GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 4, 2011

Toilets, Policy and Circuses

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

Item 9.4 on Wednesday night featured the Public Toilet issue in Centre Rd., East Bentleigh. We draw readers’ attention to this item because it highlights again:

  • the total inconsistency of argument when applied to previous decisions and discussion
  • the discovery of new terminology by Lipshutz – ‘holistic’
  • the platitudes and dissembling that surround notions of ‘consultation’
  • the gang of four – again!
  • but the saddest thing about this whole episode is that it occupied more time than the C60 and other important issues put together. Yes, we can have ‘robust discussions’ – but only when the matter is ‘trivial’ in comparison to the really political and important matters that need proper decision making.

Here’s what happened:

MAGEE: Submitted alternative recommendation/motion where council could ‘note’ the ‘possibility’ of providing a public toilet at 672 Centre Rd and that there be community consultation about Option A – ie to sell the laneway to help fund the toilet block. Seconded Forge.

MAGEE: Stated that nearby toilet had disappeared nearly 15 years ago and that the IGA toilet was inappropriate since residents had to leave a deposit when they asked for a key then return it. For elderly residents this was not ‘dignified’, so instead of spending an ‘enjoyable time in our shopping centres’ they go to a hotel, go home ‘or they don’t come to the shopping centre’. Proposed that sale of laneway could go to Commonwealth bank ‘who are already pushed for car parking’ and they would benefit from an extra ‘3 or 4 carparking spaces’….(which would) ‘subsidise if not pay for the whole’ lot….’People in East Bentleigh deserve this and asking for this….let’s see how we can fund this….let’s ask the community, the shopholders…

FORGE: Supported Magee. Outlined how her previous work with the health industry and elderly and ‘it’s all very well going to a hotel’……’but when you’re in trouble….it’s a long way (to go)….it’s not just the elderly, but young ones as well. Mothers with children’….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports the ‘concept’ of public toilets and ‘if there is a need in East Bentleigh I would certainly support that’. ‘What I’m concerned about is policy on the run….we have a SRP (Strategic Resource Plan) ….we have a budget….we have so many projects that we all want as councillors…toilets is certainly one of them and childcare is another….trees,….footpaths….all of us
want to do (these projects)…’we also have a budget…I remind councillors that we are now completing GESAC ….a situation is critical to maintain cash flow….(can’t spend money which will) ‘impact adversely’. Said that council meets in February ‘where we look at our priorities, we look at what we want to achieve in the year’ (budget and SRP are developed from that). ‘there no reason why we should not alter that….I think in this particular case you go to consultation it tells the community straight away ‘we’re going to do this’….I’d rather see a recalculation of our strategy….let’s look globally, holistically and not simply
plug holes….if we approve this motion it simply opens the flood gates….every time we find something to plug….and before you know it we have a dysfunctional budget and a dysfunctional council’…I think that once having a plan you try and stick to that plan’…..’no iron clad, but in this particular case…..

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed with Lipshutz but only first half of what he said. ‘public toilets are important….(not only for mothers and elderly) but for youth….we spend a lot of money of warm season grasses…for sporting fields which are only used (mainly) by the young….but we don’t spend enough money on toilets’ Gave an example of the Hawthorn Rd toilet which is ‘way beyond I think the budget and way behind the timetable….(Agreed that council should be careful with spending money…Said that there had been plenty of discussions on) ‘the systems we have for delegating jobs…’we don’t know why the tenders come in and they’re too expensive….(Foreshadowed his calling for an Officers’ Report on tendering)…’In last Saturdays’ Age you can buy this house (holding up newspaper)…2 storey, double garage, study, 4 bedrooms, and 3 toilets  for $250,000….(whilst the toilet at Hawthorn Rd) ‘providing only 3 toilet cubicles that’s for $320,000….an extra $70,000 for a piddly little building…I really do not understand as a business person why this is costing us so much money…..I agree we are tight for funds….borrowing heavily….we can look more carefully in other areas to …how we allocate these jobs.’. Invited residents to look at the Hawthorn rd toilet and compare it with ‘this house – 4 bedrooms’….’we’re not getting value for money’….

TANG: Said that he thought that even Senator xenophon ‘would be happy with that stunt’…..’if public toilets can be made cheaper maybe there’s a business opportunity there …..(Brimbank councillor thought there was; imported toilets and under cut the market)….all State government bodies are paying around the same price…..(Disagreed with both Penhalluriack and Lipshutz in that finding money and spending it only when it becomes available)….’what I don’t hear is if we did get more money which public toilet would we spend it on?….(neither pays any regard to what he) ‘thinks was a unanimous (decision) on the Public Toilet Strategy in 2010…..(Spoke about the ‘filthy’ public toilet at Murrumbeena Railway Station)…’you’ve got to wonder if we had more money for public toilets where would we spend it?’….’If you’re wanting to go back to those priorities go back to the whole priorities….(foreshadowed a motion which would have consultation and look at priorities…’If it’s a representation made by the public council should consider it…(Said he’d been approached about McKinnon Reserve playground toilet)….I’d like to see us consider that location for priority listing….

PILLING: Would like to support Magee’s motion because ‘there certainly is a great need….East Bentleigh is the poor cousin….(his issue isn’t with money or process since) ‘there is a case to review the whole (strategy)….(Would be in favour of funding this toilet) ‘but more at the end of the process when we’ve examined all our strategies….I’d certainly be keen to re-examine the riorities….but we have to go through (process)….I certainly would like to be supporting a review….

HYAMS: Spoke about toilet at 670 Centre Rd which seemed to have been ignored….’not flush with funds’…(so if there’s a possibility of the developer paying for the toilet wait) ‘and see how that develops….I’d prefer at the moment to have an overall look at it (strategy)…..

ESAKOFF: Doesn’t support Magee’s motion. ‘ not for lack of motive….I support public toilets….(need to be provided) ‘in the usual way, not on the run as this one is….I would like to see us review the public toilet strategy….look at various options before we go to consultation….that needs discussion from our group first….financial report (on page 32 says) ‘definite need for caution and cash flow for remainder of this term….something that has not been budgeted for, not provided in the SRP…we need to go through this process in the correct and usual manner…..I would like to do this in the proper way and I would probably support the alternate motion (of Tang).

MAGEE: ‘strategies and policies….are just strategies and policies….The councillor group have lost the ability to listen to the community….if we are so stuck on a strategy that is now 2 years old, that didn’t properly in my opinion identify the need….this is about councillors doing their job. This is about listening to a community who have needs….this is an identified need and an approach from the community…this is me acting on behalf of that information….there’s no law that says Glen Eira Council must stick to (the strategy)….we have a very ageing community around East Bentleigh…..(can’t tell them that htye have to walk 250 metres when they need to go to the toilet).. ratepayers of Glen Eira deserve when they ask a councillor to advocate on their behalf….(talked about the laneway and how this could cover costs) ….I think the councillor body are now more intent on sticking to policies, strategies and formulaes rather than listening to the community….It’s not a council I (want?) to be part of’.

MOTION PUT: and Lost

TANG: Put alternate motion about conducting a review of toilet strategy BUT those residents who have made ‘representations’ since 10th August 2010 ‘should be invited to make submissions as part of that review’. Seconded Lipshutz. ‘Disappointed in the way Cr. Magee argued….very easy to say you stand here and represent your community and the rest of your colleagues don’t….(went over last ‘consultation process) ‘and council had to listen to its community…if councillors ignored them, find, probably got our strategy wrong….if council disregarded the advice it got on that strategy it probably got its strategy wrong….(and if we don’t review then again not doing things properly)…’It’s inappropriate to stand up here and say I received representations ….if you don’t listen to what I’m saying you’re not listening to the community…(need to have) ‘whole of community heard (and not just those that speak to one councillor). (Didn’t support relying on private developer)….(his motion would fit in with consultation) ‘that is to the whole council and not just one councillor because we happen to be doing our shopping down in East Bentleigh….some councillors shop in East Bentleigh, some councillors shop in Elsternwick, some councillors shop in glen Huntly….it shouldn’t be about catching them on a Saturday morning……

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m a councillor from Camden Ward but …..I’m a councillor for Glen Eira….and when I look at issues I look at what’s going to benefit all of Glen Eira, not just necessary my ward….(praised Magee for standing up for his ward residents but what is needed is )’a holistic approach….let’s do away with strategies, let’s do away with plans. If you do that ….let’s not have a community plan, let’s not have (February)…let’s willy nilly chose our pet projects …..It’s unfortunate that he (Magee) says that…I think all of us have to look at what’s best for the citizens of Glen Eira as a whole…(Claimed that more money is spent in Magee’s ward than any other one. That’s okay if) ‘that’s where the need arises….there has to be a holistic approach…you have to have a look at the needs of all the city of Glen Eira….’Let’s look at it holistically…let’s see what the community wants overall….and then decide where our priorities lie…(stated that each councillor wants to do so many things)….’but if we all do this…..as a team we actually achieve a hell of a lot….

HYAMS: Disagreed with Magee. ‘what we do when we put these strategies together is we consult with the community (they have input)…’we’re actually disenfranchising all the people who contributed to the strategy’ (if follow Magee’s example of individual representation)…’so in effect the way we do it is the most democratic way’…..’we do it systematically. We give everyone the same opportunity….once we’ve done that then we come to a solution….we are struggling for funds….sum of about 2.5 million dollars was ripped out of the budget over five years….we have to live with that decision….

PILLING: Positives will be that ‘we certainly do need to review’….(toilet strategy is) proceeding at glacial pace and that is part of the problem…perhaps we can increase the rate….but then also adjust some other areas….

MAGEE: ‘We obviously do need a review’ (so will support Tang’s motion)….I’m saying (residents) come to me and ask me and I’ll listen. I can’t speak for you. Only you know that.

ESAKOFF: ‘We are councillors who are meant to be working in the best interests of the people….not our given ward….and that’s why we have these plans in place and our strategies….and our prioritising of various things….to change those priorities around means changing other priorities….if something comes in something must go out,. Unless it’s been budgeted for and it’s in the SRP…we make those very difficult decisions (prior to budget setting) … because there are an enormous number of demands….What we have in place now is what was considered the right order, the right priority….that may well change….

TANG: ‘I don’t think ward arguments are particularly relevant here….(issue is where toilets are going to go, especially when only a couple a year are erected)….(Said that he wouldn’t like to get up and suggest to council that they change their priorities because he had been approached by one resident in his ward) ‘Representing the community would be to take on board that gentleman’s concerns and to bring them to council’s attention….I think we can accommodate what all councillors have been trying to achieve….in this review….No something we usually do (ie 2 year review) ……’so a review after two years is I think a pretty good outcome….

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

At Wednesday night’s Council Meeting, Penhalluriack attempted to deliver a ‘Right of Reply’. He was gagged repeatedly through his statements by Hyams and co. who numerous times leapt up to protest the relevance of what Penhalluriack was saying. We’ve since received an email from Cr. Penhalluriack which contains much of the statement he attempted to make. We publish this in the public interest.

At stake here is the ability of councillors to express a viewpoint, albeit unpopular, without hindrance, without procedural rules that are used to effectively silence individuals regardless of the merits of their position, and the deliberate and obstructionist manner in which these rules are interpreted and applied. In a council where there is no Notice of Motion, and all proposed motions, amendments, rights of reply, councillor questions and requests for reports are to be announced with 24 hours notice, then it is extremely easy to undermine and even sabotage efforts to get something into the public arena. Such practices do nothing to enhance the public’s perception of a truly democratic organisation and its governance practices.

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

Glen Eira Debates has an anonymous contribution posted earlier today that says that I am a bully, but goes on to point out that I am also shut out of the debate concerning council’s CEO. There is clearly a lot of confusion within the community, and there is a  large amount of material which has been declared “confidential” and therefore can’t be included in this reply.  However I do make the following points in my own defence.

The mulch storage facility has been in the news consistently. The Age, the Leader, the Bayside Melbourne Weekly and the local blog, Glen Eira Debates, have repeatedly featured stories and comments about this facility. I want to once and for all set the record straight and present the facts:

  1. My concern over the mulch storage facility is the result of residents writing to me. “I often take my granddaughter to play in the adjacent playground and I am worried about the traffic and the dust generated by the council’s equipment”  As well I have concerns for our employees, one of whom has written, concerning the mulch getting wet, “that may increase the risk of composting and subsequently the risk of Legionella.” An employee also wrote “The hazards associated with mulch are well known”.  Yet they continued to work there without protective gear until at least the 5th April 2011.
  2. I followed up on such concerns as is my duty as early as June 2010
  3. For months nothing was happening despite my frequent requests.   On the 28th October an officer wrote “No further action proposed at this time.”
  4. My recourse to the Audit committee is my right as a councillor, and that committee deliberated on the issue, and found no conflict of interest in my presentation.
  5. The Arnold investigation was only instigated because of the audit committee.
  6. The report seemingly went through many versions. What has appeared in public is only the latest one of these versions.
  7. I have been refused details of these changes, including why they were made.
  8. I supplied various other scientific studies to all councillors and council officers
  9. The decision to close the facility was on the vote of 7 to 2, yet the focus of criticism and innuendo has been specifically directed towards me.

In order to counter the continual and misleading media coverage of these events, I have applied under FOI and common law for documents relating to this entire episode. This is what has happened:

  • I have not received all the documents I requested
  • The processes have been most unusual in that I was given incorrect information by officers which delayed the release of documents; the released documents were not presented in accordance with legal requirements; and my request for a
    review by VCAT was also delayed by incorrect advice from council’s officers.
  • As a councillor I have a common law right to documents which are part of council business. The mulch storage facility is absolutely council business.
  • Section 17 of the FOI Act obliges council to assist in sourcing and releasing the documents yet they have briefed Maddocks, a large firm of city solicitors, to resist my claim.
  • Documents not released to me are currently the basis of my request for a review by VCAT
  • What is the cost of preventing me from seeing these documents, what is council trying to hide, and is the timing of all of this a mere coincidence?

At that point the Mayor declared that what I was saying was not relevant and refused me permission to continue.

Frank.

 

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:

  • The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
  • The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
  • The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton

If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions.  Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’  and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’

ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.

PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’

HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’

HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’

ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.

HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’

NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion

LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.

PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.

NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.

MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….

TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’

ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)

PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’

ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.

TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.

PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t  believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.

TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)

ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’

BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO.  Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.

TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..

LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive  meetings

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.

TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

 

October 25, 2011

Practice Does NOT Make Perfect

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

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Looks like the old adage of ‘practice makes perfect’ is humbug when it comes to running a Special Committee Meeting and adhering to the rules of conduct for such meetings. To put it bluntly, poor Mayor Esakoff, got it wrong – not once, not twice, not three times, but an incredible 4 times this evening.

To begin with, Penhalluriack assumed his normal position within council.

ESAKOFF: ‘Cr Penhalluriack we’re about to start a Special Council meeting. If you wouldn’t mind leaving this part of the chamber please”. (NOTE: this wasn’t a Special Council Meeting but a Special Committee meeting). Stuff up #1

Esakoff read out the tribute to indigenous peoples, oath and apologies and then corrected herself to state :”I’m reading out the wrong agenda” (Stuff up #2). ‘Presentation of Officers’ reports’. We don’t have any tonight’ . Esakoff then went straight on to ‘consideration of confidential items’. (Stuff up #3 – Agenda items clearly stated: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SPECIAL COMMITTEE. No motion was put to accept previous minutes! – Hence the minutes are still ‘unaccepted’ by the Committee/Council.

Hyams moved and Lipshutz seconded the ‘confidential’ recommendation – ie meeting be closed to members of the public. Esakoff then said ‘All those in favour’. 8 hands went up – ‘Carried unanimously’. (Stuff up #4 – Esakoff did not call for further speakers, objectors, etc. as stated clearly in the Local Law – “the Chairperson must call upon any Member who wishes to speak against the motion” [234(6)].

DURATION OF OPEN MEETING – APPROX 2.5 MINUTES.

ANNUAL REPORT: Special Council meeting

Move to accept annual report: – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘a very good document….good reading….highlights are at the front….sets out areas where we hope to do better which are fewer than they were last year….details performance against community plan…shows a generally good result….shows overall that this is a very strongly performing council…we have a habit of winning or getting nominated for awards for our annual eports….tells a very good story in the way it is presented…

LIPSHUTZ: ‘sets out a great story…it shows council (does a little bit more than) collect rubbish….sets out very clearly what council does….a real picture and an insight into our council…I think it’s a good report….

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it seems to be an annual report’s function is to communicate…this does it well…enquiry as to cost,….question is ….a more economic way of producing (the report)….

PILLING: Spoke of need to highlight disappointments and ‘one of the disappointments is the state of the Elsternwick Child Care Centre….(will be) ‘closing in two months time. I can’t see that mentioned in this report….should be highlighted…

MOTION PUT: Carried unanimously.

DURATION – 5 minutes.

 

 

October 12, 2011

Council Meeting: Caulfield Park Conservatory

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[4] Comments 

Pilling moved an alternate motion – (a) council recognises heritage value of the conservatory; (b) expressions of interest not go ahead and (c) council funds restoration in 2012/13 budget. Penhalluriack seconded.

PILLING: Stated that this has been a ‘long saga….(and time that) council acknowledged the heritage…(worried about the precedents that would be set with a commercial enterprise) and ‘commercialisation of public parks’…(wondered about other things that would be needed such as car parking) ‘more concrete, open space taken up’…’sooner we get back to restoring the facility the cheaper it will be’…

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had changed his mind about the motion. At first had supported it and ‘still think it would be a good idea to add more life and activity to the park’…(referred to ex councillors in the gallery (Robilliard) and) ‘they probably remember that this was tried before and nobody stood up'(and showed any interest)…’we’re going to spend $10,000….which we really can’t afford to waste….I would like to see that money spent….on bulding itself (ensuring it’s in good condition)…’it’s a beautiful conservatory…way past it’s prime (inside and out)…’we need to look as a council at our responsibilities …to make sure this building (is retained).

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t think that what Pilling and Penhalluriack said was ‘accurate’….(ie previous EOI process and ‘no-one was interested’) …’My recollection is that the EOI was never done before’….’last occasion there was a …consultation as to whether there was interest in developing….57% of people who responded said they were in favour of it….(Talked about commercialisation and parks elsewhere in the world  and how they have ‘coffee houses’, ‘tea houses’)…(many people go to Caulfield Park but for coffee they have to) ‘go across the road out of the park’…..(issue is) ‘trying to enhance the park’….(EOI will look after Pilling’s concerns about heritage since this is only checking whether)’ anyone will be prepared to come out and develop’ …’and keep the conservatory and maintain the conservatory’…..(There’s an ampitheatre in that section of the park which is) ‘absolutely useless’…’white elephant’…’that whole area can be developed’ (so instead of ) ‘losing public open space probably get more open space by getting rid of the ampitheatre’…(if no EOIs then nothing lost)….(original motion is about) ‘keeping the conservatory….enhancing the park…(cost will be around $300,000 – $400,000 and EOI will only cost $10,000) ….’do the thing for us’ (ie developers)….(so not good economy to spend all that money when someone else can do it)…’that area would be very very much enhanced by having a little tea house there’….’The more cafes you have there the more people come to the area’….’enhances business’….

HYAMS:  Wants to ‘see what the options are really’ ….(talked about when council ‘consulted’ and majority were in favour and those against) ‘weren’t concerned about what was going on in the park’ (they were concerned about the coffee houses in the area) …’might suggest a concerted campaign by some of the (cafes) in the area’ …’concerned about their business’….(report is only to )’examine the possibilities’…(further consultation, minister’s approval before anything happens)…(if there is a cafeteria then it) ‘won’t detract from open public space, it will enhance it’ (because people won’t have to leave the park to get a drink)…’would contribute more to the conservatory than just restoring it’…(nothing much has been happening there anyway)…

TANG; Gave background. Agreed with Lipshutz that there hadn’t been any EOI before and agreed with Pilling and Penhalluriack that ‘this is an issue of twists and turns’….(admitted that in 2006 he supported cafe but now changed his mind after community consultation)…’whilst there was some support’ (it wasn’t overwhelming support)…‘I can’t see demonstrated community support at a level (necessary)….times may have changed (that means another consultation)….(Pilling’s motion is ‘fair’ and that we can look at it in 2012/2013 budget and that the cost of $150,000 – $200,000 has been named as costs for building works)….(wanted to look at other ways) ‘to bring the community back into the conservatory’ (instead of just a cafe).

MAGEE: Spoke about how coffee shops ‘don’t make money’ and how ‘coffee shops go broke’….’change hands yearly’ (and now talking about) ‘putting a coffe shop into one of our parks…inconsistent….(was in favour until issue of coffee shop in East Bentleigh and that it doesn’t succeed). Didn’t want council to be ‘in position where…we have to look for a new tenant for the coffee shop’ (every few months)

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang. didn’t ‘support this when we were dealing with this several years ago’…(not enough) ‘community support for it’…’in percentage terms may have been over that edge’…..

PILLING: ‘we’re coming from a negative aspect’…(we want someone else to pay for all this) ‘we’re not doing it to enhance the park…we’re trying to get someone else to pay for it….that’s not a great way to start….(need to accept that this is like any other facility ie. sport)’ and just get on and fix it’…

7 IN FAVOUR OF PILLING’S MOTION. LIPSHUTZ AND HYAMS VOTED AGAINST.

 

October 11, 2011

Council Meeting: More Secrecy

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

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

  • Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
  • Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
  • Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
  • One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
  • Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
  • Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
  • Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

 

October 7, 2011

Records Of Assembly

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

There are definitely very strange goings on in the Assembly of Councillors. We highlight only a handful:

  1. Meeting of 13th September
  • Tang arrived nearly two hours late
  • Various officers’ reports which haven’t been tabled in council meetings
  • Fiddling with the previous minutes (again) – Hyams’ suggestions mostly. One especially interesting one concerns an ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ (bullying?) where the previous ‘record’ had simply stated that Penhalluriack left the room. Hyams’ wanted this altered to Penhalluriack declaring a conflict of interest and then leaving.
  • 4 of the 6 officers walk out when an OH & S issue is being discussed. Later another one leaves. Bladder problems really strike at this point and the comings and goings are like a revolving door. Interestingly, no-one declared a conflict of interest!

2.      Meeting of 20th September

  • Tang’s there on time!
  • Again, when OH & S is discussed all but one officer leave the room. No declaration of conflict of interest.

3.    Meeting of 27th September

  • GESAC basketball discussions get an ‘update’ from Hyams
  • Forge mentions council ‘representation’ at a Department Planning Review Meeting
  • Again 4 officers walk out (2 remain) when the OH & S issue comes up. No conflict of interest declared.
  • Regulations for Local Government Act discussed. These regulations contain information on registers of interests and council and special committees.
  • There is then discussion on Special Committee and again OH & S

COMMENTS

After nearly 4 months, and a Request for a Report, nothing has yet appeared before council on the GESAC basketball allocations – yet the Warriors website continues to splash the council logo!!!

Council’s submission (reported in the Melbourne Bayside Leader) has yet to make it into the public domain and to be presented at a full council meeting. According to this newspaper it appears as if Esakoff signed off (as she did with the VEAC submission) rather than the CEO.

Obviously the Special Committee was discussed and set up in secret. No minutes as yet, no delegations as yet, and no terms of reference have been made public. Nor any reason provided as to why Penhalluriack is not a member of this committee!

OH & S features regularly. One strange sentence in these documents was the linking of OH& S AND ‘APPRAISAL matters’. Appraisal of what and whom, we ask? And why should these two items be linked?

Our conclusion – what a strange, strange council we have!

 

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only –  please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

 

September 21, 2011

The Chamber of Spin!

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

Item 9.3 – Heritage status

Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.

Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.

PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.

TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’  and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.

LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….

HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…

PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)

Motion – Pilling/Forge

PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’

FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.

PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should  be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).

HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.

TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.

PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.

 

September 20, 2011

Council Meeting: When Minutes Aren’t ‘Minutes’!

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

The following statements were made in relation to the ‘minutes’ of the Pools Committee –

LIPSHUTZ: Pools committee meets on a regular basis…’pool is progressing very well’…one pool has already been tiled and the other one is being tiled….’we are still on track for a December opening’…..’our staff are right on top of the work…..’the builder tried to suggest measures which our staff rejected’….’that indicates the level of concentration and the level of awareness that’ staff have in relation to the pool….

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been attempting to attend (the pools committee meetings but dates aren’t published and minutes aren’t provided)….’I am concerned that there are no records in the minutes of progress ….items 1 to 5 are all subheadings and no information about what’s happened….I am more than happy to accept the fact that we have experts….but I would like to be able to attend these site meetings to see for myself…..and a little more detail than what we have in these minutes…..liquidated damages tells me nothing….these (should be)  meeting minutes and not simply meeting headings… there is no date for the next meeting (Penhalluriack asked Lipshutz when the next meeting is scheduled).

Lipshutz responded that he doesn’t recall but will check.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »