GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

April 10, 2012

Councillor Questions

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

Penhalluriack started asking a series of questions –

(1) Asked if the Noel Arnold (consultant’s report) actually tested the mulch itself and if it was done,  ‘to provide details’ of results and costs

(2) When was this done?

(3) Whether this work ‘was included in Noel Arnold Associate’s final report’. If it wasn’t included in their report then Penhalluriack wanted officers to explain why it wasn’t included.

(4) Quoted Newton as saying that the cost was $5000 and Penhalluriack asked whether this was the cost at the 5th April or whether there was additional work done ‘prior to the 5th April’ which wasn’t in the Newton report to council.

(5) Said that the original quote was ‘$2,000-$3000’ but wanted to know what the total ‘amount paid’ was.

At this point Lipshutz raised a ‘Point of Order’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I suggest the question is improper’ (in breach of the Local Government Act and the ombudsman’s report about Penhalluriack and the mulch facility. Stated that Penhalluriack had tried to get this information via his FOI application which failed) ‘and is now seeking the same information’. Also didn’t like the ‘way the question is framed’ and its criticism of officers ‘that there is wrong doing on the part of officers’….’that once again is inappropriate conduct’.

HYAMS: ‘I am going to uphold that point of order’. Agreed that because of the ombudsman’s report and ‘our duty to uphold the provisions’ of LGA and Code of conduct….’we should be doing what we can to stop breaches of those’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he wasn’t contradicting the officers, ‘what I am concerned about is that there has been additional testing done’ and if this testing shows that the mulch is infected ‘any councillor in this room’ wouldn’t vote to reinstate the mulch facility. ‘That’s why I’m asking these questions’. Started quoting an email from Noel Arnold & Associates which said they’d got samples from Bunnings and there would be ‘analysis’ and that the cost for this is ‘additional’ to original statement.

HYAMS: interrupted at this point. Said that the ombudsman’s report stated that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest in mulch.

PENHALLURIACK: corrected Hyams by saying that the ombudsman said that he ‘may’ have a conflict of interest. Stated that he had legal advice on these questions and that he doesn’t believe he has a conflict of interest and it’s ‘for me to judge’ about asking these questions.

HYAMS: Claimed that the point of order was that the questions were ‘improper’. ‘In my opinion’ (given the ombdusman’s report and that Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest at the last meeting)

PENHALLURIACK: claimed that he had left the room but did not declare a conflict of interest

HYAMS: Again said the ombudsman stated he had a conflict of interest

PENHALLURIACK: again corrected Hyams by repeating the ombudsman saying he ‘may have a conflict of interest’. Referred to the Municipal Inspector’s report which said that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. ‘This is a very difficult area and I don’t believe it’s right that you sit in judgement of me…..taking the responsibility for the health and safety’ of residents and workers.

HYAMS: said that he ‘understands’ Penhalluriack’s ‘motivation’ but ‘integrity agency’ asks ‘why did you allow these continuous breaches’. Said that Penhalluriack’s beliefs about conflict of interest are matters ‘for your conscience’  but Hyams conscience is ‘how I react to what I see as breaches of the law’

PENHALLURIACK: offered Hyams to report him to a Councillor Conduct Panel ‘if you like to’ but that isn’t the issue. Claimed that the issue was ‘health and safety of the public’….’there has been testing of the mulch within that mulch facility’. Stated that his mother caught pneumonia which can be ‘parallel’ to the symptoms of legionella and that he doesn’t want it on ‘my conscience’ that the report has ‘cleared the mulch’ without us knowing. Tried to finish his questions.

HYAMS: ‘I have ruled that your question is improper’ and asked him to stop.

PENHALLURIACK dissented from the ruling and said that he moves a motion and that he would like Hyams to ‘call a vote of councillors’

HYAMS: ‘could you point to me in the Local Law where it says you can dissent’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask that you put it to a democratic vote’

HYAMS: said he would if he could find that section which would allow him to do this.

PENHALLURIACK: said that it should be council and councillors that make decisions and not the mayor that the mayor is simply ‘first among equals’

HYAMS then read out the section from the Local Law which says that the chairperson is the ultimate arbiter on points of order.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that this isn’t a point of order. ‘I’m asking for dissent from the ruling’.

HYAMS: said that Lipshutz made a point of order and he’s ruled on that point of order.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams if he was ‘frightened’ of the report and voting on this

HYAMS: Said that Penhalluriack was now debating something else. ‘I’ve made a ruling on a point of order’.

TANG: “Point of clarification’ Said he was trying to figure out the point of order ‘what basis were you saying you were ruling the question out of order?’

HYAMS: ‘that it was improper…breach of Local Government Act (conflict of interest) …may be breach….misuse of position (trying to get information through his position as a councillor that he couldn’t get through VCAT)….and continuation of behaviour (that O’Neill and Ombudsman saw as) ‘bullying’. Said that if a councillors action breaches the Local Government act and Code of Conduct then it’s ‘improper’

 

April 7, 2012

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

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

Item 4.4 of the Special Council Meeting involved the ‘conflict of interest & Laneway’ issue. In the accompanying Officers’ report (which again has no name attached to it!) there is the statement –

“As the substance of this matter was handled under delegation and has not previously been considered at a Council Meeting, documents relevant to the Ombudsman’s Report are attached.

1. Recommendation That Council note that Council’s in-house lawyer (Corporate Counsel) rejected the proposal in relation to the laneway on 22 October 2009.”

We could again quibble and ask why only a selective version of correspondence is suddenly made public. What’s more important however is the statement as to whether the question of the laneway has ever come up in any shape or form at a council meeting. Clever wordplay such as ‘substance’ cannot disguise the fact that the laneway issue has featured prominently in previous formal council decisions. We refer readers to the minutes of 25th September, 2007 and the 16th October, 2007 where the question of the laneway and adverse possession were constantly referred to. We quote from the minutes of 25th September –

“Proposed construction of buildings and works over the right of way

The applicant does not own the right of way. It is a road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004, which is available for public use.

The applicant has rights to use it to access his property. The two adjoining residential properties facing Hawthorn Road also have access rights over the right of way from their properties.

The structure will physically block access to part of the right of way for the two Hawthorn Road residential properties, and prevent public access..

As an aside, the applicant has lodged an adverse possession claim for the right of way through the Land Titles Office. This process has not concluded. Notwithstanding this, it has no bearing on the town planning decision before Council”.

Also in these minutes there is an ‘addendum’ from planner Effie Tangalakis which ‘corrects’ the earlier officers’ report in its comments on the laneway. It reads in part:

“At its meeting of 4th September 2007, Council deferred consideration of Item 8.5 until the next Council meeting. The decision to defer the matter was subject to clarification on the ownership of the right of way affected by the proposal.

The right of way consists of two parts; a northern and southern portion. The southern portion is owned by Katrine Isobel Penhalluriack subject to an easement of carriageway in favour of the abutting properties in Hawthorn Road.

The Certificates of Title to numbers 339 and 341 Hawthorn Road show the combined northern and southern portions as being a “road”. The ownership of the right of way, as with the ownership of the subject site or adjoining properties, does not affect the town planning consideration or the planning merits of the case. What is significant though are the carriageway rights to the abutting properties over the land on which the planning permit is sought for a building.

As indicated in the Council report, this outcome does not constitute proper and orderly Planning”.

Council meeting of September 25th 2007 contains emails sent by Penhalluriack to councillors. The emails focus on the inaccuracies in the officer’s report especially in relation to the laneway issue. It’s also clear from these emails that Penhalluriack as a citizen, not a councillor, had meetings with councillors regarding the issue – as is the right of any ratepayer.

Penhalluriack’s application was eventually passed 6 to 3. Those voting in favour WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING COUNCILLORS WERE : Tang, Lipshutz and Esakoff. 

To therefore claim that the issue of the laneway has been exclusively handled under delegation and has never ‘in substance’ come up before council is both untrue and another example of selective corporate memory. Even the ombudsman reveals that current councillors had knowledge of such dealings when he states: “that the document that Cr Penhalluriack was seeking was created before Cr Penhalluriack became a Councillor and was created for the purposes of advising former Councillors of Mr Penhalluriack’s various disputes with the council.” 

All councillors therefore knew about the disputed laneway. Several of them had even voted on the application that contained the contested ‘roadway’. To now plead ‘ignorance’ and the furphy that it was all handled under delegation does not coincide with the facts of the matter. None of these councillors are poor, innocent bystanders, ignorant of what has gone on. This is simply another example of misrepresentation and deliberate distortion of the facts. More than anything, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff have played a major part in this whole fiasco.  

When Lipshutz, Tang and the others last Tuesday night voted to unanimously accept the recommendation they created a further black mark against themselves! Lobo’s pathetic attempt to disengage himself from the situation with his totally irrelevant argument is even more laughable, especially when he took the Ombudsman to task with the following comments: 

LOBO: read the title of the ombudsman’s report and stated that he had to ‘wrestle’ with this since the meaning of ‘governance’ embraces all councillors and staff in providing ‘transparent and accountable local governance’. Went on to say that he thought he and others had done ‘all we could do to help’ Penhalluriack and as a result he rejected the title of the ombudsman’s report saying that it should have instead been called bullying etc. ‘by a councillor of the city of Glen Eira’. Lobo then claimed that the ombudsman has ‘painted all of us’ into the ‘category of poor governance’. He concluded by saying that ‘we have done what we had to do’. 

PILLING: reiterated the blurb that this issue hadn’t been handled at a council meeting and that it was all done under delegation and he supported the recommendation. 

Our conclusion is that the ombudsman on this one point at least got it right. All councillors are tainted by their failure to provide good governance in continually accepting without question or comment the nonsense that is put before them by administrators.  

 

April 3, 2012

Special Council Meeting

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

A few preliminary comments on tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

  • Doors were again locked
  • Residents attending the meeting in order to find out what was going on would have left none the wiser and certainly confused as to (a) why the urgency, and (b) what the outcomes were
  • History revisionists were out in full force

We report on Item 4.1 – noting and ‘adopting’ the Ombudsman’s report.

HYAMS: Asked if anyone had a conflict of interest to declare. No one did. Hyams moved the motion including that the Secretary of the Department implement recommendation 2 and 3 of the ombudsman’s report. Pilling seconded. Began by explaining why there wasn’t 7 days notice because needed a ruling from VCAT before the compulsory conference which is set down for next week. so there’s a ‘very tight time frame’…’I find the report to be a very accurate recounting of the facts…..behaviour of Cr Penhalluriack and the effects of the behaviour’. (Spoke about how on the night of the Mayoral election many councillors referred to the ‘difficult’ year that Esakoff had had as Mayor)….’now…the community understands why….significant report (because Ombudsman lists all of his previous reports and only 8 of them concern councils and only 2 are about individual councillors) ‘so clearly when the Ombudsman releases a report about a single councillor’ (not to be ignored).

Read out Paragraph 12 which talked about Penhalluriack ‘contesting the rules governing his behaviour in a forceful and aggressive way’…’that’s why we come to this situation….(referred to his tv interview and that they didn’t include the entire comment) ‘Cr Penhalluriack is a very successful businessman used to running his own show….having his own way….has trouble with the contraints imposed on councillors via the Local Government Act…(Mentioned that the report is) ‘largely uncritical of council and its efforts….critical on council being too lenient on Cr Penhalluriack….(3 aspects to the report – mulch facility). Municipal Inspector ‘has released a letter to us that said there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden of proof required for criminal cases…..(therefore no action but Ombudsman looked at misconduct which)’would have a lesser evidentiary burden’…..so because something isn’t prosecutable as a crime doesn’t mean it isn’t misconduct’…..’so the Municipal Inspector and Ombudsman aren’t necessarily incompatible….(stated that he didn’t think that Penhalluriacks ‘motivations’ re the mulch were to profit his business)….’but motivation and even action you take doesn’t matter’…..what matters is that the interest exists….(Said that he had argued before that there wasn’t a conflict of interest and that he had moved the amendment to withdraw the mulch from the allegations to go to the councillor conduct panel)…’but having seen the Ombudsman’s report (he accepts that there could be a conflict of interest)….

‘Laneway matter seems to be pretty straight forward….(he wasn’t present at the meetings)…but that’s the ombudsman’s findings and we’re obliged (to accept them)….(as to the bullying)’I have to agree…..’given the repeated nature of these infringements….(then findings of misconduct and serious misconduct) ‘may not suffice’…..’under Section 81k of the Local Government Act (VCAT can find misconduct and serious misconduct but )‘the ongoing behaviour…justifies us asking the other parties to endorse the ombudsman’s recommendations as well’….’I would hope that the Secretary would send the right message about the importance’ (of the report). (As to recommendation 3 then the processes are ‘cumbersome’ and expensive for councils and when there is a councillor who is) ‘potentially far more disruptive than Cr. Penhalluriack could practically shut down the council ….make all discussions impossible’….

ASKED FOR TIME EXTENSION. Motion was carried. Penhalluriack asked for a division. ‘You really want a division on whether I should be allowed to talk any longer’. Penhalluriack answered ‘yes’. Tang raised a point of order that you can request a division on a motion

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack

Hyams: Perhaps Cr Forge (might like to see what Cr Penhalluriack) is doing before she puts her hand up next time.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams to withdraw the comment. Hyams asked ‘On what grounds” and Penhalluriack said that it was ‘rude’ and ‘not necessary’. Hyams responded that that wasn’t grounds for a point of order. But ‘I will withdraw’.

HYAMS: went on to reiterate that when a councillor is disruptive and could close down council that there are far ‘wider matters’ to be considered and that’s why there’s the recommendation to the Secretary.

PILLING: ‘I fully accept this Ombudsman’s report…seriousness of the report…many instances of councillor misconduct….

PENHALLURIACK: Started off by stating that people need to ‘look at background…arisen because Andrew Newton refuses to speak to me…..refuses mediation….(refuses to discuss) ‘the problem he obviously has with me….I feel that problem has existed ever since I was elected….made my life very difficult….bully in this area is not me…I am the victim of bullying….from all of the councillors ….ostracised me….forced me from my place of work…(Said that both the O’Neill report and Ombudsman’s report are based on) ‘opinion….who may be lying through their teeth….when you get in the witness box….you are named…subject to…cross examination….I have no idea who in this room has given evidence…ombudsman is a great institution….digs out corruption….I am not corrupt and I have never bullied anybody in this room. (Admitted to getting frustrated) ‘but I am not a bully’. (Went on to state that the ombudsman investigator (Mcullough) has) ‘quite a file’…..most unhelpful (in getting copy of meeting with him)….in my interview…..all I was asked about was the mulch shed….(not the other matters and he doesn’t know who raised them)….’I am the person who has been victimised in all this’ (didn’t have to go this far because council could have gone to mediation before O’Neill and Esakoff simply handed it over to council)…‘council resolution was to (go to mediation first and this didn’t happen)’.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to comment on the report because ‘it speaks for itself…endorses (the recommendation because it is ‘general’….’where you have any councillor’ (causing problems and not like parliament)‘we’re a band of 9 councillors and we work together’….’when a councillor does not do so….intolerable situation...Local Government Act doesn’t do what should be done…’quick and easy solution’….allows the mess to…drag on….forever and ever…..(Commented on Penhalluriack’s claim that he was ostracised in that every councillor) ‘at one stage….tried to assit Cr Penhalluriack…..unfortunately (Penhalluriack says I’m right all the time and you people are wrong)…‘I reject absolutely that this is Mr Newton’s fault….’not about mediation’…’went as far as getting a report….unfortunate….let the law take its course….(we’ve got a system and have to abide by it right or wrong).

MAGEE: Stated that it’s been ‘going on for quite some time’. The recommendations will perhaps also go to VCAT after the Councillor Conduct Panel ‘that’s where we get the opportunity to question…(Penhalluriack has opportunity to)’present evidence himself’…’the evidence from both sides needs to be put together (and someone independent adjudicate). Stated that when all the evidence has been put forward that he’s looking forward to a decision, ‘a definitive answer’….’somewhere a defining line where we can accept the answers….at the moment I ….endorse the recommendations of the Ombudsman….(but also wanted the end of the process)

FORGE: Said last 17 months have been difficult and that she and Cr. Penhalluriack have ‘worked very closely’, and ‘every blow that he has been feeling I feel as well…(reiterated that at VCAT they can be cross examined and)’get an answer to these questions’….

MAGEE:Brought up point of order that he didn’t say anything about being cross examined but that Penhalluriack could ask questions.

TANG: Said that he thought councillors needed to explain in a council meeting ‘how they react and why…..ongoing process….tying to work with Penhalluriack’ (objected to the term ‘ostracise’ because he claimed that all councillors)’had tried in lengthy…conversations…..early…late….hardware store….tried to work with Cr Penhalluriack to achieve what he wants to do within the prism of the Local Government Act….to try and get the information that….(he wants and whether his motions are)’reasonable within the confines of theLocal Government Act’. Accepts the ombudsman’s findings because councillors have employed ‘abundant caution’…..trying to gather all the evidence before proceeding….(outside and putting all this to Penhalluriack)….’only after that process did council go outside….to resolve these issues…..flush out these issues….Cr Penhalluriack himself decided to go to VCAT….Ombudsman has obviously decided to independently investigate….(council didn’t think that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest over mulch)…ombudsman is not in the position of a councillor….(time extension)….I accept the finding….notwithstanding that I may have taken a different position in the past….(Said that Penhalluriack’s claim that he wasn’t asked about all the recommendations/allegations that Penhalluriack would have got the ombudsman’s report in draft format to respond, same with internal investigation)…’was provided for….I agree with councillors who have said he has been disruptive….process needs to be resolved….agree with recommendations….it could have been resolved easier….given our obligations as councillors…..taken all reasonable steps we could….(now with the ombudsman’s report) ‘we can do nothing else’.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the Municipal Inspector’s report 15th March and 26th August 2010 ‘be incorporated into the minutes’. Pilling seconded. Tang asked why he wanted these documents and which versions since council got one version and Penhalluriack another one. Penhalluriack said that these documents ‘throw a different light….(on the obmudsman’s report reagarding the mulch and misuse of his position to enter the CEO’s office.)

HYAMS: Stated that there no compunction on anyone concerned about workplace safety ‘to undergo mediation’…(said he was aware of mediation in another council where the councillor ended up ramming an officer’s head into a wall)…”I don’t know that mediation is necessary…what is obligatory is for council to provide a safe workplace….(Penhalluriack claims that he’s been ostracised but it’s )unfortunate that (his behaviour has lead us to taking this aciton)…’the only criticism the obmudsman had of us is that we were too lenient on him….(reiterated how councillors had spent much time discussing these issues with Penhalluraick)….’we had an indepeendent expert come in….inappropriate behaviour…ombudsman (also found this)….”I hope that if VCAT comes to the same conclusion that we don’t hear they are also wrong….(voting isn’t about whether Penhalluriack is ‘liked’)….’very personable….’I’ve had a good relationship with him (most of the time)….our duty to look at this objectively….honour our obligations….

MOTION PUT: IN FAVOUR – Lipshutz, Lobo, Magee, Pilling, Tang, Hyams

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack.

 

March 30, 2012

Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[6] Comments 
Special Council Meeting — Tuesday 3 April 2012  
In accordance with Section 84(1) and Section 89(4A) of the Local Government Act 1989, notice is given that a Special Council meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 April 2012 commencing at 7pm in the Council Chamber, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield.
The business to be transacted at this meeting will be to consider a report entitled: “Conflict of Interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council” that was tabled in the Victorian State Parliament on 28 March 2012 by the Victorian Ombudsman and to address the report’s Recommendations. The urgent and extraordinary circumstances that require this meeting to be held with less than seven day’s notice arise because Council needs to address the recommendations in the report as a matter of urgency given that a compulsory conference is due to be held at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 12 April 2012 in relation to Cr Penhalluriak and Councillor conduct matters.
Chief Executive Officer Andre Newton
 

March 21, 2012

Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery

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

It’s  quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!

Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!

Morrice St Child Care Centre

LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.

Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)

LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)

PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)

HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’

MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.

FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of  Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)

TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)

HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.

TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’

PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING

 

 

March 20, 2012

Governance: How Low Can You Go?

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

The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.

Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.

HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s  behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.

Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.

No councillor commented on this response!

Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.

HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’

Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.

We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.

 

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

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

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

 

March 16, 2012

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[5] Comments 

If any further evidence was required as to the machinations of this administration then readers need to look no further than the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. We will highlight just a few examples.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The incamera section of the agenda contains this item: “12.3 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee membership”. We assume that this refers to the reappointment (again, and again, and again) of either Mr Gibbs, or Mr McLean. We highlight the secrecy once more and the questionable probity of the potential presence of these men for a consistent and extended period of time on the most important committee in a council.

We also note the recommendations in the Officer’s Report (no name attached to this report – Again!) to reappoint Cr. Lipshutz and Magee to this advisory committee. We have previously stated our concerns about the unbroken presence of Cr. Lipshutz on this committee. If Council is really concerned about potential perceptions of good governance, and adhering to national and state standards, then there must be regular rotation of committee members. We have also stated that we believe the best candidates for this most important position are Crs Lobo and Penhalluriack.  Given their business and banking acumen and their long years of experience in worrying about bottom line figures and fiduciary responsibilities, they are both in our view, ideal councillor representatives on such a committee.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There are at least 2 highly contentious planning applications before council – the Morrice St, 2 storey 120 place child care centre, and the 3 story Mahvo St., development with 10 apartments. We have again noted how this planning department fails to adequately inform residents; how the number of notifications sent out appear to be directly correlated to the number of anticipated objections. For example: the erection of lighting in Caulfield Park, literally hundreds of metres away from the nearest house, occasioned over 500 notices. C60 which will have a direct and devastating impact on humdreds of homes, also had about 500-600 notices. Now we have these two applications, both of which were recommended for planning permit approval –

Morrice St – 20 properties notified; 23 notices; 76 objections & 1 letter of support.

Mahvo St. – 10 properties notified; 11 notices; 47 objections

In contrast we find the Lillimir application (which is already inundated with 3 storey developments and major multi units) received  86 notices sent and garnered 10 objections. This is not to decry the importance of this area. We are simply tired of the continual failure of the planning department to inform residents and to ensure that notices in all areas are distributed equitably and fairly. If people don’t know what’s going on, then how can they object? Could this in fact be the hidden agenda?

We are also taken aback at the sheer nonsense and gobbledygood that features in these officers reports. The reports lack substance, detail, statistics, and most importantly, they repeatedly fail to adequately address residents’ concerns. Here are just a few examples of this nonsense. We urge readers to note the vacuous/evasive language often used –

“Whilst there would be an appreciable increase in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon periods, these additional vehicle movements would not have an unreasonable effect on the current level of amenity of Morrice Street which would remain quiet throughout most of the day and at weekends.”

“Applying the State Government tests set out in Rescode, there will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties. There will be some overshadowing impacts to the habitable windows at 34 Mavho Street….The recommended increased setbacks at the first and second storeys will also assist in improving the degree of overshadowing.”

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

There are countless tit-bits of information in these ‘records’ that lead on to countless questions of planning, especially for GESAC. Here are a few –

7th February 2012 – GESAC indoor courts – update. Mayor to contact Bentleigh Secondary College

14th February – GESAC an update on the situation in relation to the allocation of time for basketball.

We’re also told that meeting resumed only in the presence of councillors. If so, then where is the ‘independent minute taker’? Was he/she present? If so, then why not listed? If not, then why not given the last Municipal Inspector’s recommendation and councillors promise to accept these recommendations?

Cr Hyams – informed the meeting that he had received a telephone call from the Municipal Inspectorate in relation to complaints and investigations.

Make of the above what you will!!!!!

 

March 1, 2012

Pavilions, Politics & Polling

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

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS

Esakoff made two requests. First was about the ‘progress’ of consultation on the Booran Rd. Reservoir including dates for such meetings and that the report be tabled back at an Ordinary Council Meeting. Seconded Lipshutz.

Esakoff spoke about how the community in 2007/8 had made it clear that they wanted to have a say on the future of the site. There had been plenty and regular enquiries about ‘what was happening with this site’…..’a growing frustration’…..’I will not be forming any view until we hear from the community’ (She would then)’form a vision based on those views…..beginning of process of bringing it all to fruition…open space…concerns all of us…..(talked about more dense living and why this makes open space even more important)…..’site is unique, enormous’….

PENHALLURIACK: said he thought it was a ‘wonderful idea’ and supported the request.

MAGEE: asked if council would also be consulting with the State government as part of process as to their ‘plans for funding’. Hyams replied that it would be part of ‘funding process’ rather than ‘consultation process’.

ESAKOFF: said that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: We find it fascinating that this item rears its ugly head at this particular point in time – an election year! Booran Rd. has been on the ‘agenda’ since at least early 2008. This comment appears on the Glen Eira Environment Group’s website: “Council has said that there will be a second round of public consultation possibly in 2010 to gauge the public needs relating to the end use of the reserve. FOGHR hope that this second attempt in public consultation will be transparent and fair and not be loaded to achieve a predetermined outcome as the first round of public consultation clearly was.” To the best of our knowledge, no such ‘consultation process’ has ever occurred. Yet, here we have the ‘sudden’ call for ‘consultation’!!!! Just plain amazing what an election year can throw up!

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

LIPSHUTZ: asked for a report on ‘options available” for removing the Council Depot from Caulfield Park and the costs involved. FORGE seconded. Lipshutz said that ever since he has become councillor people have been asking him about this issue and that the depot is ‘a blot’ on the park. ‘we’ve looked at that a number of times’….(now that the park has been ‘beautified’ the depot is) ‘in the wrong place and shouldn’t be there’…..’not suggesting that it should be done prior to anything else….’should be brought to the table’…(issue has come up again and again)…‘It’s not an electioneering issue as Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested.… ‘everyone’….’including Friends of Caulfield Park‘….’we may in fact decide that it is too much money’….’Cambden ward does not have too many issues’….’happy little vegemites in Cambden ward’….but certainly that is one issue…..

FORGE: ‘should be ashamed to have this blight in Caulfield Park….(thought that things can) ‘easily be relocated’….(hot house is) ‘derelict and not functional’….waste of space….(cars/trucks so that park has been) ‘inundated with….unnecessary function….(would like extension of aviary and more barbecues)….’I think the whole area could be much better….’beautified and cared for’…..

MAGEE: Asked Lipshutz to include a ‘joint venture’ in the report with neighbouring councils. Gave example of Bayside’s ‘huge depot’ and Glen Eira could share this and thus save costs for both. Both Lipshutz and Forge agreed to this amendment.

PENHALLURIACK: Penhalluriack spoke about an architect friend who had drawn up some plans for what might work at Booran Rd and that the depot could be moved there. Asked Newton to include these as part of presentation. Went on to call the depot ‘a horrible blight’ at Caulfield Park….(spoke about Friends of Caulfield Park’s latest newsletter which showed how cars and other vehicles are using the park even at night) ‘parked all over the place’….(Supported both Lipshutz’s and Magee’s ideas).

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: Again, an old issue suddenly bursts forth. We have previously written on this as part of ‘untabled requests for reports’ by councillors. We reiterate that on 16th November 2007 Lipshutz and Whiteside had this passed in council: “That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City.”. We also note that 4 years later Mr. Jack Campbell asked a public question as to the outcome of this report. The response led to a single line reference in an Annual Report that an ‘investigation had been undertaken’. End of story! Now, 5 years later we get a very similar request! We might well ask what Cr. Lipshutz has done in the interim and why now, this issue should again be brought up. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are around the corner? We would also like to make the point that it was NOT PENHALLURIACK WHO RAISED THE QUESTION OF AN ELECTION YEAR BUT LIPSHUTZ HIMSELF WHEN HE CLAIMED HE WAS ‘NOT CYNICAL’!!!! 

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

ESAKOFF: asked for a report on ‘available options for the provision of female facilities’….’at Lord Reserve Pavilion’ and ‘baseball pavilion in E.E. Gunn Reserve’. (Read from phone). Hyams asked for seconder. Lipshutz seconded. After Lipshutz spoke briefly Hyams asked Burke to read out the request. Esakoff then spoke and said ‘I probably should have said change facilities and toilet facilities….'(NOTE: at this point Esakoff had switched off her phone). Tang then said that he thought that ‘Esakoff had changed the motion’ (in the last thing she said) and that this requires the ‘endorsement of the seconder’….(Lipshutz accepted the changes). Esakoff then spoke about ‘clarifying…by adding on a word’ ….’intention was’ (change and toilet facilities are) ‘two separate things’. Penhalluriack asked Burke to read the motion.

ESAKOFF: summed up by ‘reiterating the need throughout the community’ (about pavilions)….’not modern facilities’…’these two….placed above the Victory Park pavilion priorities….because of that deserve to be deliberated on…as much as we need to deliberate on Victory Park.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: We strongly suspect that 2 of these requests for reports (Lipshutz’s one on the park depot and the Esakoff one on pavilions) did not accord to council’s requirement of 24 hour notice in writing. Lipshutz mentioned a ‘foreshadowing’ of his request during an earlier part of the meeting. If notice had been given as required, there would be no need for such a statement.

Hyams claims that Esakoff’s request was ‘legitimate’ since it was part of the debate on the Victory Park item. No it wasn’t. Both of these other parks were part of a spurious argument designed to derail the motion under consideration – ie. Victory Park. Council’s resolution, which Hyams has quoted, reads in part that 24 hour notice must be given – “except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” We see no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here and no ‘motion’ was put ‘during the course of the meeting’. The Victory park item had been debated and decided. It was a closed matter. Esakoff’s request was therefore unlawful.

We also maintain that the confusion as to what the actual wording of the request for a report (as noted by Tang) is the result of Esakoff first reading from her phone, switching it off, and then not having the original wording in front of her. Again, this claim is verified by gallery observers. All in all, these episodes do nothing to instill confidence and trust in the workings of this council.

 

February 28, 2012

Victory By Stealth?

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

In this post we are reporting on one single incident that occurred at tonight’s council meeting which illustrates fully the extent to which this Council and some of its councillors are prepared to ‘bend the rules’ and ignore good governance in order to serve the interests of their masters. We are referring to the ‘debate’ on the Victory Park ‘refurbishments’. A full account of this item will appear soon. However, here is the chronology of events:

  • Lobo’s motion to accept Option 2 and include the funding in discussions on the 2012/13 budget was passed 7 to 2.
  • Esakoff and Tang voted against the motion. Only after Lipshutz saw everyone else’s hand go up and he realised the cause was lost, did he sheepishly and belatedly raise his hand in support of the motion.
  • We now jump to Esakoff’s Request for a Report. The look on all councillors’ faces was priceless – this had clearly not been previously discussed in the Councillor Assembly. So much for the ‘no surprises’ policy and the recently passed resolution that councillors shouldn’t vote for something or even second something that had not been presented with 24 hours notice!! But let’s face it – Esakoff isn’t Penhalluriack!
  • What is even more alarming is that ESAKOFF READ OUT HER REQUEST FROM HER MOBILE PHONE. In other words, she received a text in the middle of a council meeting and as the good little servant she is, acted upon these directions. At least 3 members of the gallery can verify this.
  • We suspect that the message either came from Paul Burke or Jamie Hyams since both sit elevated in chamber and behind panels. In other words, we believe that Esakoff received clear directions on what to say and what to ask for!
  • Her Request for a Report related back to the Victory Park issue (her argument had been defeated) but the request was basically a reiteration of her previous rehearsed and probably trumped up argument. Again, we will provide the full details in time.

It is indeed a very, very sad day that certain councillors are nothing more than pawns under the direction of ‘faceless men’. As for adhering to council’s Local Law and recent resolutions re the ‘no suprises’ policy, it’s obvious that this only applies to certain councillors and not to others. Hyams’ silence here makes him equally complicit and culpable in this chicanery. As Chair of the meeting he should have ruled her Request for a Report out of order – unless of course, he was the author of the text message! Governance is truly moribund in Glen Eira and no amount of carefully arranged stage craft can hide this fact.

PS: It would also behove Cr Hyams to ensure that he disseminates the truth rather than what is good for public relations. He claimed that the Booran Rd Reserve had been ‘gifted’ to council and that Council now in fact owns the land. Not so. At least the State Government at the time had enough good sense not to hand public land over to Glen Eira – they simply appointed them as a Committee of Management. Residents deserve accuracy instead of continual spin – especially from the Mayor!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »