GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 18, 2013

The Leader’s View!

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

Decision on use of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve likely to rule out racehorse training

Andrea Kellett
March 18, 2013 2:17PM

Cr Jim Magee is hoping there will be support for the statement on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Picture: Jason Sammon Leader

GLEN Eira councillors will tomorrow night be asked to adopt an explosive position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The nine-point statement will push for massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

It comes just a week before the reserve’s governing body the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust is due to meet.

The State Government has appointed three new Glen Eira councillors to the trust. Mayor Jamie Hyams, Cr Michael Lipshutz and Cr Margaret Esakoff’s appointments were gazetted last Wednesday. Former trustee chairman Cr Jim Magee was not reappointed.

Cr Magee will call on all councillors to support the statement.

“It’s one of the most significant statements council has ever made regarding the racecourse,” he said.

If the statement is adopted, the council will be committed to advocate for:

Equal land for community sport and racetracks
Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses
Horse training to be phased out
Public use to take precedence over car parking
Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities
Governance by committee of management

View the full statement at gleneira.vic.gov.au.

Read next week’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader for the council’s decision and the community’s reaction or email andrea.kellett@news.com.au with your thoughts.

March 17, 2013

Agenda & Racecourse

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

Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!

The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.

A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –

‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.

We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.

March 16, 2013

Mushrooms, Mushrooms, Mushrooms……

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

A public question was asked at the 5^th February Council Meeting. It read:

“Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward.

Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

Since then there has been no public disclosure, and no further mention of this important issue. Even worse, the fact that councillors were ‘informed’ does not feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly for this period. Conclusion? Either the Records of Assembly are a total (censored) joke, the ‘informing’ was a brief verbal aside, or perhaps did not even take place?

We’re getting mightily sick of revealing how often this council is out of step with the majority of its neighbours. This is not the first time that submissions to various committees or government have not been ratified by council resolution first off (as done in other municipalities) much less made public. Residents have no idea as to how this council votes at MAV conferences; what positions will be taken, or much about anything. We even wonder if councillors get a look in, or have a say on anything. Yet they do nothing! They allow residents to be treated like mushrooms and the disease of inaccurate reporting and secrecy continues unabated.

The development contributions is a vital issue for any municipality that is experiencing the unprecedented growth that Glen Eira is. Given that this council has REMOVED the contributions from its planning scheme it becomes even more important that residents know what council’s position is. Will Newton and his cohorts meekly accept the pro-development agenda, or will there be some insistence that ratepayers stop subsidising greed?

Below are the views of our neighbours – all made public and above board – not like Glen Eira City Council!

1. PORT PHILLIP EXTRACTS

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_-_Submission_to_Standard_Development_Contributions_Advisory_Committee.pdf

There remains a bias in the design of the proposed development contributions framework towards the establishment of development contributions in growth areas. This translates into some gaps in the frameworks application in established areas where project delivery can be much more complex and expensive that broad acre green field development. These gaps include:

• Assumptions about spare capacity in existing infrastructure to cope with development.

• The suggestion that a “25% discount” be applied to standard leviesin established areas compared to growth areas.

• Failure to recognise the complexities and additional costs associated with development in established urban areas.

• The significant land cost component in the provision of new infrastructure in established areas.

Project contingencies cost allowance set at 10% of project cost. A contingency set at a standard 10 % is very low for projects, particularly in inner urban areas. This should be scaled across a range in accordance with industry best practice and be project specific.

There is no recognition in the proposed framework that additional growth in established urban areas can create “tipping points”, exceeding infrastructure capacity and rendering some types of existing infrastructure redundant. This in turn will necessitate complete replacement in order to upgrade the capacity.

The framework proposes that historical capital works expenditure and population growth over time be used as a basis to set the contribution for new development. This approach is not supported as it:

• has no direct relationship to actual need for infrastructure generated by additional growth relies on historical spending that may not be an accurate indication of either infrastructure cost or infrastructure need

• takes no account of the nature of the population increases and subsequent infrastructure needs

• does not allow for consideration of current standards and costs of infrastructure provision

• is contrary to the basic tests of need and nexus that have long been established in setting development contributions.

2. BAYSIDE

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/5_March_2013_Councillor_Briefing.pdf

in the councillor briefing notes under – ‘proposed submission’

3. STONNINGTON (uploaded in full here)

The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.

That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment

March 13, 2013

Ineptitude or More Hoodwinking?

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

We’ve reported ad nauseum on the failure of this administration to provide accurate, comprehensive, and timely information to both residents and councillors. This post focuses on the regular ‘VCAT Watch’ that appears in every council meeting agenda. We’ve already commented on the fact that there is no complete record of DPC decision making in contrast to what other councils provide their communities. The Glen Eira version of reporting on VCAT cases is equally deficient and misleading.

Every agenda item is entitled ‘VCAT WATCH – (monthly) Decisions’ – where the current month’s name is inserted. Any reasonable person would then expect that what is contained in this watch does in fact represent the decisions made by VCAT for that particular month. As we will show, nothing could be further from the truth! But first, here’s how some other councils do it –

Boroondara provides regular tables outlining results according to ward. These are comprehensive, so that residents know the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of each appearance at VCAT plus whether the decision to grant or deny the permit was made by council or under delegation. (Click to enlarge).

Bayside also includes a list, and then a full report on each decision where residents can again see the tabulated form of success or failure.

Glen Eira in contrast relies on its ‘VCAT WATCH’ where often very selective editing accompanies the ‘summary’ of the VCAT decision. We’ve taken the trouble to go through all ‘VCAT WATCHES’ FROM February 2012 to February 2013. The results are fascinating in that:

Not one single judgement has occurred when it is stated it did occur. Once a decision has been made the applicant, council, and objectors are notified that day by email. There is absolutely no excuse that a judgement which was handed down in say November 2012, does not feature until February 2013 – even though the tag line for the February agenda item states ‘February Decisions’. Let’s have a little honesty shall we, and simply label this as ‘past VCAT decisions’!
Not all VCAT decisions are reported. Why not, if this is meant to be genuine and honest feedback to councillors and residents? For example: in August 2012 there are 9 VCAT decisions listed on the VCAT website. Council only reported on 4 of these decisions. What happened to the other five? Why weren’t these included and reported upon? This trend is also evident for the following months – April 2012 – Glen Eira reported on 3 out of 7; November 2012 – 4 out of 5; October – 6 out of 7.
Nowhere does Glen Eira report on its ‘success rate’ at VCAT. Residents do not know the total figures, as they do with other councils, nor how many decisions are upheld, set aside, varied.

Below is our table of the VCAT WATCH from council minutes. The first column lists the applicant (or objector); the second column the date the decision was handed down and the last column lists the date that Council reported the decision. In practically every case there was at least one council meeting in the intervening period when the result could have been reported upon. It shouldn’t take 3 months to get something onto the agenda and then pretend it is current!

Highland properties	15^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Long plan printing	4^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
B Central	1^st December 2011	7^th February 2012
Gold investments	25^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Bilic homes	Not listed on vcat	7^th February 2012
Healy & Gold	20^th January 2012	28^th February 2012
Arch	28^th December 2011	28^th February 2012
Blue Wolf	22^nd December 2011	28^th February 2012
Sharp	8^th February 2012	20^th March 2012
Malina	22^nd February	20^th March 2012
Bayside building	Not on vcat website	20^th March 2012
Gillon	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Blint	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina & business solutions	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Imperium design	23^rd March 2012	1^st May 2012
Furman	22 March	1^st May 2012
Pascoe	12 april	22^nd May 2012
SilverArc	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Anderson	30^th April 2012	12 June 2012
Bail	15^th May 2012	3^rd July 2012
Perkins	7^th May	3^rd July 2012
Poath rd	8^th May	3^rd July 2012
Architecture works	17^th May	3^rd July 2012
Tefillah	23^rd May	24^th July 2012
crb	4thJune	24^th July 2012
pbbs	6^th june	24^th July 2012
Booran rd	19^th june	24^th July 2012
Thermal	21^st June	14^th August 2012
IKONOMIDIS REID	26^th June	14^th August 2012
St wise	9^th August	4^th September 2012
Hta property	2^nd August	4^th September 2012
Brent Williams	8^th August	24^th September 2012
Smith	13^th August	24^th September 2012
Upside dental	4^th September	16^th October 2012
Vision 3	5^th September	16^th October 2012
284 Neerim Rd	18^th September	13^th November 2012
Trubuilt	24^th September	13^th November 2012
Hamilton	1^st October	13^th November 2012
Victoria Developments	8^th October	13^th November 2012
Malina	12 October 2012	27^th November 2012
Menory	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Supreme Property Group	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Visionary designs	25^th October 2012	18^th December 2012
campbell	26^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
sharp	27^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
pegasus	30^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Carnegie apartments	10^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Worotnicki	11^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Linacre	23^rd November 2012	26^th Feb 2013
Mirmilstein	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013
Boston celtics	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013

What all this leads to are two possible conclusions – either there is vast incompetence or the failure to provide complete information is deliberate. Readers can make up their own minds. What is certain is that the processes and practices within Glen Eira’s reporting framework is well and truly below par and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

March 13, 2013

GESAC & Letters To The Editor

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

March 11, 2013

We Are Biased!

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

Several comments on the GESAC issue have prompted this response. We freely and proudly admit that we are biased. Our bias is always towards open, accountable and transparent government. These features are sadly lacking in Glen Eira Council and nowhere moreso than in the dealings over the development of GESAC and the sporting allocations for the basketball courts. It is certainly time that this Council ‘comes clean’ in disclosing exactly how ratepayer funds are being spent. It is certainly time that fact replaced spin, and that secrecy was put to bed.

Here are the ‘facts’ and questions –

Council continually talks about the $41.2 million CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Figures on total costs (including oufittings, higher purchase agreements, road restructuring, electricity substations, and countless other items) have never been fully itemised, nor added up into one single figure and made public in a manner that clearly shows the precise amount that this has cost.
How many staff are currently employed by Council? 50 or 250 and how much is this costing?
Did council pay any GESAC hired staff throughout the duration of the 5 month delayed opening? How much did this cost?
How on earth can council sign itself up to a 15 year fixed loan on 8.04% and which would now cost $4 million to convert to a fixed and variable rate? The argument of course is that council had the ‘best consultants’ – was there no contrary official legal/financial advice proffered?
How good are these ‘consultants’ when well over $1 million unbudgeted funds have been spent on car park extensions and relocation of playgrounds?
Why has there been no ‘consultation’ with local residents and why oh why were there no traffic studies undertaken prior to the Gardener’s Rd debacle? How safe is this latest encroachment into public space?
Why, if it exists, is the sport allocation policy, and its criteria not in the public domain?
Why were the Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes a total joke in terms of actually informing the public as to what was going on?
How many GESAC members have not renewed their memberships? How many complaints and/or negative comments has council received regarding entrance prices and general high costs?
How much does daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cost – ie insurance, cleaning, chemicals, heating/cooling etc?
How detailed and frequent were/are reports back to councillors on operations?
Why have councillors not honoured their public statements that an EOI process would be undertaken in 2012 – that is a year following the Warriors allocation?
Why have councillors allowed employees to consistently run the show?
Why are teams for individual sporting grounds no longer on the website?
How many NON-LOCAL teams does Glen Eira house on its sporting fields?
How many locals are members of both the Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association?
How much has already been spent on lawyers on the ‘liquidated damages’ issue and is Council facing the prospect of a huge pay-out if they lose the case?

There are probably countless other questions that need to be asked. We do not hold out much hope that this lot of councillors will have the nous, or courage to ask them – especially not in public! Again, this stands in stark contrast to what is happening with the Pool in the Mornington Shire. For those interested we ask them to peruse this Notice of Motion (verboten in Glen Eira!) from one of their councillors. It makes for fascinating reading. See: http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/Governance_Agendas/131203ca_add_41_NOM127.pdf

March 8, 2013

Who Runs The Show?

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

We have commented numerous times on the significance of delegations and the implications of handing over total control to unelected employees. This is not to say that we expect councillors to do the work of 1000 employees – that is an impossibility and nor is it desirable. However, we do expect that the elected representatives of the people fulfil their function in proper oversight and strategic decision making. Recent controversies over sporting allocations are a case in point. Planning delegations are another instance where councillors literally do not know what is going on since most planning decisions are made by these employees with no input from councillors.

The mantra that has continually been used by this administration to intimidate and ward off councillor involvement comes from Section 76E of the Local Government Act. It reads as follows:

76E. Improper direction and improper influence

(1) A Councillor must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.

(2) A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff-

(a) in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or

(b) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act; or

(c) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function the member exercises or performs in an office or position the member holds under another Act; or

(d) in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice in a report to the Council or special committee.

(3) This section does not apply to a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act.”

In a nutshell we are told in part 3, that Council has the power to decide what is delegated and what is not. In other words councillors have the legal authority to determine every single delegation.

The Act goes on to specify what ‘delegations’ actually are –

Delegations

(1) A Council may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of its staff any power, duty or function of a Council under this Act or any other Act other than-

(a) this power of delegation; and

(b) the power to declare a rate or charge; and

(d) the power to approve any expenditure not contained in a budget approved by the Council; and

(e) any power, duty or function of the Council under section 223; and

(f) any prescribed power.

(2) The Chief Executive Officer may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of the Council staff any power, duty or function of his or her office other than this power of delegation unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) The instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer may empower the Chief Executive Officer to delegate a power, duty or function of the Council other than the power of delegation to a member of the Council staff.

(4) The Council must keep a register of delegations to members of Council staff”.

One other section of the Act, (114) refers to the Local Law, yet there is nothing that we can identify which delegates authority to officers in regard to sporting allocations. It is also high time that planning delegations were totally revamped and processes put in place that ensured councillors had a say in DPC decision making. So, the questions must then become:

When will councillors show some backbone and assert their mandated authority?
When will this council actually be run by elected representatives rather than employees?
When will councillors fulfil their rightful role in representing the interests of residents?
When will councillors ensure that open, transparent and accountable government occurs in Glen Eira?

March 4, 2013

Burke & ‘Pay Back Time’?

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

At the outset we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we have no interest in football allocations per se. What does concern us is the lack of transparency in any of the decision making that surrounds sporting ground allocations. The article at the conclusion of this post comes from today’s online version of the Australian Jewish News. It is quite feasible to draw the conclusion that this is ‘pay back’ for the Ajax – Caulfield Bears saga of last year in that Ajax did not get their sought after allocation.

As stated above, we have no problem with this. What is a huge problem is:

All is left in the hands of Burke and his underlings with no need for accountability, nor transparency
There is no POLICY that is in the public domain
There is no published criteria to account for the decision making
Councillors are out in the cold with no role, no say, no nothing
Such ‘secret’ and unilateral decision making is fraught with danger and the real potential for nepotism, secret deals, intimidation, and woeful decision making as with GESAC.
Councillors MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS if their credibility is not to go completely out the window!

By way of contrast, here is part of the Banyule Sporting Allocation policy where the criteria used to decide who gets what is public and easily accessible –

Numerous other councils don’t seem to have any problem whatsoever in publishing their policies. As always, Glen Eira keeps everything under wraps – that’s if it even exists, and if it does, the promises in the Community Plan to publish ALL council policies are not adhered to. Here are some other Councils’ URLs for residents to check out –

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/14457%20Sporting%20Reserves%20Allocation%20Policy%202011-2014.pdf

http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/experience-moonee-valley/sports-grounds/~/media/Files/Experience%20MV%20Documents/Sports%20club%20information/2010_11_Seasonal_Allocation_Policy.ashx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Sportsground_allocation_policy.pdf

http://whatmattersmanningham.com.au/document/show/63

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/mccwr/publications/policies-strategies-plans/policy%20-%20council%20resolved%20-%20allocation%20of%20sporting%20grounds%20and%20pavilions.doc

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/freestyler/files/Draft%20-%20Sportsground%20Allocation%20Procedure.pdf

Governance is at an all time low in this council as we’ve repeatedly stated. This is just another example of why drastic change is required.

AJAX allocation battle resurfaces

March 4, 2013

IN a major blow for the AJAX Football Club and the local Jewish community, Glen Eira City Council has denied the club from relocating to Princes Park, instead granting access to Old Haileybury’s Thirds and under-19 teams.

AJAX president Ian Fayman expressed his disappointment at the decision, pointing out that even though the club plays in a different municipality to the juniors, it deserves the right to function as one club at the same home ground.

“The argument is that the seniors and juniors are different clubs,” Fayman told The AJN.

“But they have the same jumper, the same sponsors and the same logo, and the community sees them as one club.”

Fayman accepted that the re-allocated club must be from within Glen Eira, but questioned why the opportunity to join the juniors and seniors was overlooked.

“If an allocation has to be from within the Glen Eira municipality, why is it not AJAX?” Fayman asked.

“It’s the most obvious decision that the junior club should have its senior teams at the same home ground to make a strong pathway, which is a policy of AFL Victoria, and so that the local community can follow.”

In response, council spokesman Paul Burke said that the main reason AJAX was overlooked is because it is based in the Port Phillip municipality.

“As the AJAX [senior] Football Club is not a tenant in Glen Eira, council did not contact them in relation to the coming football season, just as council did not contact other clubs that are tenanted outside of Glen Eira,” Burke told The AJN.

“[And] to ensure that sports fields can sustain the wear and tear from match play and training, existing tenant clubs are sometimes required to use grounds other than their home grounds for either training or matches.”

The other major disappointment for Fayman and the club is that no public expression of interest was undertaken, which he said the council committed to in a previous letter to an AJAX representative.

“The question is, why a public and very transparent process was not implemented,” Fayman said.

“It cannot be accepted that a decision has been made without a public process.”

He also noted the success of last year’s community day, which attracted around 1500 people, as an indication of public support.

“The key example is the community day, where the local community wanted AJAX to be there,” Fayman said.

“We have 72 per cent of our members as voters in Glen Eira, and where do Haileybury’s members reside? Yes they are an internal club in Glen Eira, but their school is based in Mentone.”

PS: And here’s the Leader take on the story –

Ajax Football Club denied the chance to reunite juniors and seniors at Caulfield

Andrea Kellett
March 05, 2013 12:00AM

President of the AJAX Senior Football Club, Ian Fayman with player, Eugene Routman. Picture: Paul Loughnan, Leader

AJAX Football Club is furious its seniors have been denied a move to Princes Park in Caulfield.

The club says it was trying to unite its junior and senior players in Caulfield but Glen Eira Council has overlooked it in preference for another amateur club’s third team.

The council has given the Saturday tenancy to Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club.

AJAX Senior Football Club president Ian Fayman wants the council to review its decision, hold a public forum and consider shared tenancy at Princes Park.

“AJAX juniors and seniors have the same logo, the same jumper, the same ethos, the same community base,” he said.

“Speak to anyone in Glen Eira and ask is it one club or two and everyone would say, ‘Of course it’s one club’.”

AJAX juniors have trained and played at Princes Park for two decades, while the seniors train and play outside the municipality, in Albert Park.

The club has long wanted to have its senior in the Caulfield area.

Glen Eira Council does not consider the seniors an “existing” tenant.

AJAX controversially offered another club, the Caulfield Bears, $175,000 last year to leave Princes Park so it could play there. The money was never paid.

The council’s community relations director Paul Burke said the council proritised the needs of Glen Eira clubs first.

“AJAX Senior Football Club is not an existing winter tenant in Glen Eira and has never been a tenant in Glen Eira,” he said.

In a letter to Glen Eira Council, Mr Fayman said the council had reneged on a promise AJAX would be consulted about the new ground allocation.

“The AJAX Junior Football Club, which is the current existing tenant on Sunday of Princes Park, was not given any opportunity to make an application for Saturday ground allocation,” he wrote.

“We believe AJAX FC is the local community football club that represents the local community interests and should have at the very least been given the opportunity to make a formal application to have its senior teams play from the same home ground.”

Mr Burke said the council had not called for “new” tenants.

“Council is not offering a new tenancy.

“We are accommodating the requirements and needs of existing tenants,” Mr Burke said.

AJAX Junior Football Club president Daniel Antman said as long as the council considered the seniors an outside club the dream could never be achieved.

“AJAX is one of the few clubs in the region that has a senior club based outside the region, for reasons beyond our control and desire,” he said.

Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club did not wish to comment.

COMMENT: ‘New tenants’ is an interesting phrase to say the least! The Old Haileyburians are fielding an entire ‘new’ team – the thirds! The game of semantics is alive and well in Glen Eira! See: http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3232-36895-0-0&sID=61506&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=22252086

March 1, 2013

When Will The Bullshit Stop? – #1

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

We have literally had a gut full of the way this council treats its residents in terms of their responses to public questions. Whilst falling legally short of outright lies, each response is deliberately vague, misleading, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally non-informative. Residents have to read between the lines in order to come within cooee of the truth.

What is even more offensive is that 9 councillors sit there in total silence and accept these carefully crafted works of fiction without anyone questioning the content of the responses. That is not what these people were elected to do. They have a legal and moral responsibility to provide sound oversight of council operations. That includes ensuring that everything that goes out in their name is accurate and bona fide. Moreover, it is their responsibility to ensure that what residents were promised over a year ago is delivered. They are also responsible for ensuring that council resolutions are in fact carried out! (more on this in a moment)

In this post we will examine several of the public questions asked at the last council meeting and illustrate why residents should be outraged at the duplicity of the responses and the failure of these councillors to ensure that open and transparent government occurs at Glen Eira.

QUESTION 1 & 2 ON GESAC BASKETBALL COURT ALLOCATIONS

There were 2 different questions demanding answers on what was promised in December 2011 – namely that the GESAC court allocations would be ‘reviewed’ in a year’s time. Pilling on his blogsite had this to say when the decision to award the WARRIORS the contract was made 15 months ago – “This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again”. (December 15^th, 2011) We’re now well past 12 months. Not a murmer from council about reviewing anything or undertaking a new season’s allocation!

Below are the questions and to save space we will only include one of the ‘answers’ SINCE THE SECOND RESPONSE WAS A VERBATIM REPEAT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION MINUS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH REGARDING FEMALE PARTICIPATION. We therefore have the totally farcical situation where two different questions are asked but they each receive an almost IDENTICAL ANSWER!

QUESTION 1 –

“With limited basketball courts available throughout Glen Eira can Council tell ratepayers when the seasonal allocation process, spoken of in the December13, 2011 minutes, will begin for the 3 court GESAC facility. If not why then are girls not given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC?”

QUESTION 2 –

“Can council please inform me of why the twelve month seasonal allocation for the use of GESAC basketball courts is no longer a process being adopted. In the minutes dated 13/12/2011 seasonal allocation is referred to as the on-going process for future allocation. Further to this question , who has made this decision and can an accurate audit be done on the finances of the basketball operation as per the contract originally agreed to with the occupying basketball association.”

THE ‘RESPONSE’

“As advised at the Council Meeting on 24 July 2012, the indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, development programs, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.

Girls are given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC. I have been advised that there are currently 120 girls of various ages in the Warriors Basketball Program. GESAC has more than 10,000 members. A majority of members are female.”

COMMENTS: Sifting through the meaningless verbage of this answer, we find the truth! It is contained in this single sentence –“ The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.” In other words, the promises made over a year ago will not be acted upon, much less fulfilled. The Warriors will have permanent allocations – unless they fold! Our questions then become:

Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is this not ratified by council?
Why is there still no definitive answer as to whether ratepayers are in fact subsidising the current court usage or, whether the current occupiers of the courts are fulfilling the complete terms of their contract?
It is entirely disingenuous to compare the GESAC basketball courts and other sporting ground allocations in the same breath. They are NOT IDENTICAL. GESAC allocations represents a formal contract involving the payment of monies on a regular and weekly/monthly basis. Other sporting allocations we believe simply require a ‘permit’ and money is handed over at the start.
Much of question 1 and 2 remains unanswered. Not a word about financial audits, and not even one single word about ‘when’ the new allocations for anything will start! And not a single word about who is responsible for deciding that GESAC and a game of ‘organised’ frisbee are identical and will be treated identically!
Under what precise piece of legislation are officers granted the right to make such unilateral decisions? Where in the delegations is this signing over of authority documented?
Why are councillors so incapable of simply moving a motion that states clearly that GESAC basketball court allocations will be decided by council resolution!
And why oh why do these 9 councillors allow such garbage to go out in their name without the semblance of public protest?

February 28, 2013

From A Concerned Resident

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[24] Comments

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates