GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

May 2, 2011

What Petty & Devious Games We Play!!!!

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

The minutes for last Wednesday’s Council Meeting are now up. We wish to direct readers’ attention to the Right of Reply by Penhalluriack, and the verbal response provided a little later by Newton to Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report. Two things in particular stand out

  • Newton’s little speech is immaculately punctuated
  • Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply is almost unintelligible BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNCTUATION.

Now we find it impossible to believe that if Newton’s words can be sensibly recorded, that the same privilege should not be extended to Cr. Penhalluriack. If two people typed up and edited these minutes, then person Number 1 would definitely pass his primary school. Person Number 2 is in bad need of remediation. However, we suspect that the motive for such discrepancy has nothing to do with education and knowledge of punctuation. It would appear to again be deliberate. Please note the following:

Newton – 6 commas and 7 fullstops in 127 words

Penhalluriack – 3 commas in 535 words Plus the absence of inverted commas, apostrophes, etc.

We’ve copied the two speeches directly from the minutes. Readers, make up your own minds!

NEWTON: “In relation to Item 11.1 on tonight’s Agenda, Requests for Reports. Firstly, in October 2010 Council sought a report on, to the best of my recollection, every meeting with MRC and Trustees. That report was submitted to the Council Meeting of, to the best of my recollection, the 2 November 2010. The resolution was at that meeting to note the report.

To the best of my recollection that was unanimous. To the best of my recollection the Mover was Cr Penhalluriack. Since November 2010 the only contact I’ve had with the MRC or Trustees has been in implementation of Council resolutions. During the last two years I have never exercised the CEO’s delegated power in relation to the MRC or Trustees.”

PENHALLURIACK: “On the front page of the local Leader in an article ‘Mulch to fume about’ I think Cr Hyams suggests it should really be mulch ado about nothing I’m mentioned in it and it says I may have a Conflict of Interest because I sell mulch and similar products in my business. 

This issue was addressed by the Municipal Inspectors different terms same issues and it was also addressed by me directly to the Audit Committee in my submission to the Audit Committee to ask them to investigate the mulch sheds. 

I do not believe there is any Conflict of Interest whatsoever and had I thought there was I would have not raised the issue as I have with the Council. 

The article goes on to say I raised concerns about the disease a form of pneumonia then it tells you how much of course the independent assessment cost and the independent assessment found that levels of bacteria and fungi in the air were not elevated and there was no negative test results to indicate any current health risk according to a Council report. What the expert report didn’t do was analyse the mulch it would have cost ten percent of the amount and the situation when they did their testing was that the mulch shed had been effectively emptied so there was not dust in the air whatsoever. The mulch at the back of the shed was damp moist composted and not likely to spread into the atmosphere generally certainly maybe as an aerosol within the mulch shed itself but not around the back of the mulch shed where the testing was done. Now it’s erm, I’m quoted as saying I’m concerned about the community safety not about whether I sell mulch or not it’s next to a school and next to a children’s playground. The literature I’ve seen anything within two hundred metres should be carefully monitored. I say the shed costing one hundred and sixty thousand dollars was built at the current site in 2009. The shed unfortunately was badly designed right from the start because when the testing was done the mulch in that shed had been there for two years. Mulch when it is produced commercially for customers be they commercial customers or free customers is pasteurised. The Australian Standard says that mulch should be pasteurised. 

The selective quotations from the Leader are a good example of very poor reporting. They quote the report, no negative test results. They don’t say that the report also said exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk to exposure of various fungi, yeasts and moulds and bacteria including legionella. They don’t say that the mulch was not pasteurised as it should be to accord with the Australian Standard AS4454-2003. 

What they don’t say is that a community wide outbreak of legionnaires disease occurred in Pas De Calaise, France from November 2003 to January 2004 and of the eighty six laboratory confirmed cases eighteen were fatal. 

Council voted on this matter they voted responsibly when they knew all of the facts and I believe the article in the Leader is misleading and false and needs to be criticised at this Council Meeting by me.”

 

April 28, 2011

MRC ‘Agreement’.

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

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…

PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenties’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’

PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.

ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.

LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..

FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge resopnded ‘to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….

Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.

PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO becuase the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!

FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.

ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.

HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms,  ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….

ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division 

REQUEST FOR REPORT 

PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’. 

HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.

FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.

HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.

TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council

PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps

LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?

PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete

MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION

Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.

 

April 24, 2011

More Agenda Items of Note

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

The various ‘Records of Assembly’, brief as they are, still contain some fascinating items. One that really caught our eye was – “At conclusion of Assembly of Councillors a Councillor only meeting took place with a Note Taker present.” We simply ask – who was the Notetaker? Was the Notetaker really ‘independent’ as per a contract? How much did this little tete a tete cost ratepayers if the Notetaker was an ‘outsider’ under contract? What was the purpose of this meeting? Could it have anything to do with Newton’s contract?

Then from the same meeting we get this: ‘Cr Penhalluriack – a Court Order to remove a Plane tree in Murrumbeena’. Given that this is a Court Order, rather than a VCAT order, we can only assume that another court case has taken place and that Council has been thumped. So the question again is – how much did this cost ratepayers? Were barristers, QCs or merely a solicitor involved? Did it need to go to court? Could council have averted court proceedings in any shape or form?

Two items that appear under the in camera discussions deserve comment. One relates to another sporting oval resurfacing for ‘more than $350,000’ at Lord Reserve. We wonder what the final cost will actually be? There’s also this tit bit under ‘personnel’ and Occupational Health and Safety Compliance? Again, we can only speculate, but has this anything to do with worker safety at the mulch heap, or possibly another issue altogether? The real question is will ratepayers be footing any bills or payouts on this little number?

Finally, Glen Huntly’s comment deserves taking up. $7.5 million has now been forecast for the ‘development’ of Booran Rd. Reservoir. Given that no plans have as yet surfaced (officially) for this site, then how can any sum be assigned and what is this money for? What are the mega plans that have possibly already been concocted – once again, without community input?

 

April 21, 2011

The ‘Sell Out’ is Complete!!!

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

Here are the agenda items of note for next Wednesday night’s council meeting. We will be writing much, much more of these issues!

MRC and Council Agreement for Centre of the Racecourse

Readers should carefully dissect this proposed agreement. It basically ignores the resolution passed by Council less than a month ago! (See Item9.12)

 Strategic Resource Plan

  • Rates up 6.95%
  • $5.5 million for Duncan MacKinnon in 20011/12 and then another $1.8 in 2012/13
  • Pavilions – $2m p.a. commencing in 2012-2013.
  •  Elsternwick Child Care Centre – Council has developed a proposal to obtain use of some Crown Land on the east side of Kooyong Road to build a purpose-built child care centre – $250k has been allocated in 2011-2012 for building design and community consultation and $1.35m in 2012-2013 for building works.
  • Booran Road Reservoir – The SRP allows for the reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site – $4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019. (Hence for another 4 years this valuable open space will remain untouched!)

COMMENTS

  • No appreciable increase in spending on drains
  • Pavilions are the major priority of this council it seems – without any cost benefit analyses as to refurbishment/redevelopment as opposed to demolition and new buildings

Tree Protection

Incorporating Tree Protection into the Planning Scheme is considered too ‘cumbersome’. Instead, there is the option to simply introduce a new clause into the Local Law, which will require a permit for about 100-200 trees in the special category of ‘Classified’.

COMMENT: How will this stop ‘moonscaping’?

Council Plan

“Council proposes to retain the existing Council plan” (No further ‘consultation’ since it was done so wonderfully well in 2008!)

Planning Applications

Address

Proposal

Notification

Objections
29 Railway Pde 3 storey/16 dwellings 12 residences notified; 22 notices sent 21 objections
285 Hawthorn Rd Synagogue/reduction in car parking 7 properties notified; 25 notices sent 14 objections + petition of 47 objections
8 A’Beckett St 2 dwellings 9 properties notified; 23 notices sent 2 objections
14-18 Lillimur Rd. Amend current permit 35 properties notified; 49 notices sent 2 objections
Halstead, Cromwell & Hawthorn Rd Subdivision into 19 lots; remove reserve status (current use: private open space) 82 properties notified; 148 notices sent 2 objections

 

COMMENT: The usual lack of notification continues. Please note that inverse correlation.

 

April 7, 2011

Council Meeting: April 5th

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

A petition was handed in regarding parking problems at McKinnon primary school. Burke announced that only part of the submission would be accepted, since the signatures weren’t all on ‘original’ papers as per the guidelines – some had been “attached to the document”. Penhalluriack then requested that all signatures be included since he was of the opinion that this was a technical issue rather than an attempt to ‘forge’ or misrepresent numbers. Esakoff responded that in order to be ‘valid’ each page had to have the identical ‘heading’. Burke explained that council had to ensure there was nothing untoward. Tang then moved a motion that the petition (minus the questionable signatures) be accepted and that ‘council investigate petitioners’ concerns’ and A REPORT BE PREPARED ON THE ISSUE.  This was voted in unanimously. This is the first time in living memory, that petitions have not merely been ‘noted’, only to then disappear into the dustbin of history! Our congratulations to councillors for this one small step forward on the road to democracy and taking charge of matters!

Item 9.1 – 95 Nicholson St. – Rejected application (unanimous)

Esakoff declared 2 conflicts of interest. Magee/Lobo moved motion to reject permit application on grounds of ‘excessive mass’, ‘overdevelopment of site’, ‘excessive scale’, and fails to respond/respect to neighbourhood character, etc. Gallery was informed that this property had been ex Mayor Bob Bury’s residence. Magee lamented the loss of Jacaranda trees from the property and that someone could come along and put up ’22 little boxes’. His language included ‘monstrosity’, ‘decimate’, ‘eyesore’’, ‘height shouldn’t be… (anywhere) that should be in Glen Eira’ (yet 8 storeys were ok for elsewhere, Cr Magee?). A developer friend from elsewhere told Magee that ‘he hates developing in Glen Eira’ because our rules ‘were too strict’!!!

Rest of councillors spoke pretty much in the same vein. Pilling was on the ‘borderline’ because he would ‘like to see more development’. Penhalluriack, Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams also warned residents that this site was ripe for development and that it would occur.

Magee concluded by stating that Elizabeth Miller, MP was also an objector and hence she was ‘really criticising’ her own government’s policy. He challenged her to stand up in Parliament and state this. “I don’t want her to be involved to be popular, I want her to be involved to make a difference’. Also went on to claim that VCAT members who have no idea of the local area, don’t see the site, make decisions for ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of residents. [We wonder if Magee has ever read VCAT judgements and noted that in at least 95% of such judgements, the member DOES VISIT THE SITE and does ‘smell the roses’!!! We suggest that instead of grandstanding, Cr. Magee first establishes his facts!]

Item 9.2 –  Centre Rd. – Application rejected (unanimous)

Hyams – nothing else of this height; too bulky; ‘shows a lack of respect for….neighbourhood character’. Pilling concurred stating ‘it just doesn’t fit there’. Tang also spoke of ‘overdevelopment’, ‘very bulky’, ‘landscaping’ and ‘visual amenity’. Magee wondered what’s in ‘developers’ heads’, they put up boxes and ‘let’s see how we go’. ‘We’re not gonna pass it, just a bloody waste of time’.

VCAT REPORT

Lipshutz skimmed over very quickly the VCAT decision on the 10 storey building on Glen Huntly Rd where the member had basically stated that since council had approved 8 storeys he couldn’t see much difference between that and granting the 10 storeys. Hyams stated that he could tell the difference. Tang also spoke about MP Miller and related it to past practice of Rob Hudson in coming out against council decisions. That ‘we need to see this followed through with action’ through their colleagues. In a direct reference to we presume Glen Eira Debates, Tang then stated that he had read how ‘people’ say that the fault lies with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. However the real fault in his view lies with VCAT because ‘they ignore our policies’. All this ‘indicates a lack of respect for council decisions’. Tang then explained that he was in favour of 7 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd., because this was the height of the existing church spire, so that the 7 storey development would not ‘tower’ over the spire!!! We respectfully suggest, that a tapering spire, is vastly different to a square, massive tower block of equal height!!!!!!!

 

April 5, 2011

Scorecard: Penhalluriack One – Newton, Lipshutz, Tang – Zero!

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

Frank Penhalluriack achieved a remarkable victory at council meeting this evening. The mulch heap at Glen Huntly Park will be closed down and removed because of the fear of potential health risks. Penhalluriack’s motion to close the facility was supported by Forge, Pilling, Lobo, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff and opposed by Tang and Lipshutz. The discussion went as follows:

Penhalluriack: Stated that there had been a lot of discussion amongst councillors but ‘on the evidence I have seen and researched this mulch….is a dangerous thing….can though fungi and bacteria…..cause legionella disease’. Penhalluriack said that he recognised that there had not been any deaths reported in the area that could be associated with mulch. ‘Research would indicate that deaths come more from woodchips’ when people get legionella. Stated that council organised ‘through the audit committee’ an extra opinion to look at the issue and their reports said ‘exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi, yeast and moulds and bacteria, including legionella’. ‘Is it worth anybody dying?’ ‘while the risk may be relatively small the risk is definitely there’. Elderly are especially susceptible ….’The third page….was unfortunately missed from the agenda and has been replaced tonight, but only in the black and white version’. The colour version shows ‘quite clearly what is not shown in the black and white verion’ – ie. the dust cloud that is created by the bulldozer pushing the mulch around. ‘It’s those very fine particles’ which carry the disease according to scientific tests to ‘at least 200 metres’. Within 20 metres of this mulch heap ‘we have a playground’, barbecue and school. ‘It’s not worth the risk. I know this is a great convenience to consumers…but the second photograph’ shows the mulch sitting way outside the container. ‘the recommendation from the expert is that it should not be outside’. There should be warning signs to the public to wear masks and gloves and wash your hands after handling. Said that the notice had been put out, and held up the sheet with the expert’s opinion, then said that he’s highlighted the legionella risk ‘but for some reason on the notice inside….those words have been missed. Those words are the most crucial’. It’s a risk that shouldn’t be taken by Council.

FORGE: outlined her experience as a physiotherapist where she had dealt with many people who had thoracic diseases such as emphysema, asthma, bronchitis ‘which may take up to thirty years to develop’. We shouldn’t subject any man, woman or child to further pollutants in the air given the evidence. ‘We have to take the much bigger picture and not just the possibility of legionaires’…’we have to take this seriously as well’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘this is scaremongering….there are other ways …it’s true to say that the audit committee obtained a report…the issue here is how far do we go? ‘There are always risks in everything we do….we have a government report which says there is nothing wrong with this…and in fact that it is okay….Penhalluriack has got other data’. The consultant’s report ‘nowhere does it say we should close’ down. That’s not an issue – ‘i don’t want to have any danger to children or adults….we can take things to the nth degree…..’there is no clear indication of danger’…’ knee jerk reaction’….’let’s do testing, let’s see and if that at the end demonstrates that things are incorrect, close it’

TANG: stated that he’d had many conversations with Penhalluriack about this. ‘my issue with this suggests that it is a knee jerk reaction…it’s like a nanny state’. Used the analogy of car crashes that instead of implementing traffic lights, seat belt, we stop people driving. Penhalluriack ‘agitated’ for the report and after reading it, Tang agrees that ‘we certainly need to take steps to mitigate against these risks’…’I’m not debating the fact that there is a risk of legionella’. Read other sections of the report which said that the air testing results were not elevated when compared to surrounding areas….’you’re quite right to be concerned about risks and here we have some suggestions about how…so the conclusion I came to from reading the report …council should implement every one of the recommendations…council should close the facility until such time that every recommendation in the report is fully implemented and people should be fully aware of what the risks are…..and the signage should be larger’. Said that there was some concern about wind conditions when the tests were conducted, so suggests ‘that the site be tested at least once a month for six months immediately after you reopen’

PILLING: the mulch facility is a service to the community but the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school’ ‘I think it should be moved’. ‘The children’s playground was there first and we introduced this mulch heap, it was probably a poor decision then’. He hoped that a better site could be found in the future away from playgrounds and schools.

HYAMS: argued against Tang’s analogy with cars since everyone knows about the dangers and the need to wear seatbelts, but this isn’t the case with mulch and its dangers. Went on to state that he had no idea that diseases could be associated with mulch and that ‘a lot of people wouldn’t know that’. Warning signs aren’t enough – we have warning signs for everything and people still ignore them. ‘I don’t like the idea of a nanny state, but sometimes you need to protect people from themselves…in this case I think we’ve got to err on the side of caution’.

MAGEE: spoke about the timber industry and spoke about green and wet timber. ‘I cannot go to a green saw anywhere in Victoria without’ masks. Related that he is an asthmatic, and that the highest number of deaths of people working in the timber industry was in people working in green sawmills. ‘The only common denominator is dealing with wet timber’….the bacteria stays on the outside of the bark …’I think there is a very big link between wet timber and asthma’

ESAKOFF: ‘I too was sitting on the fence here’ but decided if ‘there is a minute risk’ and even though ‘I don’t like a nanny state’ but given it’s location near a playground caution is warranted.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he thought that the installation that Council currently has is contrary to the Australian Standards. Further the mulch that council has is ‘not pasteurised’ and the Standards Australia says that commercial installations should produce only ‘pasteurised mulch’. Said that he wouldn’t like the state authorities to come and have a look at the mulch facilities and find that they are not up to the standards.

Motion was carried 7 to 2.

CONCLUSION:

  • The central issue of WHY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DID NOTHING has not been addressed
  • Tang’s declaration that he agrees that ‘you’re quite right to be concerned about risk’ is another black mark against the Audit Committee for not passing this information (report) onto the rest of the councillors. He admits that he only got to read it after Penhalluriack’s urging.
  • One of the rare times that administration has been publically criticised in their lousy decision to place this mulch heap near a playground
  • Newton has not answered the questions as to why the report lay on his desk for at least 12 days before being tabled at the audit committee and the need for various versions?
  • Why is the word ‘legionella’ not included in warning signs as recommended?
  • Why did Lipshutz, a lawyer on the audit committee, not insist that the report go to council?
  • This issue is far from resolved. What Glen Eira Debates can claim is that we have at least forced Newton to produce the full text of Penhalluriack’s memo to the Audit Committee. We doubt very much if it would have been included in tonight’s agenda items unless we had not analysed and made a fuss about this selective editing!!!!
 

April 1, 2011

Agenda Items: 5th April

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

The pattern continues – the more likely there will be objections to development applications the less notification residents receive. Readers should note that Nicholson St., is exceedingly narrow and contains well over 100 properties along the entire stretch of road and surrounds. Hence 13 properties is barely 10%! 

Site Proposal Notifications Objections Officer’s Recommend’s
95 Nicholson St. 3 storey; 25 dwellings 13 properties; 28 notices sent 87 Yes – 22 dwellings
650 Centre Rd 3 storey; 16 dwellings 18 properties; 42 notices 27 No
Tennis courts – Bignell Road Flood lights 35 properties; 43 notices 1 Yes

 

 

Audit Committee Minutes: 

“The Chairman noted the report on the mulch bin at Glen Huntly Park and concluded that no action was required by the Audit Committee. If Councillors had any issues, they could raise them with the Council.”  

“Councillor Lipshutz stated that Councillors and the Mayor should have a bigger role to fulfil in an emergency situation, particularly in relation to media releases and public communications”.

Racecourse Advisory Committee Minutes

“At the invitation of the Chair, the Mayor reported on a meeting by the Mayor and CEO with the Minister for Planning, the Minister for Racing and the Member for Caulfield held on 1 March.

The Committee discussed the issues.” (Very informative!)

Readers should note the apologies!!!! – Tang and Lipshutz!!! 

Record of Assembly

“Cr Pilling – Council free Mulch facility to be closed immediately”.

The audit committee doesn’t see a problem with the mulch heap, but obviously other councillors apart from Penhalluriack do! 

Marlborough Reserve Consultation 

In typical Glen Eira fashion, the ‘results’ of this two month ‘consultation’ process are fudged, distorted and do not accurately portray the comments made by residents. We’re told that:

“Of the submissions received:

  • • 7 comments generally supported the plans;
  • • 4 submissions suggested either replacing or incorporating a multi purpose sports area;
  • • 3 people suggested the dog enclosure needed to be modified to meet their individual needs;
  • • 2 people raised concerns about additional users to the park;
  • • 2 comments suggested additional facilities such as walking tracks;
  • • 1 submission would like to see the open space retained; and
  • • 1 submission suggested another use (community garden)”. 

This summary is not only very selective, but misleading. There are at least 3 comments which support the idea of a native/community garden. There are also comments made about the location of the proposed dog agility park – these are not recorded! What we do get is the same old pattern of dismissal without evidence and without a clearly explained rationale. For example: “A community garden was suggested as part of the online feedback; however there is not an identified need for a community garden in this area and this has not been considered further.” Exactly what does ‘identified need’ mean – especially when no analysis has been undertaken to even determine whether this is ‘needed’. Spin, and more spin, that simply discards out of hand suggestions which do not fit into the pre-determined plan! 

NEWTON’S RESPONSE

A response to Penhalluriack Questions were taken on notice. We’ll report on this in the coming days. 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

The preamble to this ‘engagement’ policy states: “The strategy provides clear guidance about how Council will engage with the Glen Eira community and outlines its approach to community engagement including methodologies, tools and techniques”. Yet when we get to the actual detail of how and when this policy will operate we simply find the following nebulous, and vague assertions. Residents will be ‘engaged’ only when an issue – 

“significantly affects the community”

“considerably affects the way services are provided”.

“likely to generate community concern”

Where Council needs more information on which to make an informed decision which will have a major impact.”

What is the definition and the difference between ‘significant’, ‘considerable’, and ‘likely’? Who makes these decisions? On what bases are they made? What multiple methods will subsequently be employed? What is the criteria for when multiple methods be employed? 

In short, we believe that the ‘engagement’ policy is nothing more than an extended version of the current 6 step consultation policy. The only difference is the abundance of motherhood statements, the soft and fluffy feel, and generalities upon generalities. Detail as always is absent. Perhaps the best summation is the following: 

“Community engagement processes will be regularly reviewed and evaluated to ensure that they adequately capture community views, that methods are accessible, timely and easy to use for community members and any appropriate improvements be made to Council processes.” No mention as to HOW this evaluation will be conducted and by WHOM! Nor is there any definition of ‘regularly’ and ‘adequately’. Words and words and words that signify nothing – apologies to Bill Shakespeare!

The final sleight of hand occurs in the table that claims “This information has been taken from the International Association for Public Participation.” Do not be deceived! The Glen Eira version of the Association’s Toolkit is like comparing chalk and cheese. We’ve uploaded the original so that readers may compare what’s been left out; how language has been ‘massaged’ and the limited interpretation that Glen Eira sets on objectives, methodology and rationale.

 

March 16, 2011

Racecourse: Round 1 to the ‘Gang of Five’

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

Forgive this long post, but we believe it’s important!

Penhalluriack moved his motion under ‘Urgent Business’. It was seconded by Forge. Again a rousing speech which began by going over the history of the original grant and its 3 purposes – a racecourse, a recreation area, and a public park. ‘We don’t have a public recreation ground; nor do we have a public park’. It is important that we negotiate to ‘share this land….It is a huge land and many people here tonight have never been inside this land’. Last meeting proposed that we be given access to ‘all the land inside the training tracks’ – most of the land anyway is taken up with racing and training tracks. ‘For 150 years we have been kept out of it’. ‘It’s about time that we stood up and fought for our rights…..the Melbourne Racing Club has used that land for their own purposes…..we have 20 or 21 race meetings a year. That’s all!….but they have training every morning and every afternoon and that means that we can’t go on it….they are using land that is close to 2,000 million dollars…..2,000 million dollars for 20 bloody race meetings a year! Get real! It is our land……It’s time that we negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to take back this land…..The only fair and equitable way to do this is to invite the Melbourne Racing Club …to come to a meeting of all nine councillors and discuss it’.

Penhalluriack then stated that if he loses the motion and three councillors go off to negotiate that he ‘wouldn’t be happy when they come back and say this is the best we could get….because I won’t believe it is the best we can get and I’m sure Councillor Pilling will feel the same’. Lobo will also feel the same. ‘This is our land’. ‘we need to have access, unrestricted access to the land’….The trustees meet twice a year’, they haven’t done anything, councillors are 2 or 3 against 13 or 15.

Penhalluriack claimed that he comes from a business background and that it’s ‘common sense’ to him that ‘we should all be partaking of this exercise’….we need to get value for our money.

Forge then spoke stating that most of the community had ‘no idea’ that there were three purposes to the racecourse. School and sporting communities ‘are crying for space’ and ‘we’re looking at a sand belt in the middle and nothing for the public…..at the moment the horses are being treated much better than the public….not one of the 15 recommendations (from the public lands inquiry panel) has gone through…..what’s Glen Eira Council doing for us? We have put no ideas on paper….I think we have to be far more explicit….Cr. Penhalluriack and I have had more experience about this industry than anyone else (on council)….we have to look more closely at the makeup of people’ who will be representing us to the MRC.

Pilling then got up and commended the ‘passion’ of both Penhalluriack and Forge and the work they’d put in ‘but this motion is about the best way to negotiate with the MRC.’ Penhalluraick’s motion isn’t the best way to negotiate. ‘I won’t support the motion’.

Tang then asked whether it would be a meeting open to the public. Penhalluraick responded that no it wouldn’t be – just councillors.

Lipshutz continued the ‘theme’ by congratulating Forge and Penhalluraick for the work they’ve done and that ‘no one can suggest that they’re not passionate about this HOWEVER, this is not about passion. He objected to penhalluriacks remarks about the past. He was a member of council in 2005 and ‘took a very strong stance’ about opening up the park. The fact that they didn’t achieve this ‘was not because of lack of trying….because we had a government that wasn’t prepared to assist us…..this is about how to best achieve the result we want…..Penhalluriack said that he wouldn’t trust that (if 3 councillors came back with a proposal)….at all times this council delegates…..and when I vote for someone I trust them; I trust every member of this council. I believe every member of this council is reliable, is trustworthy….when I vote for someone to go off and represent council I trust them, so I reject what Cr. Penhalluriack says’. Claimed that how many racemeetings were irrelevant and that the real issue is ‘how best to negotiate’. No negotiation should ‘bring people in, have 9 people’ trying to negotiate. It ends up as a ‘free for all’. The example was a councillor saying that he wants fences removed and another councillor saying I don’t want that – I want something else. ‘so where do you go?’ You negotiate by good will, not by bringing in 9 councillors and having a free for all. Compared decision making to what happens at council – that is committees are set up to discuss issues. ‘I want as much as anyone here the racecourse to be opened up…..this (Penhalluriack’s motion) is a recipe for absolute disaster’. It basically says that this council ‘has no idea how to negotiate…we’re a professional council and we should do this properly….’

MAGEE said that the MRC will undoubtedly have their legal advisors, as council could, but that the meeting ‘should be held on council’s grounds….we can only put forward what we as councillors think is appropriate….anything that puts all the cards on the table and lets everyone know where we stand is a good meeting….

HYAMS then threw in his ‘dorothy dixer’ asking Tang to explain why, when every other time the racecourse had come up for discussion he had declared a conflict of interest, yet tonight he did not

TANG stated that his position as trustee put him in a difficult situation. He would ‘dearly love’ to be able to discuss these issues but ‘unfortunately they are a risk to council…..as a trustee I have responsibility to the Trust’. He is a ‘councillor nominee’ which enables him to ‘passionately advocate for the community’s interests’ by putting people’s ideas to the trustee meetings. He has ‘conflicting duties’ when ‘matters of policy affect matters of the Trust’ and since this discussion is not about changing policy he can comment(!!!!!!!) so since no questions affecting the trust are being considered now, there is no conflict of interest.

HYAMS then asked what happens if the MRC says ‘no’

Penhalluriack replied that ‘we are under pressure from this government and so are the MRC. I don’t believe they would stand up’ and say no.

HYAMS then asked about the composition and Penhalluraick responded ‘I don’t expect all councillors to show up….I would like to see all nine councillors come along and share the passion that Cr. Forge and I….we are democratically elected to represent our constituents…..if councillors want to turn up, if the MRC all want to turn up we can go and hire the pavilion….’

HYAMS then asked what would happen if the MRC wanted to go away and deliberate and how this would impact on council’s meeting schedule. He stated he ‘doesn’t disagree’ with the motion but the most important thing is that we act ‘reasonably’….in negotiation each side sends its representatives….they discuss…..they then go back to report to their constituent bodies…..and they see where they go from there…..I’m concerned (that we might be seen to be) ‘acting unreasonably’…the only question is how best to go about it…..we need to be reasonable’. Hyams also admires the passion and commitment of Forge and Penhalluriack, BUT ‘sometimes someone can get so close….you don’t know when to step back…..so close to something that you don’t trust anyone else to do it…..and when we reach a situation where that might be the best for everyone we don’t see that that might be the best for everyone…..it’s time to step back’. He doesn’t doubt Forge’s and Penhalluriack’s intentions, just the method of achieving what ‘we all want to achieve’.

TANG: ‘I resent what Cr. Penhalluriack has said…..(it is) self serving….Noone can doubt that they’ve been active in this issue…..I’ve dealt with Penhalluriack and Froge when they weren’t councillors….Council made very strong representation (and the Select Committee)….’we were all very interested…..it is annoying and frustrating when it becomes about personalities; who should negotiate….we’re now debating personality rather than policy….but I’m here to tell you that on policy everyone agrees…..’. Tang then claimed that it was the previous government’s fault and that the Liberals were no different now. ‘I agree we want the best possible negotiating team on behalf of the community….it is not about personality….we should be supporting each other in achieving that outcome….’

Penhalluriack summed up that the feeling is that we need to be ‘reasonable and my motion is not reasonable…..Last meeting we passed’ what everyone now seems to think was excellent points.’Prior to that meeting I had to negotiate, cajole, beg four councillors to vote with me….Those four councillors as it happens are all in their second term….and those four councillors….most vigorously oppose this….Well so be it. But I believe they will live to regret it. Those four councillors have achieved nothing by way of opening up (the racecourse)….absolutely nothing….This council has allowed the racecourse and the training areas to expand and expand….to the detriment of what we, the community wants…..and now we’re forced to negotiate with the MRC with one hand tied behind our back’. Lipshutz claimed that in 2005 they tried to open it up but the government wouldn’t assist – ‘well I’m sorry we’re also a local government….it’s up to us to negotiate to get this thing through. It’s our land…..’.

‘it’s not going to be a free for all….we are responsible citizens, councillors are all responsible citizens….this (council meeting) is the only area where council can make policy….this is supposed to be where these things are debated…..in public in an open and transparent manner….I think councillor Tang should perhaps consider resigning his position…and appointing someone else who doesn’t feel that moral obligation…of not being able to report to us….the whole purpose of having a councillor as trustee is that so we know in an open transparent manner what is happening…..’

Esakoff put the motion to the vote. IT WAS LOST.

PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION.

PENHALLURIACK, FORGE, MAGEE, LOBO VOTED FOR

LIPSHUTZ, TANG, HYAMS, PILLING AND ESAKOFF AGAINST.

 

Lipshutz then moved a motion that Newton, Eskakoff represent council in negotiations with the MRC. Motion was passed. Only Forge and Penhalluriack voted against.

CORRECTION: The Lipshutz motion also included himself and Magee as the councillors to ‘negotiate’ with the MRC.

 

March 13, 2011

Urgent Business: Racecourse

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

Agenda for Glen Eira Council Meeting, 15th March 2011. 

10.      Urgent Business 

Seek leave to raise an item of urgent business. 

Involves a request by the Minister for Planning to negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to ensure a public benefit from the Crown Land known as the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.   There is no other motion from Council to permit these negotiations to proceed.  We are dealing with 56 hectares of land worth over $2 billion. 

Motion:  (Moved by Cr. Penhalluriack; seconded by Cr. Pilling.) 

That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to a meeting with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land.  The Mayor shall open the meeting, and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position.  The meeting shall then be open for all to contribute.  The meeting shall be sound-recorded and minutes shall be prepared.

 

March 11, 2011

Agenda Items

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

Planning Applications

Looks like the ‘inverse ratio’ principle is still alive and well when it comes to planning applications. The more objections, the less notifications as a rule.

Property Notification Objections
Ames Ave, Carnegie (Housing Diversity) 8 properties notified (10 notices sent) 19 objections
815 Centre Rd., Bentleigh (Housing Diversity) 7 properties notified (9 notices sent) 22 objections
13-17 Cecil St., Bentleigh (Minimal Change – non residential use) 13 properties notified (17 notices sent) 6 objections
Amendment C75 – Virginia Park (Industrial & Business 3 Zone) “Letters to over 600 owners” 14 submissions received – no submission to Panel

 

Assemblies of Councillors

Councillors’ bladders are still a major cause of concern. The comings and goings from these meetings are incredible. Of particular note is the meeting of 22nd Feb., which began at 10.10pm and only had Paul Burke present. The subject of discussion was: ‘Public question responses from the February 1 meeting’. This is the meeting where all questions by Mr. Varvodic were taken on notice and follows a previous meeting where Penhalluriack expressed his disenchantment with the tone of responses.

Readers also need to take careful note of Tang’s continual declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ re the Racecourse. We can only conclude that he takes his ‘duty’ to the MRC, more seriously than his obligations to resident ratepayers!

We also direct readers’ attention to the topics listed in the record of assembly for the weekend away. Our bet is that child care fees are going to go through the roof again – without justification!

Advisory Committees

Same old, same old. Lipshutz again on: audit, local laws, pools, racecourse. Pity that Council does not appear to have read the Minister’s latest guidelines which strongly suggest that Audit Committee Members be rotated and changed regularly.  

Elsternwick Childcare

There appears to be some glacial like movement at the station in regard to childcare. A letter from Esakoff to Alfred Health advocating for a “purpose built child care centre on Crown Land in Elsternwick.”. Give us the land (currently Arthritis Vic) and we’ll build a centre. No detail as to when, what, who pays, or what will close if this ever eventuates. But at least ratepayers can be assured that Council continues to ‘advocate’! 

Incamera Items

Golly, gosh! Newton’s contract (or performance review) it seems, is still taking up meeting after meeting! They just can’t get it right. Do any other councils take months and months to perform such a task we ask? 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »