GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 16, 2013

Gardener’s Road Trees: Here Yesterday – Gone Today!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

As we predicted the 80 – 100 foot gum that had its roots ripped out to make way for a $600,000 car park has now gone into the dustbin of history. Below we feature some of our earlier photos and the carnage that has (unnecessarily we believe) been wrought. Another huge gum along this stretch of redevelopment will, we believe, go the same way.  Questions must be asked and answered about what is utter and total negligence and incompetence:

  • What precautions did council take to ensure the survival of these trees? Did they in fact give a damn?
  • Did the right hand (ie contractors) know what the left hand (arborists?) required to ensure survival? Was there any discussion preceding the commencement of works? Where is this documented?
  • What is the monetary value of these trees and how much will it cost to come within cooeee of a replacement?
  • What does this episode reveal about this council’s transparency and accountability when neither the officers’ report nor one single councillor had the integrity to state that open space would be lost and that mature and valuable trees would be hacked to pieces? And why weren’t residents “consulted” much less any traffic analysis provided?

gum

roots

HERE’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW

P1000148

P1000149

P1000150P1000151

 

June 14, 2013

Danby & The Blue Bloods!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

Source: Australian Jewish News, 12th June 2013, Page 21

Time to Throw out Conservative councillors

A few weekends ago nearly 1500 locals gathered to support AJAX Senior Football Club when it recently played away at Princes Park in South Caulfield. Yet this club has been barred from home games at the ground by an unfair and unknown decision-making process wielded by the seemingly all powerful bureaucrats hidden in the halls of Glen Eira Town Hall.

Over a decade in politics I have observed with increasing bemusement the relative weakness of most elected councillors compared to the officials who seem to dominate Glen Eira Council. It must be said that the chief executive Andrew Newton of Glen Eira Council is polite and highly professional.

Many of the Glen Eira councillors are well-intentioned people but their conservative values dictated by the Liberal party have put them at odds with their community, have made them weak and they have not sought to bring much needed transparency to decision-making. New Councillor Mary Delahunty will make a difference.

Residents of Caulfield are fed up by the popular local footy club being barred from its local ground or by its over-development by a rapacious racing club fawned over by conservative councillors.

Sorry to say, however, the answer for Glen Eira residents fed up with overweening power of unelected professionals is more politics, not less.

Glen Eira voters must turf out the conservative councillors afraid to take on the bureaucrats.

Their replacements must run on an explicit program of asserting themselves over the civil servants of Glen Eira.

I am afraid that is the only way AJAX Senior Football will get to Princes Park, where so many of their boisterous local family and friends celebrated the opportunity for them to play in an “away” game.

 

MICHAEL DANBY

+++++++++++++++++++

Challenging council on ground allocation

Regarding Council allocation Mayor Hyams has not quite got it right/ Ajax could have got the Princes Park allocation and Old Haileybury could have stayed at McKinnon Reserve.

Alternatively, Old Haileybury could have been sent to GlenHuntly Oval and shared that ground with Caulfield Grammarians, where no junior Sunday games occur.

That way, no existing ground allocation would need to be cut. Glen Eira Council could have catered for the existing tenants and also catered for its real community club around Princes Park – AJAX FC where the junior play on a Sunday.

So as Councillor Hyams has advised in Council Minutes – that Old Haileybury has been moved due to the need to give the Mckinnon Reserve a rest. It is safe to assume that Old Haileybury will be moved back to its traditional home ground for 2014 opening the EOI (expression of interest) process for Princes Park?

IAN FAYMAN

 

June 13, 2013

Racecourse, Governance and More Development!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

There are some very interesting public questions as well as a few other events from Tuesday night’s meeting that are worthy of highlighting. First the public question on the Racecourse:

“At council meetings I note reports are frequently given by representatives who attend other bodies such as the MAV on behalf of council and reports are given. This being the case why do our three representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees never give a report, because it is absolutely impossible to find out what is going on in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Do the Glen Eira Council Trustees realise that their residents are actually never granted permission to attend a CRT MEETING although this is advertised as being possible on The City of Glen Eira website as being the case? Is council prepared to take any action to ensure that the entrance to our reserve from Glen Eira Road is made to be more welcoming?

Or is council prepared to have the entrance pathway sealed and cleaned so that wheelchairs and prams do not collect horse excreta over the tyres and what action can be taken to remove the barrier at the eastern end of the pathway. A person in a wheelchair would have to reverse all the way to get out if unable to remove the barrier when in their wheelchair. This barrier has been in place for quite some time.

Could our representatives on CRT walk on this path and into the park and assess the situation in detail rather than speed through by car? Council came to a decision with the Melbourne Racing Club regarding this entrance issue and once again it seems the non-racing public has come off with a very bad result as it is being currently administered. Can our three trustees move to improve the situation for all residents of Glen Eira even those travelling in wheel chairs and pushing prams?”

The Mayor read the response on behalf of the Councillors who are appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. He said:

“Thank you for your questions.

1. The premise in your first question however is not correct. Whereas there are Council representatives on various committees and bodies representing the views and interests of the Council – hence reports are made to and received by Council – that is not the case with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

Council is requested by the State Government to nominate Councillors to be appointed as Trustees. Council nominated 6 Councillors and it was the State Government that then appointed the Trustees. The three Councillors who are Trustees do not sit on the Trust as Council representatives per se but as Trustees. Any enquiries about the deliberations of the Trust should be directed to the Trust or to its chairperson, Mr Greg Sword.

2. We are aware that to date residents have not been granted permission to address the Trust. The decision as to whether a non-Trustee may address the Trust is determined by a majority of the Trustees. Council has advocated for the Trust to be more open and transparent, and will continue to do so.

3. Council has advocated for some time and continues to advocate that the tunnel entrance from Glen Eira Road be more welcoming and accessible to the public. It is for the Trust however to ensure that the entrance is clean and not for Council.

4. As Trustees we will certainly be raising with the Trust the issues to which you refer.”

++++++++++++++++++++++

The in camera report contains the following:

Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty

That Council

i) Rescind its 18 December 2012 resolution to appoint Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd, ACN 137 823 360 as the contractor under EOI number 2013.030

Two points bear making here:

  • The Local Law does not have provision for rescinding motions as we’ve stated numerous times
  • This council appears to make its own rules as it goes along and when it suits. For example the recent resolution to enter into further ‘community consultation’ regarding the Caulfield Park Conservatory was made WITHOUT rescinding a previous motion that the conservatory be ‘restored’ and ‘redeveloped’.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally, there is this Request for a Report regarding the ABC Studios in Elsternwick. We have no doubt that since this has reared its head and has come up at a council meeting that plenty of ‘negotiations’ have already occurred and that the potential token ‘open space’ that Council might be granted will be offset by another huge, multi-storey development! Watch this space!

Crs Pilling/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the ABC site at Elsternwick. This report should detail past history, current usage and outline the present future plans for the site. It should also identify types of community uses and benefits for at least part of the site and set out strategies and steps Council can take to achieve this.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) declared a Conflict of Interest as he lives in close proximity to the site.

9.06PM the CEO left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

June 12, 2013

More Spin

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[5] Comments 

PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!

LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE

LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.

The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law.  For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.

On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.

COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.

OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.

LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’  and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.

HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.

MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.

COMMENT:  Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.

Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.

 

June 7, 2013

Snails & Glaciers

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

The snail’s pace of innovation, or simply change at Glen Eira, is exemplified by several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE MINUTES

  • The Tree Register is still a work in progress after years and years of talking
  • Organised sport under section 326 still requires further ‘amendments’ – again 8 years down the track
  • Alcohol Free Zones in Bentleigh. We must admit to loving the convoluted logic in this one.

The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government. No further action.

Readers will remember that this issue has been on the agenda for at least 3 years now. More to the point, Councils have the responsibility of introducing the alcohol free zone via their planning scheme as they did with the Caulfield Racecourse zone. Other councils (ie Kingston recently) seem to believe that public safety and security come first and have introduced such zones in the past year. Glen Eira continually passes the buck. Introducing such as zone is not a police matter – it is 100% in Council’s purview.

We also question the ‘no further action’ take. How a minority set of councillors can make such a recommendation prior to full discussion and debate in council chamber is unbelievable.  Given that the practice in Glen Eira is simply to ‘accept’ all committee recommendations this will probably become ‘law’ but without full and open discussion. The community deserves far better. What are the real facts? What are the statistics? Where is the research? How many incidents have occurred in this area? Where is the transparency and accountability?

Finally, there is the following gem ironically listed under ‘other business’. We would have thought that the following item represents the core business of this committee!

Possible review of all of Council’s Local Law with public consultation.

Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.

We can only presume that this is Glen Eira Speak for the ‘potential’ review of Meeting Procedures with the proviso that it’s a mere ‘maybe’ and that it shouldn’t stop all the other tinkering that is in the pipe line. It’s also worth remembering that the Councillor Questions policy was removed from the 2010 review of the Local Law with the ‘promise’ that the policy would be looked at again. Now three years later, it is still unsighted and rotting in the archives.

There is plenty more in this agenda which needs commenting upon. For this post we will simply conclude with this from the incamera discussions –

12.2 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution

We again can only surmise that this means some form of payment to individuals/companies etc. It would certainly be welcomed if residents were informed as to whether the issue is now resolved and what the outcomes were!

 

June 4, 2013

Coincidence?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

On  4th September 2012 Council passed a resolution to refuse an application for a 3 storey, 11 unit development in Cromwell St, North Caulfield. Officers had recommended the go ahead arguing the usual – housing diversity, near a tram line and commercial centre, etc. On the same night, there was another application for a 4 storey development in Howitt Road. Lipshutz and Esakoff sought to reduce this second application to 3 storeys. It abutted a Minimal Change Area. In the end the 4 storey motion got through. Whilst it could be argued that we are comparing apples and oranges, it’s perhaps worthy of noting that the Cromwell St application (for 3 storeys) was rejected. We also ask, how many other 3 storey applications have got the gong from these councillors in the recent past? There was also this declaration –

Cr Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest in this item pursuant to Section 78E of the Local Government Act being an indirect interest by reason of his mother being an objector to the application.
8.19PM Cr Lipshutz left the Chamber.

The Cromwell St. saga now features in today’s Leader.

cromwell

 

June 3, 2013

Local Law

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[2] Comments 

We’ve been waiting and waiting for the promised March appearance of the ‘review’ of the Local Law. Of particular interest will be: the fiddling with the ‘organised sport’ clause and the much awaited euphemistically called ‘tree register’ controls. More importantly we envisage that the meeting procedures aspects of the current anti-democratic law will largely remain untouched and buried in the publicity that will surround other aspects. In other words absolutely no intention of:

  • Introducing a Notice of Motion
  • Introducing a Dissent From Chair
  • Introducing a Rescission Clause

If our suspicions prove correct, then it will be most interesting to hear the arguments of Pilling who is on record as supporting a Notice of Motion and some of the other councillors. Residents should also be prepared to highlight this ‘oversight’ in their submissions.

By way of contrast once again, here is what Kingston Council is contemplating for their Local Law Amendments for the above categories (UPLOADED HERE). We remind readers once again that Glen Eira is the ONLY COUNCIL IN THE STATE OF VICTORIA that does not have a notice of motion enshrined in its local law.

 

May 19, 2013

Screwed Again?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

On the 20th May (ie tomorrow) a Planning Panel hearing will be held regarding Amendment C80. To refresh people’s memory, this concerns the rezoning of part of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS an application for a 5 storey development consisting of up to 62 units!

When this first came up before council in 2011, councillors voted unanimously to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit – even though Esakoff proclaimed some ‘concerns’ over the application part of the amendment. Then on December 18th 2012, following the Minister’s approval, and after much argey-bargey in council, this resolution was passed unanimously –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council request the Minister for Planning to refer Amendment C80 to an Independent Panel to consider the submissions, but limited to the rezoning application.

2. Advise the Minister and the Independent Panel that Council has abandoned planning permit application GE/PP-24474/2012.

So what is Monday all about? Here’s the Department’s blurb on what this Panel Hearing is about (taken from the DPCD’s website) –

c80

Given the history of C87 where residents were literally duped, mislead, and deceived we have little faith that the fate of the C80 will be any different. With the C87, Lipshutz and Hyams in particular were at great pains to tell residents that they could forward their objections and recommendations and that the Panel would consider them. However, when it came to the Panel Hearing it turned out that the TERMS OF REFERENCE had been set and that the panel could not consider anything extraneous to these terms – for example, why other properties could not be included as part of the Significant Character Area. Our suspicion, given the notification above, is that we are probably heading down the same path – ie the Panel terms of reference stated above INCLUDE the application for the 5 storey, 62 unit development. It will therefore be most enlightening to see what and how Council’s planning department argues on this one. Will they actually carry out a Council resolution and desist with the arguments for the application, or will they simply toss their hands in the air and use the woeful excuse that the Planning Panel has the legal authority to make a decision on the application as well? Will residents be screwed once again? And it would be most enlightening to know if the Minister was ever notified of the existence of this resolution as stipulated?

If tomorrow’s hearing includes consideration of the application together with the rezoning of the land, then residents have once again been duped. Far more important is the question as to the value of any council resolutions and whether these councillors really know what they are doing.

 

 

 

May 17, 2013

The Show Goes On!

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

Tuesday night’s agenda is definitely geared towards a ‘feel good’ session. We have the Arts & Culture strategy, the Disability strategy and finally the report on River Red Gum maintenance in Glen Eira. Never mind of course that it doesn’t include all the trees that Sounness identified in his Request for a Report. Also, the promised and re-promised tabling of the draft Local Law for May, is still a no show. There are however a few items of interest.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

No community reps were present. In fact, it looks like the 3 sitting reps may have been given the boot since the committee has decided to advertise via expressions of interest and to ‘inform’ current members. It will be fascinating to see if any of the current sitting members re-apply and whether they are given the nod. If not, then will they be given any plausible reason for their ‘departure’?

Delahunty has been ordained as Chairperson, but only after a split vote with Hyams. Here’s what we’re told – Director Community Services called for nominations. Cr Esakoff nominated Cr Hyams; Cr Lobo nominated Dr Delahunty. Following acceptance of nominations a vote was held and the voting was tied. After further discussion it was agreed Councillor Mary Delahunty be appointed as Committee Chairperson, and agreed in principle that the chair would rotate to Cr Hyams after a year

If this isn’t pre-empting a council decision on who will sit on which committees, then we don’t know what is!

Also noteworthy is the ‘review’ of the Engagement Strategy and the stated intent to investigate methodology and VLGA ‘principles’. We wait with bated breath!

PLANNING ZONE REFORMS

Whereas other councils (Whitehorse, Stonnington, Bayside) keep publishing updates on their progress with the Planning Zone Reforms and the likely impact on their municipalities, all residents in Glen Eira get to know is the occasional throw away line in the Records of Assembly. For example:

Cr Okotel – can the MAV assist Councils to understand the new planning zones

Cr – Okotel – new planning zones

Workshop – new planning zones

We remind readers that these new zones come into operation on July 1st 2013 and Councils have 1 year to ‘adapt’. Within this year other councils are completing or undertaking their Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Reviews. Glen Eira, we fear, is quite willing to rely on its antiquated data and suspect policies. More importantly, why have residents not been provided with any information since the release of council’s response?

AMENDMENTS

We must take some credit for the following VCAT Watch item. It concerns a decision where council argued that its yet to be advertised Transition Zone Policy should be considered in the application. We took them to task for arguing for something that doesn’t exist as did the member in his decision. In Quarterly Reports we’ve been told that this amendment is ‘on hold’ until the zone reforms come in. Now we’re told – Councillors will recall that the Minister for Planning refused Council’s request for authorisation to place Amendment C90 on public exhibition.

Why we ask? Why wasn’t this information forthcoming at the time with reasons clearly explained? Why argue for this at VCAT when it is KNOWN that the amendment as it stands can’t get to first base? Why can’t residents be told the truth right from the start and, in fact, what is the truth?

PS: please also note that the tree labelled as River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis at Duncan McKinnon plus the very nice photograph (n0 6.) does not exist anymore! IT WAS CHOPPED DOWN EARLIER THIS YEAR. So much for the accuracy, comprehensiveness and full disclosure of this report!

 

May 6, 2013

When Is A ‘Report’ Not A Report?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

What does ‘Report to Council’ mean, especially when part of a proposed ‘Action Plan’ that is the foundation of a Community/Council Plan? In other councils such a phrase would be self evident – ie an officer’s report tabled and discussed at an ordinary council meeting. Not in Glen Eira. Here it can mean anything and everything, including disappearing entirely and never to be heard of again.

We’ve compared the 2012/2013 Action Plan against the objectives for the coming financial year and there are indeed some strange goings on. Apart from the usual humbug of measures not having anything whatsoever to do with objectives, there are many ‘reports to council’ which never saw the light of day in a transparent and accountable fashion. Perhaps they never even landed in the hands of councillors behind those tightly closed doors? Here is just a sample and we cite verbatim:

  1. Review and update council policy ‘Exclusion of Specific Developments’ from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme to implement measures to ensure multi-dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking. MEASURE: Report a revised policy to Council.
  2. Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan. MEASURE: Report provided to Council.(We note that on June 28th 2011 this was removed from the Planning Scheme. This also applies to the ‘Transition Zone’ policy which we discover is now ‘on hold’)
  3. Council Engagement Strategy and consultation processes reviewed. MEASURE: Engagement strategy updated and posted on Council’s website. (Please note that the Engagement strategy was last looked at by council on the 11th October 2011. Not only hasn’t this been revisited since but the full policy is nowhere to be found on Council’s website. What is up there is the pathetic little ‘6 steps’ which date back to at least 2009).

There are many, many more omissions and changes that the current Community Plan does not even mention or account for. Residents should not have to scour through the fine print in order to discover what is truly happening. Nor should secrecy and the pathetic games of semantics replace transparency and good governance. When the stated outcome is ‘report provided to council’ that must mean one thing only – a full and comprehensive document that is produced in the agenda for ordinary council meetings. We repeat ourselves ad nauseum – secrecy is the opposite of good governance, transparency and accountability.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »