GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

  • Lipshutz and Forge were absent
  • The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
  • Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
  • Lobo did not utter a word
  • Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
  • Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the  lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’.  ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being  paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

 

June 14, 2012

Community Plan Presentations

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

Speaker #1: assumed that councillors had read the submission. Began with Open Space contributions and wondered how this was being used since it did not appear to be clearly stated, “so I can only assume that it’s being used for operation costs” and not to purchase land. Suggested that the Audit committee might want to have a look at this if it has been an ongoing practice. Next comment related to inappropriate development and the speaker reinforced the significance of structure plans which can lead to ‘best quality development’. Urged council not to dismiss this strategy. Congratulated council on GESAC but said that we’re now in the ‘post GESAC era’ and need to move on because there are other important projects to consider. Called for a ‘fresh look’ at the plan because it didn’t appear to be very different from earlier plans. It needed more ‘visionary concepts’, more ‘innovative concepts’. Stated that the Steering committee should have consulted with the people who took part in the forums ‘before rushing’ and felt this was the real problem – everything was rushed. Claimed that the council website ‘crashed regularly’. A new website was needed ‘that encompassed more than’ information about administration but that it include information on businesses, sports groups and culture. Said that there should be more stories ‘about community groups’ and more for the ‘disconnected and alone’.

Didn’t think the chamber was particularly welcoming and suggested that councillor’s motions could be put up on a screen, as could the amendments, so that the gallery knows what is being discussed or debated. A strong plea to establish ‘permanent community reference panels’ which would be regularly consulted and would cover everything from church groups to social and sporting groups. Finished by saying that ‘the negativity which runs consistently’ through the submissions should be listened to and not disregarded as a simple minority voice. Said that ‘these are community members who care enough to listen’, read the documents  and they should be heard.

SPEAKER#2: started by stating that after all the consultations, surveys and consultants’ reports overdevelopment, traffic, governance are issues that have been highlighted. These issues aren’t new and have been numerous times over the years. Stated that residents have been continually told that ‘council listens’, but it’s now past this listening phase and that it should be the time for action instead of merely listening. Didn’t think that the current draft plan tackled residents’ concerns. What was lacking were structure plans, height limits, parking plans, levies. Many of council’s policies go back over a decade and are ‘archaic’ and out of date. Concluded with the comment that the community plan provides what it calls ‘strategies’ but these aren’t strategies and ‘measures’ aren’t ‘measures’. Funding for things like drains has been cut, but this is what the community expects council to be doing. Action is what’s needed much more than listening.

SPEAKER #3: Agreed with the points made by earlier speakers. Stated that when council continually puts up rates there should also be a criteria and reporting on ‘productivity improvement’ which should match inflation. These should be reported on quarterly and with clear measures on how this has been achieved.

TANG then asked any of the presenters about one of the points made by GERA about parking permits in residential streets. Asked for examples and said that the ‘solution’ was not something he had been asked about before. One of the presenters responded by saying that currently residents can receive parking permits for adjacent streets regardless of how well these adjacent streets can meet demand. Resident requests for traffic counts have increased dramatically so parking and rat runs are a problem. Stonnington has a policy where new medium developments don’t get parking permits forcing developers to provide on site parking.

TANG asked the second speaker about developer contributions levies and that when Council removed it, it was because it was costing more to operate than the monies received. Said that the majority of councils had ‘got rid of it’ or don’t ‘administer it’. The speaker responded that the Government is probably going to introduce a ‘standardised one’. Another presenter stated that it would be about 8%.

TANG thanked submitters. Said that councillors now needed to go away and reflect on the submissions. Said that he didn’t think that the plan was ‘doing justice to the broader community consultation process’…’timeframe doesn’t allow us to take advantage’ (of committee and responses and that council should take some of community views) ‘on board’. There were also ‘ideological points’ that council would ‘have to grapple with’.  Stated that all the requested changes couldn’t all happen at once and they would have to be staggered over time. That priorities such as changing footpath expenditure to drains, or the pavilion strategy…’tough decisions there….we can’t do them all….some by re-prioritising’.

MAGEE: also thanked submitters and stated that putting things in writing is time consuming and ‘commendable’. Said that reading the submissions he thought that some of the suggestions council was already doing and that Glen Eira is a ‘very, very good council’. Admitted that it’s only over the past 18 months that he’s learnt ‘what it is to be a councillor’ and that the submissions ‘mean more’ to him now than when he first started as councillor. Believed that ‘I do genuinely listen when I’m told what’s wrong’…’we do have structure plans’…’it’s not policy on the run’ (advice they get is)’good advice’. Some of the suggestions put forward ‘make sense’….’there’s some good stuff in here’. Said that residents shouldn’t wait for formal submissions but contact councillors directly at all times.

HYAMS: also thanked submitters and those involved in consultation. Said that ‘there certainly are improvements that can be made to the plan’. The steering committee would meet on Thursday night. Further discussions would happen and ‘hope to adopt it’ on 26th June.

TANG: Said that the website update would hopefully address ‘some of the issues’ raised. Said he had some ideas that would be discussed with the committee.

 

June 13, 2012

Council & The Inviolability Of The Law!

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

We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.

We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.

Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.

TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….

COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?

PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’  and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.

ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various  applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’

COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!

LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….

COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?

PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.

TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.

ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?

PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.

MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.

COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!

HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.

COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.

TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).

MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.

 

June 12, 2012

A Brief Report

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting was frankly disappointing in terms of the overall turnout of residents. Of the 20 plus submissions on the Council/Community Plan, only three people addressed council whilst most of the submitters were not present in chambers. Whether unforseen circumstances prevented their appearance and presentation (ie Friends of Caulfield Park had expressed the desire to address council) or whether residents after years and years of submitting their thoughts, ideas, and aspirations, only to have nothing come from their efforts, thought in the end, it was a useless exercise, we do not pretend to know. However, as the saying goes, the outcomes of the submissions are what’s important and residents will undoubtedly judge council on this basis. We will report in greater detail on the presentations in the next day or so.

Of immediate interest are the two development applications which together drew approximately 110 objections – the Glen Huntly Road, and the Gilmour St, Bentleigh proposals. We believe that the debate on these two applications illustrated precisely what is amiss with Glen Eira Council, its Planning Scheme, and how reluctant councillors are to challenge the current (hidden) agendas. The Glen Huntly Rd applications basically accepted the officers’ recommendation, whilst the Gilmour St application reduced the number of dwellings to one double storey and two single storeys.

Penhalluriack made two ‘suggestions’ – to defer decision on the Glen Huntly application. There was no seconder. His request for a report on the Exeloo toilets and for a cost/benefit analysis that included maintenance costs, and graffiti removal costs, was defeated. Magee seconded.

In the coming days we will present a detailed account of the arguments so that residents may judge for themselves the contradictions, the grandstanding, and the innumerable lapses in logic.

PS: It’s also worth mentioning that the game of verbal gymnastics continues unabated. 3 councillors continually referred to the “transitions policy” as a “transition ZONE”. We remind readers that nothing could be further from the truth. This is NOT A ZONE. It merely creates setbacks for those properties abutting Minimal Change Areas. To call this a ZONE is not only misleading, but we contend, deliberately mischievious. If councillors do not even know what they are voting for, then we are all in real trouble. If they do know, then their obfuscation of the truth is unacceptable.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »