GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

August 13, 2011

Public Questions

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

From the minutes of August 9^th, 2011

Question 1. – Planning

“Could you please answer the following questions:

1. What is council’s policy and or current practice regarding notification to objectors as to the date of planning conferences?

2. On what criteria does determine the time span between the closing date of objections and the setting of the planning conference

3. Will council make the guidelines available to the community?

4. Why has the 15 August been selected which is only a week after objections close

5. Why is council website so behind – showing May 2011

6. Could council possibly postpone planning conference of 15 August?”

The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“1. The administration of planning conferences policy states that:- “The Planning Office will send invitation letters to all parties five days prior to the scheduled meeting.” In this case the planning conference invitation letters were sent to all parties on 1 August 2011.

2. There are no particular criteria beyond Council’s statutory responsibility to decide town planning applications within 60 statutory days.

3. Yes if requested.

4. Objections do not “close” until the time the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee decides the application.

5. More information is needed to answer this question. Where on the website does it refer to “May 2011”.

6. No reason is seen to delay the planning conference. A planning conference is a non-statutory step Glen Eira City Council chooses to take in the town planning decision making process.”

Question 2 – Planning & Costs

“Would Council please advise the specific terms of reference provided to the DPCD for the Planning Panel Hearing on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C83 (removal of Heritage Overlay HO114 on the properties at 466 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South and 2A and 2B Seaview Street, Caulfield South).”

The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The role of the Panel is to give submitters an opportunity to be heard by an independent forum in an informal, non-judicial manner. A Panel is not a court of law. Panels also give independent advice to the Planning Authority and the Minister about the
proposed amendment. Council does not provide the Panel with any terms of reference.”

Question 3 – Costs

3. What is the total cost to date for each of the following:

1. Engagement of an independent note taker

2. Engagement of a governance advisor to provide instruction as per the recommendations of the Municipal Inspector?

4. The total legal costs pertaining to the reappointment of the CEO in 2008?

5. The additional advice sought from 4 independent heritage advisors on the 466 Hawthorn Rd property?

6. What is the anticipated or actual cost for the external legal advice involved in the GESAC allocations to either the McKinnon Basketball Association, or the Oakleigh Warriors?

7. Will any of the above items be expected to accrue more costs? If so, which ones, and what is the range of this expectation?”

Part 3 of your question was deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iv) as it refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach the confidentiality provisions of the Local Governmant Act 1989

$5,148.00 2. $6,532.00 4. $29,502.83 5.$790.00 6. Current cost is $3,825.00

1 and 2 may accrue more costs and 6 will.

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman Street, not far from here. I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities. I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people. And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira. In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

The article refers to a “legal stoush”, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Andrew Newton.

I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace. It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members. Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre. Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch. I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute. It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

August 9, 2011

Council Meeting Report

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

Perhaps this blog site needs to take a little credit for the miniscule advances that occurred tonight in regard to the Advisory Committee Reports. In the past, committee reports have simply been ‘noted’ and the motion has always included that the recommendations be accepted. Tonight things were different for the Local Laws Committee and the (intended?) removal of the
public questions section from the local law. The report was merely ‘noted’! Here is the sequence of events:

Hyams started off by saying that since these minutes ‘have more substance’ than usual, they’ll deal with them separately. Lipshutz moved that the minutes of the Local Laws Committee ‘be duly noted’. Seconded by Pilling.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘ordinarily I would be moving a motion that would also seek a recommendation …..(but in this case)…this is the beginning of a process…..we also looked at the issue of public questions… (wanted to move an amendment that the word repetitive’ be put into Tang’s request for a report from officers on time taken to respond)….public questions are (currently governed by the Local Law….(which is a) very very blunt instrument…you can’t amend that very quickly….(so we want public questions as policy) which makes it more flexible….(gave examples of other councils where public questions come from the floor) we can’t even look at that….but if it were in policy we could look at all that….and make it more flexible for….the public….(so that’s one issue to bring back to council).

Went on to discuss the local law 326 about permits …..people in gallery ‘will note there have been many questions about this issue by one particular gentleman’….’we looked at the use of our land….we have again made certain recommendations….awaiting officers to come back to us with proposals….it will take some time to get it right….. Nothing will be done until there is a ‘formalised recommendation’ to make to Council. Then public submission.

PILLING; ‘I did have concerns about the public question ….(in favour of) more open procedure….having a more flexible policy can allow for this…changing the local law takes a year or so…..(so supportive of this).

PENHALLURIACK: Local Law 326 has concerned me for a long while…my concern is that we are (comparing like with ike)….don’t think there is any necessity to try and define what sort of sporting body can register’. Supported the other aspects which would allow Council ‘to experiment’ a bit…

LIPSHUTZ: thanked Penhalluriack for his comments and said that 326 was a ‘vexed question’ ….(and the committee looked at) how best to use public land….it was a very very long meeting, much discussion….and not yet considered completed….(once officers’ proposal comes in he is sure that councillors) will play around with….and hopefully come up with something that works best….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

Penhalluriack moved motion to accept recommendations. Seconded by Lipshutz

PENHALLURIACK: ‘These minutes are more comprehensive ….particularly with recommendations from the public…. sets out a vision….’

HYAMS: ‘certainly a fairly significant set of recommendations….we did debate it at quite great length….whether to have an aspirational committee plan above the council plan….(but came to compromise)….and long term council plan which includes a vision …..plan be developed by steering committee (which has 3 external community reps)….asking officers to draft (new engagement strategy based on submissions from public)….and the committee will consider it when (drafted)….in turn will come to council for adoption….(outlined changes such as) ‘proactive engagement’ ‘to clarify where there is input and where there is feedback’….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS

There were a number of public questions. Several by Mr. Varvodic were again declared inappropriate and classified as ‘harassment’.Responses to others that residents should note are:

1. The application by the MRC for the Centre of the Racecourse will come under the auspices of the Special Committee and NOT FULL COUNCIL

2. Ratepayers will be footing the bill for the convened Planning Panel to consider the 466 Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed properties

3. 20 full page colour ads for GESAC in the Leader over the past few months were reported as costing only $20,000

4. Questions as to policy on notifying residents of planning conference meetings remained unanswered – although ‘responded to’.

5. Questions taken on notice at last council meeting were tabled.

Finally, Cr. Penhalluriack used his ‘Right of Reply’ option to address council on the Bayside Weekly article which appeared this week. We will present a summary of his speech in the next few days.

August 7, 2011

More On Agenda Items

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

There is definitely something rather strange going on in those secret Councillor Assemblies. We were really taken with the 12 July so called ‘minutes’. Once again all administrators except Burke left the room and the item for discussion was listed as “Request from an Integrity Agency”!!!! We would welcome any input from anyone who knows what an ‘integrity agency’ is! Council really has the language of gobbledygook and obfuscation down pat.

Also worthy of mention is the apparent ‘doctoring’ of minutes once again with these little gems –

“5 July 2011 – Cr Hyams at (iii) (h) amend by substituting one word for another Cr. Magee, at (ii) (a) amend by deleting words. Level of detail included in the Records of Assembly”

What’s wrong councillors? Is too much being let out of the bag?

We should also mention that the 26^th July meeting began at 6.46. Tang arrived at 9.15pm. Two more items caught our eye here – ‘Compliance with Local Government Act’ and “Occupational Health and Safety’. The latter we guess relates to Newton’s bullying charges against Penhalluriack since the latter declared a conflict of interest at this point. Magically, Newton and all except Jones had disappeared from the Assembly by this point. Again, we assume that this is to prevent Newton from declaring his own Conflict of Interest if the item concerned his bullying allegations.

Honestly, the machinations of this council would provide spy/thriller writers with enough material to last the next hundred years! Only problem is, that it is ratepayers who keep coughing up their hard earned money for all these shenanigans!

August 5, 2011

Manipulation Extraordinaire!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments

The agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting represent the absolute rock bottom in the history of this dysfunctional Council. The onus is now very clearly on councillors to stand up and question, and ultimately reject the appalling manipulation that is evidenced by these items. We’ll go through the most important ones:

Local Laws Advisory Committee (Lipshutz, Tang, Pilling)

When the Local Law came up for consideration in 2009, the argument that several residents put forward was that the Councillor Questions Policy (ie. the ‘no surprises’ gag) should not be included in the Local Law. This was of course rejected! Now, funnily enough, we have the committee recommending:

“that the public questions process be removed from the Local Law and replaced with a right to ask questions in accordance with guidelines in force from time to time. The guidelines would need to be approved by Council.

Cr Tang requested a report as to the time taken up in answering public questions”.

When literally every other council in the state includes Public Questions as part of its Meeting Procedures within the Local Law, why is Lipshutz (aka Newton) and his gang determined to be different? What are the ramifications of such a change? And what little cute Dorothy Dixer is Tang playing at? We are also concerned as to the LEGALITY of such an attempt to abort democratic process given that the Local Government Act, 1989 states: “A Council must make local laws governing the conduct of meetings of the Council and special committees”. Public questions are part of council meetings and as such must be included in a local law!

2. Community Consultation Committee

Again in stark contrast to previous practice the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has now been left in the hands of Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz! The 12 submissions that were received are not published, no names are given, and it is this committee which is to make recommendations to council. All well and good, except that Council does not appear to have had any privacy concerns when it published in full, submissions to the Toilet strategy, and other minor ‘consultations’.
We can only marvel at the ‘selectiveness’ of this mob and how transparency and by implication accountability is sabotaged time and time again!

If there is nothing to hide and if the officers’ report is a true reflection of the comments made by residents, then why not publish the full submissions? Why not go to full council? We can only wonder whether ALL COUNCILLORS HAVE EVEN READ THE SUBMISSIONS. For something as important as engagement/consultation, what we have here is again a sham and an insult to those individuals who submitted and to residents everywhere.

3. In Camera Items

This is where things get really interesting. One item concerns the MRC and Crown Land. We thus ask: why is council considering it (and in camera) if this concerns the land swap between the MRC and govt? What of the subdivision? Why is the community again being kept in the dark?

Then there’s the GESAC legal bills over allocations, and ‘contractual’ items over GESAC. If everything is going so well (ie on time and on budget) then what’s there to mull over ‘contracts’ at this point in time? Or is the public again being sold a furphy on progress of GESAC?

Another interesting item from this section relates to ‘personnel’ and compliance with the Local Government Act! Gosh, another potential breach of the act by someone? Another Municipal Investigation perhaps? or more work for the Ombudsman?

There’s plenty more in these items that require careful reading. The ball is now in councillors’ court. Will they once again acquiesce without a whimper? Will anyone have the guts to open their mouths and demand answers to fundamental questions of process, transparency and good governance? Or will silence and complicity reign supreme?

July 21, 2011

Council Meeting: Audit Committee Charter

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

Motion to Accept: Lipshutz/Magee

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One of the issues (looked at) is risk management….made very clear in the preamble that all councillors can attend meetings and not just members of the committee….risk management…..has taken up a great deal of time at committee level ….because that’s something that’s very important. (If a disaster happened then it’s important that) this council could be up and running very quickly (and Audit Committee looks at this and makes sure it happens)….Fraud prevention (is also important because council is big business) and deals with many millions of dollars and so many people on staff. Given that there is always the possibility of fraud …..happily this council hasn’t had that….(due to prevention)….and honesty of our employees….but you only need one to make it big….(the Audit committee thus provides) oversight….(Other changes to the charter)…. enhance the role of the Audit Committee and make it clearer (as to what the committee does)….’

Magee declined to speak. Motion passed unanimously. Readers will of course note that many of the issues we’ve highlighted in the past (such as the ‘permanent’ membership of Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean) did not get a mention. Reading this morning’s Age, one article by Barry Jones struck us as spot on in relation to the level of debate/discussion in this council. The last section of the article is included below:

“Despite the exponential increases in public education and access to information in the past century, the quality of political debate appears to have become increasingly unsophisticated, appealing to the lowest common denominator of understanding.

In 1860, in New York Abraham Lincoln began his campaign for the presidency with a very complex speech about slavery at the Cooper Union, 7500 words long, complex and nuanced. All four New York newspapers published the full text, which was sent by telegraph across the nation, widely read and discussed. In 1860 the technology was primitive but the ideas were profound and sophisticated. In 2011 technology is sophisticated but the ideas uttered by presidential aspirants are embarrassing in their banality, ignorance and naivety.

It is instructive to compare the debate in the Victorian Parliament in 1872 on the Education Act and the debate in 2006 for the Education and Training Reform Act, a consolidation of legislation passed in the previous 134 years. Which debate was of higher quality? In 1872 MPs were discussing ideas – especially ”free, secular and compulsory” education, while in 2006 all the speeches were about management and training as a factor in job creation. In 2006 I suggested that it might be time to actually define ”Education”, something omitted in the draft bill, and to explore its role in personal and community life, but this was rejected as too ambitious.

In 1872 the minister, J. Wilberforce Stephen, quoted the poet and educational reformer Matthew Arnold eight times in his speech and expressed the hope that the legislation would ”set an example to our progenitors in England”. There was no comparable ambition in 2006. No ideas on education were mentioned and it is doubtful how many MPs in 2006 would have recognised Arnold’s name, even as the author of Dover Beach.”

July 19, 2011

Council Meeting: Oh, To Be In The Bitumen/Concrete Business!

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

GESAC car park

Lipshutz moved a motion that the $450,000 extension to the existing car park be approved. Seconded by Magee. In favour of the motion were: Lipshutz, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff, Forge. Against: Pilling and Tang. Lobo and Penhalluriack were absent. The ‘arguments’ were:

LIPSHUTZ: ‘GESAC has been a success’ beyond our dreams….’at this stage there are 1,200 members, GESAC website has 80,000 hits per week,….given that one can say there is going to be a huge demand for GESAC….One of the things we didn’t envisage (at the start) was the carparking’. Originally there was planned 43 spaces ‘it’s clear that is not going to be sufficient….it is clear that GESAC will be very heavily used and there is the need for extra car parking….(I asked for a report from officers and whether underground parking would be feasible) ‘and it is clearly not the way to go ….would only add 60 (spaces and cost a lot) whereas the proposal that I have proposed would add 75 car spaces. (The drawback is that) it does take away sections of the park at the rear but (need to look at the big picture of the park as well as GESAC) ….what we don’t want to have is the car parking all over the streets ….and we want to ensure that GESAC is a success….so it’s important to have car parking …..(this proposal brings) carparking to 118 spaces.’

MAGEE: ‘It’s never easy to give up open space especially in a really nice park like Bailey Reserve…..(there’s a rotunda, playground) …..one thing that offsets that is …the northern end of GESAC …used to be a big car park which has now been turned into open space….so we’re not actually losing ….we have pciked up a large area of car park that has been converted back into grassland or open space…..GESAC….is going to be so successful….and we do have to cater for parking….the last thing we need is people driving into GESAC ….driving around and not being able to park ….we want everyone, not just in Glen Eira but outside of Glen Eira to come and enjoy GESAC with the rest of us….we do have to make sacrifices along the way….(not happy about losing parks) but we have actually taken back …….in the long term we will see if for instance the car park isn’t used (we can turn it back into parkland)….

PILLING: Has ‘problems with this item…..(everyone wants GESAC to succeed especially when you spend so much money but there are problems with the process) ….’it hasn’t even opened yet and we’re already taking open space away on a hunch….several years ago (car parking) was worked out by the architect and that was deemed to be appropriate….what we face now is an 11th hour ad hoc, knee jerk reaction….a couple of statistics. The proposed car park extension is 1400 square metres, two houseblocks, (land prices make this worth 1.5 million) …in Packer Park we bought two houses to convert back to public open space and now we want to take it away….(listed statistics about amount of public open space in Glen Eira compared to other councils)…we haven’t got that much and to be actually giving it away in such an ad hoc manner …..I’ve a few other issues with it….this to me defines why we do need a new open space strategy…..if this was a football field or a designated sports ground, I doubt we would be doing this….it’s a playground, it’s a passive area it seems to be up for grabs …..this is not valued….(that’s why we need a strategy in place….I don’t see (this) as a win….Maybe one of the reasons why Glen Eira does have such a low amount of open space is because of ad hoc decisions like this…..(APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)

TANG: Wholeheartedly agreed with Pilling….’I don’t think councillors are going out of their way to take public open space away….we’ve got an item on the agenda tonight (naming a new reserve – Nina reserve)….I think council should think about naming a new reserve, the one to the north of the carpark because you’ll have two separate parks (as a result of this carpark)….we’ve taken sensible approach (looked at Duncan McKinnon and others) whether it would add to the park and the overall utility of the park and we’ve come to the conclusion that (there) it would…..but in this instance I just don’t see how we as a council could (see this) as adding to the park in any way….and breaking up two separate (areas)…..I don’t think you’re (going to enjoy the park) unless you play organised sport and I don’t think that that’s all that Bailey Reserve is there for….We’re proposing to spend $450,000 at a time when (at the budget discussions people were worried) rate rises weren’t as much as they would have liked, concerned that council needed to tighten its belt ……and now we’re proposing to spend another $450,000 just to get a few more car parks…after the budget’s passed, after the SRPs passed…. proposing to spend another $450,000 to break up a really good park….do we really want to do this?…..Magee (talked about turning the carpark back into parkland if it didn’t work out)…maybe council can look at turning the park into car park later on if it really feels it still needs to later on….(Asked an officer a question about construction time. Answer 6 to 8 weeks)

FORGE asked a question about the plans and the provision for buses and disabled car parks. Was answered that buses would be accommodated at the main car park and disabled car parking was also there.

HYAMS: ‘ I am in favour of this’….’important to emphasise (that this is going to cater for all users of the park and there are lots of users apart from GESAC visitors)….’who will find themselves displaced from the park’ ( because their car parking spots will be taken up)…’We don’t want GESAC to displace these people in their parks….this is far less disruptive to the park (than to wait for GESAC to be built and in operation)…’this could be said to be enhancing public open space….what we’re doing here is actually helping people enjoy the public open space….you may feel it’s not worth it….if we were putting in a tennis court or something like that there might be less objections….this is to help the use of the park…..there is no doubt that we will need more parking than we originally held. I think that was always a concern….it’s better that we get it right later rather than later later….

ESAKOFF: ‘I’m going to support this….I’m not a supporter of loss of open space by any means….but we are spending a lot of money….we are going to be providing facilities in GESAC for every sector of our community….I do not want to see those people having to park as far away as North Rd or Centre Rd or way down East Boudnary Rd because there’s nowhere to park close to the facility…..(families, babies and aged) would not manage under those circumstances….we need to provide places for them to park within a fairly reasonable proximity….

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that in any major development there are always ‘variations’ ….that happens because as you build it you find things that need to be done or you haven’t anticipated or whatever….this is one 9variatiion)….we anticipated there would be x number of car spaces….now we believe (we need more car spaces)….we’re not taking away the playground we’re relocating the playground….the bigger picture here is that we’re building a development that is (the biggest this council has ever done…(it’s costing a lot and if we wait until it’s finished we’ll find) ‘that you do need more space’….far better to do it now….and be opened properly….If it’s popular people will come to it and GESAC will be popular….and now even before it’s finished we’ve got 1000 members….place (will be chocka block once it’s finished and in summer)….let’s do it right.’

TANG CALLED FOR A DIVISION

July 16, 2011

Agenda Items: Weasel Words & Gobbledygook

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

True to form, agenda items for the upcoming Council Meeting are characterised by nothing more than weasel words and gobbledygook. Many Officers’ Reports are bereft of detail, argument, and logical analyses. We highlight some of these.

GESAC Car Park

Cr. Pilling on his blog site rightly accuses this report as containing the ‘trojan horse’ ruse. That is, propose one option that will cost $1.5 million dollars (multi level car park) and then squeeze in another option that will only cost $450,000 in the hope that this will be passed. There is no information, nor discussion on the following crucial points –

How much open space will be lost by either a multi level car park or the extension of the existing car park?
How many additional car parking spots are considered necessary and what is the evidence for this? (Note: Option 2 cites an additional 75 spaces but with no justification for this number, or no statement as to whether this would be sufficient).
Why wasn’t this considered at the initial planning stage for GESAC?
Where will the money come from?

Delegations

In December 2010, delegations were reconsidered. Seven months later, here we go again. The same criticisms we made last time are still evident – namely, the ceding of major power to officers via the delegations to the Planning and Environment Act.

The CEO’s powers are to remain intact – since “(n)o changes are required to the delegation from Council to the CEO.”
No official ‘call in’ for councillors on individual planning applications
Power to grant an application is only if NO objections; the application is “generally in compliance with existing policy or guidelines”
A permit with conditions can be granted when the “application has not been referred to the Council or the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) for determination”
Car parking waiver on “an application involving a reduction of more than ten car spaces may only be determined by DCD, MStatP or MTP.”

Again, this is contrary to numerous other councils. In Glen Eira decisions on planning are almost entirely in the hands of officers and the very criteria for referring on to council remain subjective and thus open to interpretation BY OFFICERS ONLY.

AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER

There are some very interesting deletions and new inclusions in this latest version of the audit committee charter. For example, “Monitoring and controlling of community and commercial risk” has been removed, as has this sentence: “An annual assessment of the Internal Auditor’s performance”. The latter has been replaced with the far more obtuse version of – “As part of the
audit committee’s annual assessment of performance, determine level of satisfaction with internal audit function”. We ask, what does ‘level of satisfaction’ actually mean? Isn’t it a far more narrow interpretation than overall ‘assessment’? Why has this been done?

Another interesting insertion is: “Consider the adequacy of actions taken to ensure that the material business risks have been dealt with in a timely manner to mitigate exposures to Council”. We can only wonder whether this is a direct result of the mulch heap
affair and the tardiness of the Audit Committee in acting upon the potential health risks?

Of more significance however, is the paragraph setting out the terms of reappointment of the external members – 3 years. Many other councils (ie Port Phillip) have a reappointment schedule of two years. However, we now have the situation where both Gibbs and McLean will be in their positions for 16 or 17 years straight. Again, we questions the probity of this.

The charter continues to maintain that the CEO and Chief financial officer be present at each meeting of the Committee. Is this appropriate given that the external and internal auditor’s job is also to keep a check on the administration? We highlight once again that other councils do not include such strictures in their charter. CEO’s are present only at the ‘invitation’ of the
committee – not as a de facto member sitting in on each full meeting.

It’s also ironic that the charter states that minutes must be presented to the NEXT council meeting. The audit committee minutes are from 10^th June 2011. Hence, they should have been included in the agenda items for the LAST COUNCIL MEETING of June 28^th 2011. They weren’t of course. But after all, it’s only a charter and not legally binding, so not worth the paper it’s written on!!!!!!

Councillors must question the continual reappointment of Gibbs, McLean and Lipshutz in this role. Questions also need to be asked as to why the Finance Committee has not existed for going on 3 years – especially when this was such a bone of contention in the Whelan Report.

AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES

Looks like there has been movement at the station – finally – and the Audit Committee is at last attempting to run a tighter ship! We quote:

“Mr Agnoletto then presented the assurance map which identified Council’s top 10 risks. He stated that only partial assurance was given and a high level approach had been taken.

The Chairman requested that the Council’s top 20 risks be identified and that going forward, a sample of those risks were to be reviewed together with the relevant manager in attendance at the Audit Committee meeting.

Mr McLean also suggested that Council’s short term (acute) risks be identified and listed and the mitigation strategies in place to address these risks.

With regards to GESAC, the Chairman requested a high level assurance map be produced with mitigating controls”.

All very well – after the horse could well and truly have bolted!!!

EMPRESS ROAD APPLICATION

Here is gobbledygook par excellence. We challenge all readers to make head or tail out of this application to remove a condition and introduce a subdivision. Heaps of questions need asking:

Has council failed to flog some land because its asking price was too high?
Is council now ceding this land for nothing?
Who is paying for the subdivision?
Has this anything to do with a fairly large school in the vicinity?

Other applications continue the general trend. The more objections registered, then the fewer notifications to residents and owners.

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

The minutes of these meetings represent a new Newton tactic. Previously only the subjects of meetings were basically highlighted with very little additional information as to what went on in these assemblies. Now, all of a sudden, we are getting far more expansive ‘minutes’ as well as the NAME OF THE COUNCILLOR associated with that issue. For example; Hyams is directly linked with public questions and the issue of harassment; Magee with pavilions, graffiti and of course the GESAC basketball courts. Since Newton is a total stickler for the letter of the law, we can only speculate as to the motive behind this change. It’s also worthy of noting that the ol’ gang are basically linked with fairly innocuous items such as Xmas trees. According to these minutes, they (apart from Hyams) must be practically mute in these meetings! Hard to believe isn’t it?

COMMENTS:

These agenda items provide the opportunity to really assess the 8 councillors (Penhalluriack is still on leave) and their duty to take charge of this council. Delegations, car parking at GESAC, and many of the officers’ reports should be challenged and questioned and ultimately rejected. We will be watching closely on how the voting goes and more importantly who resorts to weasel words and gobbledygook to justify their voting pattern.

June 30, 2011

GESAC: Parks, Open Space, or Concrete?

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

It appears that Lipshutz and Magee (and some councillors) are at it again with the request for a report on the ‘feasibility’ of extending the car park at GESAC – that is, converting open park land into more concrete. We find it exceedingly strange that after spending over $2million dollars on ‘design’, and one presumes some understanding of projected needs, that at the last moment council decides that it simply does not have enough car parking space to accommodate its anticipated 600,000 visitors to the complex. We must therefore question once again the competence of planning in this council. Caulfield Park pavilion also resulted in the ‘relocation’ of two ovals when the project was nearly complete. Why can’t they get it right first off? Why do such issues always seem to crop up at the eleventh hour? Is it intended to put pressure on councillors through the ruse of ‘if we don’t have this, the project will fail’? Below are the details of the ‘debate’ –

LIPSHUTZ: The request for a report was for officers to report on the feasibility of constructing a ‘multi level carpark’; and extension of existing carpark – but watching out for trees! ‘One of the concerns with Gesac’ is car parking and ‘need to increase that car parking to meet demand’…..at previous council meeting it ‘was discussed about having a multi level car park’ and he ‘seeks a report as to feasibility’….

MAGEE: ‘GESAC is going to be so successful ….there will almost never be enough car parking’ around GESAC ‘. ‘With the influx of…somewhere around 600,000 visitors per year parking is certainly going to be a premium…parking is something that should be increased….multi storey car park….interesting to see how that would look…..something I believe is needed….will fit nicely with the success of GESAC….

TANG: ‘some realisation that you’re never going to be able to accommodate enough people….regardless of how many extra car parks you put in…..(Lipshutz spoke about the concerns of car parking, it) ‘was a concern at the outset ….when council (supported GESAC) it knew that car parking was one of the key factors that would affect the attendances …..(visited other aquatic centres)…’planners determined that car parking was one of those big factors’…came to a balance – the site that GESAC is at ….is in a park, got to remember that…next to soccer grounds, cricket grounds, ….particularly playgrounds….and council has to minimise the impact as much as possible…as against those other uses there….think what we’ve got is an appropriate balance ….(shouldn’t use officers’ time and their workload to focus on this. There’s other important things that they should be working on such as the childcare in Elsternwick)…’I’d be seeing that as a waste of their time’….

HYAMS: although he ‘couldn’t agree more with Cr. Tang’ it’s important to remember that ‘when cricketers or soccer players….roll up to play their sport on Bailey Reserve….they won’t have anywhere to park….(and bad especially if they are carrying heavy cricket equipment)….

PILLING: ‘two bites at the cherry….I don’t agree…we seem to be trying at the 11th hour to get something up….

LIPSHUTZ: surprised that the two councillors are so ‘aggressive’…’the fact is that things change….(Tang is right in that) when we planned GESAC parking was a problem….we have now found that …demand will be greater…..and we can’t sit there and say’ (there won’t be change)…’we won’t pull down trees’…’I’m not suggesting that we build a car park….I’m suggesting we get a report to determine whether it is feasible….(I’m sure they can do the report very quickly)…we may look at other alternatives….(car parking is a problem) we need to look at it and not ignore it’.

MOTION CARRIED – TANG AND PILLING VOTED AGAINST

Gazing into our crystal ball we predict: (1) next council meeting will see the Officers’ Report ( as usual bereft of facts, details) recommending the construction of an additional car park. (2) Councillors will then be required to vote on this and hey presto, GESAC will have its car park. BUT: where will the money come from? Is it budgeted for? how much extra will this cost?

June 29, 2011

Debate & Accountability Down The Drain!!!

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

Below is a report on the two items concerning developers’ levy and the flood report.

Item 9.7 – C84 amendment – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: Started by saying that he didn’t think that there was anyone on council who would give up the opportunity to collect money from developers. ‘However…..this particular issue there was no …’cost to do the research and initiate the developments….what it was worth….so basically there was not any point in doing it…..the money we were getting wasn’t going to actually pay for the scheme itself…..as the report says there are other ways of making developers pay more attention to the (effect they have on flooding) by putting this very low levy on them’. …..it was appropriate to fast track and that’s what’s been done here…….

Lipshutz declined to speak. There were no other speakers. Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Duration of debate – approximately 3 minutes!!!!

ITEM 9.13 – Flood Report – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘An interesting read…..hopeful that we won’t be seeing it (flooding) again….report explains…what council does…to prevent flooding and after flooding….and also what Melbourne Water does….Council …cleans about 6000 drain pits per year ….also cleans 30km of drains each year…..respond to 800 – 1000 requests…..I don’t think any infrastructure system would have dealt (with the floods)….we have to minimise. This sets out the ways this can be done…..consultation between ourselves and Melbourne Water…..Melbourne Water now better understands the problems in this area and hopefully …..we will be able to cope with it (another event) better and so will they.’

LIPSHUTZ: Told residents that ‘they should make sure’ to obtain a drainage plan’ before they buy or move house. ‘Melbourne Water has a plan of areas which are affected and it’s important that people understand when one buys in an area of a flood zone…..

ESKAKOFF: ‘This does respond’ to the original request for a report. ‘It oulines many areas of council’s maintenance, of responses, of Melbourne Water’s drains and council’s drains, …..and the differentiation between those….plans to review the emergency response….there is a map as attachment one …it does show the MAIN areas….where businesses and homes were inundated……it by no means covers all areas of flooding…..these are the main areas and I just wanted to point that out…..

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY –DURATION OF DEBATE: 4 Minutes

COMMENTS: Two items which will have a major impact on the community, on amenity and livelihoods lasted exactly 7 minutes. This is plainly disgraceful and a complete whitewash of councillors’ responsibility to critically assess and evaluate the advice that is provided to them. All present last night did not undertake this duty. There was no questioning, no demand for statistics, no accountability to ratepayers.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates