GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

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)
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »