoting the financial report which says that council has paid 36.99 million. Contractor had gone to adjudication for 4.2 million and that ‘it has been completed’. Said that council has now paid 39.99 million. Went on to say that the contract allows for these matters in dispute to be settled and that there are processes which could end up with council receiving money or facing ‘additional payments’….these processes are underway’. 

COMMENT: These exchanges certainly make a mockery of Lipshutz’s claim that council has been ‘transparent’ in its dealings over GESAC. Further, we wonder if:

  • Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the Hansen & Yuncken adjudication whether anything at all would have been stated
  • If Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the issue would the public question have been asked and some form of answer supplied.
  • As far as the answer goes we still have major concerns. The door is still open for further penalties paid by council. Will Hansen and Yuncken claim interest on their money owed? Will they claim legal expenses? Will they sue for more money as Hyams indicated is a real possibility? Penhalluriack spoke about $5 million we remind readers.
  • What has this handover of $3 million done to the budget/cash flow especially when there’s another 3.1 million due for super top ups?
  • Have the Warriors actually paid a cent to council or have they been granted free access? What impact has this had on proposed income at GESAC?

There are countless questions that require straight forward answers. No spin, no obfuscation, and no porkies, and certainly no deft sleight of hand as evidenced by Lipshutz’s claim that he does not remember the Auditor General’s commissioned report being ‘discussed’ at the Audit Committee. We point out that perhaps this wasn’t DISCUSSED but presented in a pile of papers and reports that few councillors actually bothered to read?!!!!! We suspect that this is standard practice for this administration!

Finally we can only highlight again the tactics of withholding public questions until too late to respond and the recourse to gagging tactics via the lame excuse that the local law does not carry a provision for councillors to ask questions when they like! So much for open, transparent and accountable governance! Lawyers must be jumping up and down and rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of unending work!

 

September 5, 2012

Patronising, Paternalistic & Pathetic!

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

Tonight’s council meeting was an absolute marathon. For this first report on the evening we will concentrate on only 1 item – the Akehurst report on the new Planning Zones. We’ve chosen to highlight this agenda item because it epitomises fully what is wrong with our council and the majority of its councillors. As per usual, the evening descended into grand farce revealing incompetence, spin, unbelievable arrogance and an attitude that was both patronising and insulting to residents. This is what happened.

Esakoff moved to accept the report plus the addition of the point that the motion only relates to the potential Council submission to the Minister’s review. Seconded by Pilling. Esakoff began by stating how fortunate this council was by already having in place the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change area zones. Her address was basically a regurgitation of the Akehurst report (verbatim in parts). There was no real mention of the loss of third party rights to object but the jargon of ‘as of rights’ and repeated verbatim the party line that ‘third party rights are not changing’.

PILLING: thought that there are a ‘lot of good points’ in that there will be surety about ‘height’ and that with council’s current policy there will be ‘a reasonable good fit’ with the government’s proposals. Emphasised the ‘similarities’ between the proposed zones and council’s planning policies and that ‘it can be made to work’.

MAGEE: spoke about the mixed use zone and that ‘the devil will be in the detail as to what’s allowed’….’can turn into being a 6, 7, or eight storey development in those zones’….’that’s where this council needs to be very careful’. Wondered why the government put the deadline date for submissions at 21st September and the results will be available after the election. Said he saw both ‘good points’ and ‘concerns’ but detail is lacking but ‘all in all I think it’s welcomed’.

TANG: called it a ‘double edged sword’ in that it did involve a loss of third party rights and council rights. Said that places of worship up to 250 square metres could now go in without third party rights. Said these are ‘quite drastic changes’ but the good points are that these are ‘cutting through angst, bureaucracy’ and therefore not dealing with uncertainty anymore. Now there’s also mandatory height limit and ‘that’s something that council has been crying out about for years’. Said that all councils around Victoria have been asking for mandatory height controls (OUR COMMENT – EXCEPT GLEN EIRA!!!!!). Thought that residents would also ‘appreciate having that certainty as well’.Spoke about the commercial zones claiming that Glen Eira has graduated zones but this introduces just one zone for everything and ‘high density as of right’ which means that ‘you could be in Mackie Road and faced with high density’ …..’of 5 or 7 storieys in one of these local centres’. Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’. Froesahdowed that this be put on council’s website and invite submissions from residents and alerting them to the government website and that submissions close on 21st September. (OUR COMMENT: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER COUNCILS HAVE BEEN HOLDING RESIDENTS’ MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR WEEKS NOW!)‘ No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.

HYAMS: ‘lot about this which is good’…’lot about this which does raise concerns’. VCAT will now have to apply zones and not only consider them ‘it will give us a lot more certainty’. Said that there’s uncertainty whether the government will apply the commericial zones immediately. Said he attended a mayoral and ceo forum last week and the Minister was present to take questions which he dealt with. Hyams asked Minister about high density being allowed in commercial zones. Said that the MInister responded by saying that it would still need ‘to go through the permit process’  but that Hyams then made the point that where there’s higher density allowed that would be what vcat would apply. Stated that the Minister ‘suggested that we have a chat about it afterwards’ and that they’re trying to tee up a meeting. So none of this should be seen ‘as a done deal’. Thought that this was the ‘basis of a good submission’.

TANG: moved amendment that this be published on council’s website and promoting a link to the department’s website with contact details.

Hyams then asked Esakoff if this amendment was ‘acceptable. She then asked a question of Akehurst

ESAKOFF: ‘given the time structures here’ whether the amendment is feasible?

AKEHURST: Said that time is an ‘issue’ because that only leaves 17 days. Said that he had ‘waded through the new zones’ himself and that he was pretty familiar with the proposals  ‘it does take a little getting over the top of what is in the zones’. If this was going out to the general public then he wasn’t sure ‘whether there is going to be adequate time to get across the substance’. Repeated that a ‘zone is really a tool’ and isn’t important until it’s applied and ‘we’re not at that stage yet, we’re not at stage 2’. So if there’s to be public involvement ‘it wouldn’t be at stage 1’. Public should only be involved ‘when you apply the zones’.

Tang then asked about a point of order whether you can put questions before seconding  an amendment. Hyams responded that this isn’t covered by the local law. Penhallurick then offered to second the amendment. Esakoff then removed her seconding of the amendment and said that she would take this to ‘a wider discussion of all councillors’. Penhalluriack then seconded.

TANG: said that we’ve ‘got 2 weeks’ and that with the new website it should be pretty simple to put up the links and the Akehurst paper. Said that he didn’t expect ‘all residents to be across the technicalities of the zones’ but residents could use the paper itself in order to understand the zones. Said the jargon has been translated for councillors anyway so residents should also be able to understand it. Foresahdowed another question about the ability of the Minister to implement some of the zones without ‘recourse to council’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not difficult to put on the website’…’knowledge is power’ and even if there are only 2 people who are interested ‘why should we withhold’ this?

TANG: asked Akehurst if he knew whether it was within the power of the Minister to implement the zones without further recourse to council and further consultation?

AKEHURST: said that ‘the issue of implementation has great lack of detail’. Said that he’d spoken with senior people and no-one knew how this would be done and thought the minister was waiting for results from submissions. Thought that government ‘is keen to advance commercial zones’ and that ‘they may come in without consultation’. On the residential zones he thought that ‘councils would be given some time’ and that ‘Glen Eira has got a head start’ on implementing these because of its housing diversity/minimal change zones.

LIPSHUTZ: said that after listening to Akehurst he realised that these zones are something ‘that is still very much up in the air’ and that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.

ESAKOFF: also had ‘concerns’ and thought that only a very small percentage of the community ‘would look at our website on a regular basis’….’it could look a little bit mischievous on our part’ if we consulted with the community on something that isn’t consultable (ie if the minister brings in the commercial zones without consulting councils). Doubted ‘very much’ if the time to consult ‘is now’.

Hyams asked Akehurst if the submissions to government are only from councils or also from the public.

AKEHURST: ‘That’s a good question. They’re on the website….but I’m not sure’ whether people are aware. Hyams again asked if the public are invited to make submissions. Akehurst didn’t know. A member of the gallery informed them ‘it does’!

HYAMS: said that the amendment should be supported because if the government is taking submissions then ‘we should be facilitating that’….’I certainly don’t think there’s any harm to that’. Also said that if the government was going to bring in the zones ‘straight away’ then ‘this is the only opportunity’ to have a say. Whilst not everyone looks at the website those who do are ‘more likely to make a submission’.

ESAKOFF: asked the question that if the vote is in favour that this be ‘inserted on our electronic consultation letter – if that’s the right name for it'(!!!!!!!)

HYAMS: asked that this be an amendment. Tang seconded and was carried unanimously.

TANG: moved another amendment that this be advertised in both Leader newspapers. Pilling seconded.

PENHALLURIACK: said that the next Leader comes out on the 11th and that would be ‘insufficenct time’ and that council would be wasting its money.

ESAKOFF: asked when the next edition was coming out and the deadline for advertising.

BURKE: Thursday

HYAMS: asked Burke if the community column in the Leader had already been finalised?

Amendment was put and carried. The motion with the 3 amendments was then put and carried unanimously

COMMENT: It’s quite staggering that after years and years as councillors and the lauding of the ‘consultation/engagement policy’ that the difference between information provision and consultation seems to be lost on most of these individuals. Other councils obviously saw no problem with ALERTING their residents to what is happening. This is the first stage of any consultation – accurate, timely, and comprehensive information provision. Glen Eira showed no interest in doing any of this. Now at the 11th hour we suddenly have several pangs of conscience. Even this though is tinged with a paternalistic and patronising hue – ie. we poor residents will be incapable of understanding such a complex matter. It will only ‘frighten’ us! For this residents should read – we don’t want community involvement. Lipshutz and Esakoff in particular should be ashamed of themselves in our view! As for the rest of the councillors, why didn’t they insist that this occur way back in July?

 

August 15, 2012

Back To The Circus!

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

This is an exceedingly long post but, we believe that residents should have some knowledge of what goes on in Council chambers. Tonight had all the hallmarks of a classic farce – ludicrous, stage-managed, confusing, and full of sound and fury but achieving bugger all! The most important items on the agenda (the two development applications) were brushed off in the space of 20 minutes, yet item 9.5 (Agreement between Ajax & Caulfield Bears footy clubs) went on and on and on interminably. It’s really good to know that these councillors have really worked out their priorities. When developments which impact so severely on people’s lives can only receive the minimum of attention and a garbled talkfest so dominates, then residents are in real trouble.

It should also be noted that Magee in his request for a report to move the skate park at Bailey Reserve (right next door to GESAC) to another part of the park, also suggested that this area be turned into additional car parking space. We suggest that perhaps Council can forget the whole idea of Bailey Reserve being a mini-park and turn the whole area into a car park. That should service GESAC sufficiently!

Item 9.5

Readers will remember that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum by council and involved Ajax’s alleged financial offer to the Bears to vacate Princes Park so that Ajaz Seniors would receive the ground allocation.

Moved Magee, seconded Pilling

That the clubs give council a copy of the agreement and that when council receives it it will be treated as confidential

MAGEE: Started off by saying that this is really ‘to get all the facts straight’ and to ‘move on’. Said that he had some doubts ‘in my mind’ as to what the agreement ‘had in it’. He wanted to ‘move on’ as well so the clubs should provide this agreement ‘in its actual true form’….’so we can digest it’….’and make decisions’ once we have ‘all the knowledge of what happened in the past’. Saw this as an ‘opportunity to clear the air’ and to answer the questions of whether this is ‘all above board’. This is then the chance for everyone to ‘say of course it is’.

PILLING: Said that this is the opportunity to ‘put in place a transparent process’. Said that the confidentiality clause should allay the clubs concerns about the agreement being made public so that it will be ‘seen within Council’. Reiterated that council has to be ‘transparent’…’it does things the proper way’. This will lead back to a ‘good working relationship’ with the clubs.

LIPSHUTZ: Saw no need for council to have the document ‘whatsoever’. Said that the clubs are ‘moving on’; that they are ‘tenants’ and that ‘whatever tenants do between themselves is none of our business’ if there’s no impact on Council. Since the clubs can’t sell anything like allocations because it’s council that decides this, therefore they don’t have an impact on Council. Said that rumours had got out about one club ‘refurbishing’ the pavilion and said that this can’t be done ‘because council does that’. He didn’t see ‘where this is going to go’. If they had acted improperly then he saw this as ‘an issue for their own league’…..’if council policy’ then have to find this out. Clubs have now cancelled the agreement and therefore ‘we have nowhere to go’….this…’leads nowhere’. Said that if the motion is passed then this could apply to every club every agreement and that’s ‘ridiculous’. Said that the ‘good working relationship’ could be ‘damaged by this motion’. Said that if the motion gets up that it should be confidential under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act. If the motion is lost then he’s got an alternate motion.

 

PENHALLURIACK:  Said that the clubs have confirmed in writing that the ‘agreement has been cancelled, null and void, no longer exists’ ….’so what are we seeking?……’personal vendetta against the Caulfield Bears or against the Ajax Football Club’. Said that the paper ‘won’t tell us anything except a little bit of history’. Stated that there had been a meeting at council last night and the paper was read by three councillors and 2 other councillors refused to read it. Couldn’t understand this and said that ‘we’re simply muckraking’….’why council should dredge through history like this….’there is no advantage to anybody’. No one will benefit from seeing the paper but maybe the ‘ego of somebody will be boosted’. The paper is ‘null and void’ and hasn’t got anything at all to do ‘with council’. Went on to say that ‘confidentiality means nothing’. It can be overcome via an FOI application and leaks. Said that if the motion is lost he will move a motion that ‘council takes no further action’

 

FORGE: Said that she attended last night’s meeting and read the agreement and that ‘there was absolutely nothing wrong with it’. Agreed with Penhalluriack and that there’s ‘no suspicion’ about the parties involved.

TANG: Said that he had letters from the clubs that were given to councillors at last night’s meeting and wanted to quote from them. Asked Hyams whether the letters were intended to be given to all councillors. Hyams answered ‘yes’. Read out bits from the letters. First was from Ajax which said that the agreement was from the 27th January about ground allocations and that ‘at all times’ this was subject to council’s approval. Admitted that the club acknowledge that ‘at this point in time’ that council wouldn’t agree to their allocation to Princes Park as a result of the agreement. The Bears were ‘also suffering’ in their relationship with council. The letter then went on to state that the clubs were ‘terminating the agreement’. The second letter said that they were willing to ‘provide a copy of that agreement’ as long as it remained confidential. The letter went on to say that all ‘allocations are subject to Council’s approval’. The letter also stated that Koornang park required some work and that Ajaz was ‘prepared to assist’ but only if council approved. Finally the letter affirmed that ‘no payments had been made’. (time extension) Tang said that the dates were important because it was the 4th November that the Bears let council know that the facilities needed upgrading and that Ajax was willing to pay. Tang said that this is a ‘significant point’ that hadn’t been considered previously by councillors and he didn’t know why they hadn’t received this information.  As a result he thought that it was important that the agreement now be ‘seen in a different light’ and that council should ‘discourage clubs from entering’ into such agreements. Admitted that clubs have their own ‘motivations’ in getting the best grounds, or even allocations, and they’re doing thej right thing if they ‘bring it to council’s attention’. It is now ‘moving from a sinister event to an unfortunate agreement’. So council needs to ‘fully understand’ and therefore they need to see the agreement and supports Magee’s motion. Accepted the need for confidentiality and suggested that Magee amend his motion so that it conforms with the specific clauses of the Local Government Act on this area.

LOBO: said that they already had a resolution at last council meeting to see the agreement. Said he was ‘surprised why that agreement was not shown to all councillors’ so they could ‘study’ it and then ‘ask our officers for a report’.

HYAMS: Hyams admitted that he ‘chose not to read the document’. Said this was because of the previous motion asking clubs for the agreement and that he and Pilling were uncomfortable since the agreement ‘hadn’t been given (to them) in accordance with the resolution’. Since he was ‘representing council’ it was important that he only accepts it ‘under the terms that council had asked for it’. Agreed with Tang that ‘it’s not sinister….but something we would seek to discourage’. Understood why clubs wanted confidentiality especially since there was no ‘context’ and ‘might be used against them’ since there had already been ‘negative posts’ on a sporting blog and he also ‘understood why it may not have been appropriate to offer money to upgrade council facilities’ even though it goes on in other municipalities. Said that even in Glen Eira one cycling club had put money in to ‘upgrade’ the veladrome but ‘we at the moment prefer that we don’t do anything’ because it might create the impression that they could have greater tenure if they put money in. admitted that ‘we roll over the allocations regularly but we don’t want clubs to take that for granted’. Supported the motion and that it be kept confidential but that the motion ‘needs a bit of work before I can support it’.

BURKE READ OUT THE MOTION

Hyams asked for extension of time. Said that the question now was whether the letter read by Tang ‘should be incorporated’ into the minutes. Asked Magee if he would accept this amendment that the clubs hand over the agreement ‘for council to retain’ and it would be confidential under section 89 (2)(h) and that the letters be incorporated into the minutes.

MAGEE said that he wanted the word Senior put in. Said he was happy.

FORGE: started by saying that at yesterday’s meeting

HYAMS interrupted saying she’d already spoken to the motion. Forge then said that she’s got a question.

FORGE asked whether the copy of the agreement would be ‘retained’ by council ‘or given back’ to the clubs? Said that they were ‘quite adamant that they wanted that document back’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he wanted to move an amendment. Tang said that there wasn’t an amendment on the floor. Hyams said he asked Magee a question and Magee agreed to the amendment. Lipshutz said that his amendment would be that instead of the word ‘retain’ the word ‘sight’ be used.

Magee ‘couldn’t accept that’. Penhalluriack seconded Lipshutz’s amendment.

LIIPSHUTZ: Said the clubs were worried that the agreement would ‘go out in the public domain’ through FOI or leaked. Went on to say that if council is worried then the first thing that has to happen is that council ‘look at the agreement’ and see if it is ‘sinister, or unfortunate, or something else’. If it’s ‘sighted by council’ and they decide that nothing’s to be done then ‘that’s the end of it’. If council decides that the ‘agreement is inappropriate’ and sanctions should be applied council can do that. Was worried for the welfare of the 2 clubs ‘and their reputations’.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he doesn’t like the whole thing and that as a council they are trying ‘to destroy the 2 presidents’ and the clubs. ‘there is no need for us to see it’…it’s not an agreement anymore, it’s been cancelled….it doesn’t exist’. ‘People who are supporting this motion haven’t even seen it’. It’s going to be in the minutes and lengthy and ‘other muck-raking as well which is just not necessary’…’a storm in a teacup’. Didn’t know why council is debating this ‘when we’ve got a budget of over $100 million’….’we’re running a big business’ and spent so much time on this over sporting clubs who either don’t want to give us the agreement or are ‘embarrassed’ by the agreement and who ‘don’t trust us to keep it confidential’…I don’t blame them’ because the council ‘does tend sometime to leak’. Reiterated the argument about FOI. Said it’s like a business transaction and therefore council shouldn’t be asking for it. ‘What temerity we have’ to go to clubs and ask for a ‘private agreement’…’I am disgusted’. Went on to say that ‘no-one has given me a good reason to see this document’.

PILLING: ‘this is about transparency…..proper process’…’we’re a thorough transparent council’ and this shouldn’t ‘be tolerated’. ‘This is about proper process, proper transparency’.

HYAMS: said that he didn’t suggest the letters go in the minutes ‘to damage the clubs in anyway’ and that the letters ‘set the record straight’ that there is no agreement now.

PENHALLURIACK interrupted and said that he had said that the letters would only add to the turmoil. Didn’t think there was ‘anything wrong with the letters themselves’

HYAMS: thanked him and said that ‘normally you wait for someone to finish talking before you interrupt them’. Asked Lipshutz that if council ‘sights’ the document whether this refers to councillors and officers or just councillors.

LIPSHUTZ: answered councillors and officers

HYAMS: asked Newton that if council receives the agreement whether under the Public Records Act, council ‘is obliged to retain the document’?

NEWTON: Basically stated that the resolution from last council meeting was not a resolution of officers but of council. There is a resolution and if council wants to ‘retain this document’ then a resolution is required.

Hyams then began to study the Local Law to see if Lipshutz can sum up on an amendment.

MAGEE then asked for the amendment to be read out again.

THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST

Hyams then went back to study the Local Law to see if a division could be called on an amendment after Lipshutz asked for one. The answer was ‘no’.

The original motion was back on the agenda.

MAGEE: Said he doesn’t know a thing about the Caulfield Bears and had received emails from one club and talked to presidents. He wasn’t interested in muckraking and that wasn’t his intention. His intention  was to ‘look at this as an auditor’ and how could council ‘make decisions on a letter they hadn’t sighted’. Can’t ignore the fact that clubs are aware that ‘one club offered another club $170,000 to vacate’ a ground ‘we owe it to both Ajax and the Caulfield Bears to set this record straight’ but ‘by keeping all this quiet’….’the document will be retained by council’ as a council document. Said he’d never leak the document and that he wants to see it and ‘would like an officers’ report’. Neither club has acted ‘inappropriately’. They acted ‘silly’. ‘Grants in Glen Eira are not up for sale’. ‘we don’t know what that $170,000 was for; we haven’t seen the agreement’. It mightn’t say this and be merely a cash offer. Said that ‘thousands and thousands’ of clubs and kids don’t have allocations and that ‘allocations need to go to clubs that are already there’. (time extension). ‘Not about being vincictive…..it’s about transparency’. Ajax has got their community day and another team were ‘denied because they went through the right process….they asked….wasn’t an allocation available’. Yet this team accepted the decision. ‘If we see the document then I…would be able to make a decision’.

LIPSHUTZ: had a question for Magee. Not allowed.

MOTION PUT.

FOR – MAGEE, PILLING, TANG, HYAMS, LOBO

AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, FORGE, PENHALLURIACK

THIS ITEM LASTED ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF AN HOUR!

 

 

August 10, 2012

Feel Good Time

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

The agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting is out. It’s definitely election, feel good time. This is probably the most innocuous and least informative proposed council meeting of all time. The agenda is chock-a-block full of ‘social issues’ that, predictably, lead nowhere. For example: CCTV placement in Centre Road – this has been discussed, debated for over a year now but the buck passing continues whilst the cameras are probably lying there and rotting. Next there are 2 items on graffiti; homelessness and so on. All are responses to councillors last ditch attempts to parade a social conscience we suspect. Pity that the requests for reports cannot be for something that residents have continually highlighted as ‘major’ – such as planning, traffic, consultation.

What’s far more eye-catching is what is NOT listed for decision or simple information provision that is in keeping with the requirements of transparency and accountability. There’s not one single word about:

  • Caulfield Racecourse Centre
  • Liquidated damages and GESAC
  • No records of assembly (July 3rd was the last record published which means that a meeting probably took place on July 10 – over a month now for this to appear)
 

July 24, 2012

Academy Awards All Round!

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

Residents have nothing to fear. That is, if we want to elect actors, spin doctors and install administrators who cannot answer questions directly and instead rely on semantics and deliberately misleading statements – then look no further. The vast majority of the current crop of councillors and those officers who pen the responses to questions fit that bill to a tee! Or as Cr. Lipshutz has stated- all must belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda – say something often enough and even they may blissfully come to believe their own nonsense.

Tonight’s council meeting proved once and for all how orchestrated, rehearsed and unethical this entire council is. In what turned out to be a major talk fest of bubble and squeak, two important things were revealed:

  • Council’s legal advice in pursuing Penhalluriack now totals $147,000 PLUS another $120,000+ from early on. This will be paid by ratepayers and not council’s insurance company. We remind readers that the bill will escalate even further when the VCAT hearing gets underway in the second week of August. Certainly a very hefty price to pay in the attempt to silence one councillor!
  • The Ajax footy team will have their 1st September Anniversary celebration, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will now go to the bottom of the allocations listing. You simply can’t screw Burke and hope to get away with it unscathed in Glen Eira.

We will report on all this (and more) in detail in the days ahead. The performances overall were truly outstanding and gain our unqualified support for Academy awards.

 

July 5, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #3

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

The third ‘whiff of revolution’ concerns a request for a report originally moved by Lobo and Pilling concerning the flying of the aboriginal flag atop the council building. Paul Burke’s name is attached to the report. The Lobo motion in part, asked for: “What would be the cost for an additional pole and how do we go about achieving this”. Like so many other officer reports, this part was totally ignored and the stock answer of ‘no’ provided.

It was therefore somewhat surprising that the following occurred at Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOBO:  wanted the item ‘deferred’ until the next council meeting and that ‘further information be provided in relation to costs and options’. Pilling seconded.

Lobo thanked officers but also said that the report ‘outlines mainly the policies’ of council ‘but as I earlier requested it would be great to see’ whether there could be a second pole and its cost.

PILLING: said it was a ‘fair and reasonable ask for more information in line with the original motion’ about costs.

Motion was put and accepted unanimously.

COMMENT

What the catalyst was for this sudden flexing of muscles by Lobo and the other councillors we can only guess at. The item itself is arguably innocuous. But it does represent a definite chastisement of Burke and his colleagues. The great pity, as we have previously remarked, is that this does not happen often enough in council. Shoddy reports that lack detail, do not answer the requests, and basically tell councillors ‘no it can’t be done’ are accepted without blinking. Perhaps in this case political mileage for the upcoming election may have been a factor? Or again, given that a public question had been asked, the issue was up front and in the public domain. We’ve copied the question and the response below.

““Is Council satisfied that having requested a report by a resolution of Council and having specifically asked that a cost be provided for an additional flagpole at this building, that not only were no costs provided in Item 9.7, but that Officers are recommending not to erect a second pole at Glen Eira’s Town Hall? Furthermore is the Glen Eira Council satisfied that when requested by government offices, such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet-Victoria, to fly the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders flag, (for days such as National Sorry Day May 26th and National Reconciliation week 27th May to 3rd June), Council is only able to do so by fixing such flags below a portico? If flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags is seen “by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive”, they can be directed to the Premiers Office who has sought Council’s assistance. And finally does this Council consider it is time to review its Policy 1.7 “Australian National Flag” and consider perhaps the erection of a second and third pole to be located at an appropriate site on the ground? This will enable Council to fly the National Flag on number one pole atop the clock in addition to occasionally flying the Aboriginal Flag and Torres Strait Islander Flag or the State of Victoria Flag at grade.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “This item was listed on tonight’s Council Agenda as Item 9.7 so it has not been possible to provide a response prior to the debate. However, you will be able to read Council’s resolution on this matter in the Minutes of the Council Meeting which will be available on Council’s website later this week and which show that this item was deferred and more information was requested. I would, however, point out by way of clarification that the report does not say that flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is ‘seen by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive’. It states that flying those flags may lead to requests from members of the community for Council to fly flags that would be seen in this way.”

 

July 3, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution?

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

Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!

The issues we are referring to are:

  1. The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
  2. The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
  3. The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.

It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.

Amendment C102

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

June 28, 2012

Hyams: The Curse Of ‘Uniformity’

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

Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.

Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.

The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison.  More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!

Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »