GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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 10th June 2011. Hence, they should have been included in the agenda items for the LAST COUNCIL MEETING of June 28th 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.

 

June 28, 2011

Council Meeting

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

A brief report on the main items of tonight’s council meeting. Details will be up tomorrow.

  • Gallery was overflowing with kids and parents (waving placards) from the McKinnon Basketball Association. A guestimate would be well over 150 people crammed into chamber and on stairs. A petition of 713 signatures tabled. This matter was dealt with first and that was the end of the story – to the complete surprise of most newcomers, who obviously expected the issue to be dealt with in greater detail and possibly resolved there and then. Little do they know how this council works!!!
  • The C84 Amendment was passed without a whimper. Hyams spoke very, very briefly. Lipshutz was silent. Passed unanimously
  • The ‘Flood Report’ also passed unanimously again without a whimper.
  • All public questions were taken on notice. This occurred at 9.45 pm with the excuse that there were many items for the in-camera session. Readers should note that incamera sessions have previously gone well past 11pm. Taking questions on notice seems like it’s becoming a trend.
  • The budget passed of course, together with the Strategic Resource Plan.
  • No councillor questions
  • Lipshutz asked for a request for a report on extending car parking at GESAC. In other words, let’s turn valuable open space into another concrete car park! Opposed by Pilling and Tang but was carried.
 

June 24, 2011

We Were Right!!!!!!!!!

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

Miracles do happen! Agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting are replete with surprises.

  • First, there is the tacit acknowledgement that WE WERE RIGHT!!! The figures provided in response to a public question on bookings at Allnutt Park, have now been ‘corrected’. The problem according to Newton is that there was a ‘clerical error’. No apology mind you, just the ‘correction’. This would of course have gone undetected and unacknowledged if not for Cr. Forge and her question. As a consequence, one must also wonder how many other ‘clerical errors’ have been made and not fessed up to?
  • The Drains and Flood report requested by Esakoff in late February has finally been pulled from the hat – it’s only taken 4 months.
  • For the very first time we learn that the difference between the publicised budget and the amended budget involves over $1 million dollars. So without giving people the opportunity to comment on this ‘new’ budget, this has now come up for adoption by council.
  • The GESAC allocations to McKinnon Basketball is also under consideration

Once we have had time to carefully analyse the numerous items we will report back in detail.

 

June 17, 2011

Gesac Allocations

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

The following is in the minutes of the June 6th Council meeting. We note that it has taken nearly two weeks for these minutes to make an appearance! We congratulate councillors on their attempts to get to the bottom of the McKinnon Basketball application for court space and the contract awarding system. May we suggest however, that this is only the first step? It is a great pity that residents appear to get ‘action’ only when there is a major hue and cry and negative publicity. What would be really informative is a total review on ALL expressions of interest; on the full disclosure of criteria, allocations, costs, and contract details. That, we maintain would be open, transparent and responsible government!

Item 10 – URGENT BUSINESS  

Crs Magee/Pilling 

“That Officers report to Council on the awarding of the use of GESAC basketball courts. This report should include details of requests for Expressions of Interest letters offers and acceptances copies of draft contracts, and responds to the claims contained in the letter by James Cody Treasurer of the McKinnon Basketball Association of the 1st June 2011 and should also cover the capacity of the Oakleigh Warriors to honour their commitment. 

2. That the report include by way of separate appendix a copy of the proposed contractual terms to Oakleigh Warriors and Council not submit any written contract to Oakleigh Warriors until Council has considered same.  

3. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting, and

4. The report should include the cost of hire of like courts at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.”  

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Tang

In part four delete the word ‘at’ and replace with the word ‘including’.  

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED on the casting vote of the Chairperson and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

June 8, 2011

Item 9.4 – Heritage Listing

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

Esakoff declared 3 conflicts of interest – as a director of company who owns one of the properties, and as her husband is also a director. Lipshutz Moved motion to accept/Pilling seconded

LIPSHUTZ: Reminded everyone that this had been before council previously as a result of an ‘anomaly’ in the Heritage Overlay in that 466 Hawthorn is the only property listed under the Heritage banner – thus ‘there is a mismatch between the map and the schedule’. The matter has gone to the Department and now there’s this new report where the heritage advisors state that ‘this is a property worth maintaining heritage’ over…..‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’ that heritage should be kept, especially when one of these sites ‘is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything. Since there were submissions the proper thing to do is go to a panel.

PILLING: Stated that he had chaired the planning conference and with the advisor’s reports, council should adopt the ‘cautious course’ and go to a panel.

TANG: ‘Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. ‘Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors…’it’s a difficult issue’….’there’s also a councillor involved’….’doesn’t mean that we treat them any worse than any other resident’….’I feel comfortable seeing this going to an independent panel’….’I note the heritage advice and would be prepared to see the heritage overlay clarified’ on all properties if that’s what the panel wants, but ‘in fairness to those who bought the property’ …’I think we should let this go to an independent panel’.

HYAMS: ‘This is a bit of a mess…..I don’t think we should be looking to apportion blame here…that one building would have addresses on two streets’….’owner of 2B didn’t know and ‘planning department only found out when there was an application for property next door’…’took all of our planning department by surprise’…..’several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….’only two objectors neither of whom came to the planning comference’
..’and this despite the blog that likes to consider itself as influential….readers of that blog…usually the greatest sin a councillor can commit is apparently is to heed officers’ advice, especially unquestioningly….the blog is professing outrage….(that the heritage advisor’s recommendations are being ignored) …simply because a councillor has an interest ….with such breathtaking hypocrisy it’s no wonder that the people on this blog prefer to stay anonymous’. Councillors will ‘do what we always do’, look at advice …..’and make best decision’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We assume that Hyams’ little fit of pique against the ‘blog’ to be a reference to Glen Eira Debates. That’s the second time in two council meetings that the ‘real’ Cr. Hyams has maybe stood up?  We accept this as a sincere compliment, since it indicates that we are definitely ruffling a few feathers and rattling a few cages. However, we need to correct some assertions made by Hyams. We are accused of ‘hypocrisy’ in that we have berated councillors for accepting ‘unquestioningly’ officers’ reports. If Cr Hyams would bother to look back at our post on this issue he would find the following as part of our commentary –

QUESTIONS:

  •  What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
  •  Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
  •  Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
  •  Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties?
  •  Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors…….”. We continued that what we recommend is surety for all concerned. There’s also a post that we put up but did not author – it comes from a resident expressing their personal opinion.

Finally, in relation to this current item, perhaps Cr. Hyams has not read the rehashed officers’ report as closely as he should have. The report notes: “Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants (David Bick, John Briggs, Roger Beeston and Dale Kelly). All concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection”.

So that makes it 6 Heritage Advisors in total. How much did this recourse to ‘external’ advisors cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? How much will referral to a Panel cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? Why in the interests of transparency did you not once refer to this additional ‘evidence’ from ‘independent’ experts? And since it was at your urging that the current Councillor Code of Conduct contains the injunction that councillors read all material placed before them, we ask you -“Did you really read the new report?”. Or is the failure to mention these additional 4 expert opinions merely an example of ‘hypocrisy’? We welcome your response Cr. Hyams!

 

 

June 7, 2011

Notice of Motion

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

Pilling moved the amendment to Item 9.11 – to introduce a Notice of Motion to the Local Law. Seconded by Magee

PILLING: Stated that he had emailed all councillors regarding his intention to move the amendment. Said that most councils already have Notice of Motion in fact 76 out of the current 79. ‘The premise (of Newton’s report) is that we councillors aren’t capable of sensibly utilising this option’….’it’s a negative type of argument’…… Pilling stated that he felt that Glen Eira councillors should have the same options as the vast majority of councillors in other municipalities. A notice of motion would also give councillors the opportunity to raise issues that ‘aren’t a majority view’….’in my mind this is a healthy feature of local government’….. ‘and goes some way to alleviate majority blocks’. Gives non majority councillors a voice and that ‘is to be encouraged’.

The report talked about ‘technical hurdles’ but countered this by saying that neighbouring councils such as Bayside and Kingston have ‘clear guidelines’ ….’Urgent business has to be deemed just that’ ….’let’s codify this….set guidelines’….’As community elected representatives I feel we are resposible enough to raise any issues that are constructive and timely’. A Notice of Motion would encourage this.  ‘It’s 10 years since we’ve had a Notice of Motion in glen eira. It’s now time to reintroduce it’.

MAGEE: Spoke about how there ‘is an opportunity there to misuse it (ie Notice of Motion) ‘but I believe the overwhelming majority within this chamber certainly wouldn’t do that….talking with groups, talking with individuals, there is times when business becomes a bit more than urgent…..I don’t think there’s a great opportunity for someone to come in and just blatantly raise issues to the detriment of the council…..(notice of motion) is …..an opportunity for us all to maybe move things along a little bit quicker…..it certainly doesn’t stop us from asking for information….or clarification in the days leading up to a council meeting…..it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to wait weeks and weeks…..sometimes months…..I feel that I would benefit from the Notice of Motion…..

TANG: Said he had spoken a few times with Pilling about this and the points he made were about the information that councillors received before making decisions. Went on to discuss the current agenda item stating ‘it wasn’t struck from thin air…..it came about (as a result of the last council meeting and Penhalluriack’s request for a report) …’and now we’ve got a report and councillors will take different positions…..it’s completely fair that councillors go against the advice from time to time….I don’t think (Pilling’s motion) is going to take council forward and only has the potential to take council back….(if a councillor wants a motion raised) I don’t see how a Notice of Motion will take them any further than a Request for a Report because if they don’t have the support of the majority of councillors…..if you can’t get a request for a report up you’re not going to be able to get a Notice of Motion up’. Tang then argued that if a motion was really urgent then it would fall into that category. ‘There is the potential that council could have a really persuasive argument  which could be completely founded in falsities…..and that could sway council to make a decision without any contrasting or corresponding information to support that position……that’s the risk I see with council making decisions on the run. ……I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang. ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’. Stated that ‘in reality’ councillors have 3 ways of raising matters – request for a report; urgent business and ‘we can simply ask the CEO to put something on the agenda’. ‘Generally what happens is that at our briefing meeting…..we can mull over decisions…..if a majority of people want something put on the agenda it happens that way’. ‘Every Tuesday we meet and we discuss a whole variety of things…..(councillors come up with) hairbrained ideas…..we can discuss this. We discuss it openly….and we have a very robust exchange of views….the majority comes to a decision one way or the other…..and that’s how I think it should be because (council has to decide)…I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and  can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.

FORGE: Stated that initially she was supportuive of Cr. Magee (?) but having ‘listened to various comments ….I’m going to abstain from this because I feel that I need to know more’. Asked if she needs to go to the Local Law advisory committee …”to receive that information’. Esakoff then interrupted and told Forge that she is unable to abstain and that she would have to vote or perhaps ‘go off to the bathroom or something’ (laughter) . Forge left chambers.

HYAMS:’ I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions….if a councillor makes a request for a report…I’ll know what they’re trying to get at….the advantage of doing it that way is that it comes back to us with a pack of information….can ignore (the information or back it)….someone said it may take ages (to get back a report) because officers need that long to make up the information …..so (if a matter is that complicated) that it’s going to take officers 8 weeks ….that we as a council should vote on it without that information at all…..surely that’s not responsible. Hyams then gave the example of Marrickville council deciding to boycott Israeli products only to discover that this would have cost them millions given that they would have to change their entire computer systems). …..if they would have made a request for a report first…and they wouldn’t have done it, but because (they voted) without background information’ they got themselves into this mess. …I don’t think anyone in this council would abuse this….but myself and the mayer have served on this council where people would have done this without hesitation….as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything….

TANG: raised the issue of Forge’s ‘desire to abstain from the vote’ and walk out …..I don’t think you can abstain and then walk out…(not a personal attack on Forge but conerned with) the advice that a councillor who is out of the room doesn’t have to vote….

ESAKOFF: thanks Tang and then spoke to the motion. Doesn’t support the motion for many of ‘the reasons that have already been outlined….I don’t believe that this council would misuse….but I would not like it to be brought back in to our local law for the reasons that Hyams raised…..you don’t know what, who will be in the future….I would not like to leave it at risk that way….I don’t believe that decision making should be made without proper information….never fun to do it on the run (decision making). Reiterated that there is request for reports, urgent business and in assemblies “we’re able to raise something in our general business’ ….if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….

PILLING: ‘I think the whole language is overstated….(all over the country 100s of) notices of motions are put up….it’s normal business for most councils to have notice of motion….(about making decisions on the run) ‘set guidelines’ ….I think the public likes to see us debate issues….there’s a lot of reasons why I think we should have a notice of motion….I don’t think it’s the real dilemma that’s been painted….it’s just another way of raising issues as other councils do. The world hasn’t fallen in in Stonnington….I think it’s healthy to have debate….I hope we aren’t so cautious and we’re bold and go forward….

MOTION LOST

Hyams then moved that the motion as printed be put. Lipshutz seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: responded to Pilling’s comments with ‘we do have debate’.

TANG: thought that Pilling ‘tackled the points that had been raised well’. Commented that if councillors look at other reports and the ways other councils do things, then he would welcome then bringing this information to council and ‘we’d have a look at it’ Examples he gave were: public toilets in restaurants, ‘pavilions that other councils build on’ ‘no smoking in public playgrounds…there’s all sorts of decisions that I’ve seen other councils make…and all the ones I’ve been interested in are all the ones where there have been reports’. couldn’t think of any one that had come from a Notice of Motion.

MOTION CARRIED ON ESAKOFF’S CASTING VOTE.

 

June 6, 2011

Council Meeting: Notice of Motion

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

A brief report (with further details tomorrow) on tonight’s motion by Neil Pilling to introduce a Notice of Motion into the Local Law. It was defeated. The votes were as follows –

Magee, Penhalluriack and Pilling in support of motion. Forge abstained and Lobo was still on leave. Vote against motion – Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff.

Arguments by ‘the gang’ were astounding – ie. introducing a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’; Lipshutz was concerned about the future and safeguarding future councillors and council. There was also ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ line. Councillors need advice and information otherwise a real threat to responsible decision making, and so on.

Some other ‘highlights’ –

  • the Duncan McKinnon redevelopment will go ahead. Cost is now 8.8 million!
  • ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ is no longer a policy, but termed a ‘mantra’!
  • Lipshutz now urges resident objectors to ‘have a go’ at VCAT – obviously forgetting his previous dictum that ‘we know best’ and that residents will come out worse if they object! The VCAT overturning of a council decision obviously meant that his long standing arguments also had to be ‘overturned’.
  • McKinnon development – not seven double storeys, but 6.
  • Public question on the accuracy of council responses remains unanswered.
  • Importantly, Newton’s spiel on Notice of Motion and the normal process of ‘noting’ the report did not gain an unanimous vote – it was merely ‘carried’. A first in Glen Eira!
  • Decision on Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed buildings now to go to a Panel.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »