GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

September 16, 2011

Agenda Items: Part 1

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

We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the various Records of Assembly and the range of topics that are discussed behind closed doors, in secret, and which never seem to make it into the council chamber. The Pools Steering Committee Meeting Minutes is of the same ilk. For example: for months and  months now Cr. Lipshutz has been spruiking how wonderfully well GESAC is going –  apart from rain delays it seems. Only at the last council meeting was it  disclosed that tiling was somewhat behind schedule. Now we have mention of ‘liquidated damages’. According to Wikipedia, the definition of this  term is:

“Liquidated damages  (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose  amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured  party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late  performance).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Do these damages apply to the tiling or are there other aspects of this extravaganza that are not going all that well? And how much are  the ‘damages’ actually worth? Are we talking a paltry few thousand or do the  figures run into hundreds of thousands – thereby signalling some major hiccup and placing many of Lipshutz’s early claims into the very doubtful basket. Of  course, it would be too much to ask that council is upfront and fully  forthcoming on these issues!

Tang also appears to have great difficulty in showing up to meetings – he missed the August 2nd August, 9th  & the 16th August meetings!

Councillor Assembly for the 9th August includes the  following: “Confidential – ‘contractual’, ‘legal advice’ and ‘may prejudice the  Council or any other person’ which relates to GESAC. Cr Magee – access to two  other legal opinions and his conversation with the Ombudsman. Section 3 of the  Whistleblower Protection Act and S. 76D of the Local Government Act.”

Two things to notice: (1) more money is now being spent on lawyers and the GESAC allocations stuff ups and (2) the whistleblowers act does not enforce the stipulation of ‘confidential information’ whilst the Local Government Act does. So what has all this to do with Magee? Is he being read the riot act by Newton and Burke and accomplices over his support for the McKinnon basketballers? We can only speculate of course, since all of this is carried on behind closed doors. And again, we are expected to believe that NO DECISIONS are being made – only continual straw votes it would appear!

We do however discover that on the 23rd August there WAS a draft submission  to the Ministerial planning Review – it even went to 8 pages. Again we ask: where  is it? Why isn’t this public? Why do such important discussions and decisions which impact on the entire community only occur behind the closed doors of Assembly Meetings? If other councils can publish their submissions and have councillors debate the drafts, then the question must be asked as to why Glen Eira is again the odd man out?

Last but not least there is  again an ‘OH &S’ matter where Penhalluriack leaves the room. We can only  assume that this is again related to Newton’s bullying charges. Oh what  wonderful games are played out in these meetings and how little the public is  informed as to what is really going on and how their monies are being spent.

 

August 30, 2011

Council Meeting

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

Well, the doors were unlocked tonight! However, strange things always seem to be going on – ie. two page 51 of the hard copy agenda items – and with different in camera items included on each! We’ve also learnt that several public questions that had been (a) hand delivered, and (b) emailed were simply not read out. Another ‘clerical error’ perhaps?

We highlight below the discussion on Item 9.1 – the 5 storey planning application and the resulting lack of consensus, vision, and we suggest, clear planning policy.

Motion: instead of 5 storeys, 4 storeys, 1 shop (with loading bay) and up to 30 dwellings instead of 42  (HYAMS/PILLING)

HYAMS: ‘appropriate site for large development’ because in Urban Village….’question is ‘how large?’….(busy area, single storeys across road)…’it will be the highest building in Carnegie…(supermarket carpark available but not for) ‘developers to take advantage of so I would support reducing that requirement….(shops should have loading bays)…’visually I don’t think it’s such a bad development…(conditions will add trees)…’one per 5 visitor (car parking) spaces’….’taking into account the nature of the site and the nature of the surroundings…appropriate compromise (in what’s been asked) and what residents might prefer….

PILLING: Supports motion…’good size development’…’large site, corner site…addition of loading bay…(no 5 storeys in Carnegie, 4 storeys approved before, so ‘appropriate’ (and this is what the) ’emerging streetscape is’….very busy site, very busy intersection…(the motion goes)’ some way to solving some of the issues raised…

PENHALLURIACK: (against and foreshadowed alternative motion)…Argued for 5 storeys because ‘we do need to provide accommodation’….’this is one of the better sites in this area…good off street parking…..I think this would be a good site for development….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports Penhalluriack since ‘ordinarily …I would not support a 5 storey development in this area….5th storey is recessed back (and looks like 4 storeys from street)….’if anywhere else …I would say ‘no to this’…it’s a unique site, it’s a large site….(carparking) there is a supermarket car parking….(and not every space there is going to be used especially on weekends) ‘reality is there will be some visitors….so for that reason I doubt that is an issue….(supported loading bay area)….(will go to VCAT and developers will get what they want) ‘I would have thought this is a perfect site for 5 storeys…If this doesn’t get up I will support
Penhalluriack’s motion…..

FORGE: supports Penhalluriack’s alternative. Spent time ‘wavering between 4 and 5′ (must look at future and how railway lines develop)….’there will be increased traffic to some point’…(in a couple of years down the track more development sites will be put in)…

LOBO: Supports Hyams’ motion which will help ‘reduce traffic and allow people to park quite easily’. Esakoff asked what he’s supporting – the 4 or 5 storey. LOBO: ‘4 storey’.

MAGEE: ‘2 storeys becomes 3, 3 becomes 4, and 4 becomes 5 and on we go’…(Argued that the city is unique and that its incumbent on councillors to try and maintain this uniqueness. When looking into the future and people ask ‘where will Glen Eira be I’d like it to be much) ‘like it is today’…(Hoped that minimal change areas remain as they are today)…(If someone can build 5 storeys then next person can ask for 6, ‘maybe 7’….’we have to be consistent’…’I’m not particularly happy with 4 (would prefer 3)…

TANG: ‘My position was one in favour of refusal…(but recently seen amendments made to planning and then done away at VCAT) and ‘leads to confusion in minds of councillors….and bad planning decisions….particularly around the elsternwick area where we’ve been looking at 14 storey applications….(with) some councillors supporting 14 storeys, some supporting 10, some supporting 7….what’s scared me is if I knock back the proposal (then there’s Penhalluriack’s 5 storeys) ‘which is even worse’….(outlined history of area and)’whilst there is some policy support for higher density areas…I found overwhelming reason to support a refusal…(urged councillors to knock back this motion and) ‘see if we can put together a motion of refusal’…’no less confusing but it’s the best outcome that I can see’….

ESAKOFF: Supports motion (for 4 storeys)…My preference is not for a 5 storey building…..doesn’t abutt other residences….it doesn’t overshadow other residences…it’s an appropriate site for a building of this size….

HYAMS: Size is ‘two or three blocks’…I wouldn’t be supporting a refusal and if I had to choose between (a refusal) and 5 storeys I’d probably go with 5 storeys….’so councillors might want to take that in mind when they’re considering how they might vote on this motion’….(spoke about full supermarket car parking; if it goes to VCAT and the argument that the loading bay would be lost that council has to) ‘stand by principle’….I don’t think this site is worthy of a refusal….(and if it came to a choice between refusal he would go for original recommendations).

MOTION CARRIED 5 to 4

COMMENTS:

  • 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys, 10 storeys, 14 storeys, ‘compromise’, ‘refusal’ etc. etc. etc. This is not the first time, nor the last, that the arguments will continue on height limits and parking. Once again this ‘debate’ highlights the arbitrariness of decision making in Glen Eira. With no attempt to achieve interim or permanent height controls for certain areas within the municipality, we can only expect more of the same! Piece meal decision making!
 

August 27, 2011

Agenda Item 9.4

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
Comments Off on Agenda Item 9.4 

For years now the question of how to protect residents living in Minimal Change Areas that just happen to be near, or abutting activity or neighbourhood centres has been occupying the minds of many ratepayers – if not all councillors and planners! Listed for decision this coming Tuesday is the latest version of  Council’s vision for ‘transition zones’. We urge all readers interested in how this Council approaches planning to pay particular attention to this Item and to ask themselves whether the proposed ‘prescriptive guidance’ will achieve any positive outcomes for residents living in both Minimal Change Areas and in residential areas within Activity Centres.

We’ve received one email on this matter already and publish an edited version of it below:

“The new guidance applies very narrowly and specifically to properties on the Housing Diversity side of a transition boundary. It doesn’t address all the single-storey dwellings inside Housing Diversity areas who are repeatedly having their amenity trashed. It is (to me) blatantly unfair to expect these people to have their amenity trashed by allowing non-compliant developments next them that Council and VCAT refuse to allow elsewhere. In the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 s8 “Recognition and equality before the law”, protections of amenity should be more equal than that. “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” [Not saying developers are animals mind you…]

Council really should be more explicit in saying what the minimum standards of protection are for *all* dwellings in Housing Diversity areas, and publicly justify why lesser protection is appropriate for people who inconveniently get in the way of developers’ profits. I’d go further and include explicit words in the document to make it clear that there are universal human rights and that Council’s policy is for all people to be treated equally–that relaxation of standards are dependent on a development not being sited next to an existing low-rise dwelling. These dwellings provide sensitive interfaces too.

If I was a Councillor I would be looking for a summary covering each proposed development of what standards are being violated, and an explanation provided of why it is appropriate. Helping a developer make more money isn’t good enough … I’d love to hear Councillors explain why the protection proposed is not appropriate for properties inside but not on the transition boundary.”

 

August 26, 2011

Agenda #1: MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Below are edited lowlights of the Planning Department’s recommendations for the MRC Centre of the Racecourse application.

” The amended application proposes the following changes to the plans:

  • Adding an additional 12 parking spaces including one disabled parking space, taking the total to 35 car parking spaces.
  • Adjusted the layout of running and walking tracks to increase the area inside the inner concrete.
  • Included an informal playing field in the southern area. (Precincts Plan)

The changes to the plans do not require planning permission.

Council’s assessment of the proposal is limited to the appearance, location and scale of the works. It is considered that the proposed works are reasonable, site responsive, and an in an appropriate location central to the Reserve.

Parking will be provided near the new facilities. The provision of on-site car parking is not a relevant consideration, as this is a use component. However Council’s Traffic Engineering Department recommends some conditions to improve the proposed car parking area. These form conditions in the Appendix.

The Crown Grant affecting the land permanently reserves the land for “Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park”. This is a restriction on the use of the land, and does not affect the assessment of the current application for buildings and works since its use will be available to the public for park and recreation purposes.

The objectors’ concerns are summarised as follows:

  • The proposed works do not contribute to the area as they will restrict access to the site due to the new fencing and paved areas;
  • The works contribute to the visual clutter of the land;
  • The proposed carparking area will be for users of other events on the land;
  • The application is not for genuine recreational purposes;
  • There is no need to provide a “fun and fitness” area because it will be seldom used and Caulfield Park already has one;
  • The land is Crown land and is meant to be used also as a public park not just for horse racing.

The Conference, chaired by Cr Hyams, provided a forum where all interested parties could elaborate on their respective views. The objectors mainly emphasised their original reasons for objection. It is considered that the main issues arising from the discussions were:

  • There should have been public consultation
  • That this has been agreed to already
  • Access to the site and not enough detail on the plans about this.
  • Glen Eira has a lack of open space
  • Horse manure will cause health problems
  • All the concrete pathways will be used to park cars;
  • The playground isn’t suitable for children

This Permit will expire if:

* The buildings/works do not start within two (2) years from the date of this Permit; or

* The buildings/works are not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.

 

August 13, 2011

Public Questions

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

From the minutes of August 9th, 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

  1. $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 26th 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:

  1. 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.”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »