GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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

February 26, 2013

Vale Democracy! All Hail Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[16] Comments

Burke read the petition. Lobo spoke first and said that since Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are ‘mentioned’ in the petition that he ‘believed there is a conflict of interest’ and that these individuals shouldn’t be in the chamber when the petition was being discussed. Hyams responded that since Lobo’s comments ‘didn’t relate to the running of the meeting’ that this wasn’t a point of order. Hyams went on and said that he trusts that ‘the next time you put your hand up for a committee’ or deputy mayor or mayor that he would declare a conflict and leave the meeting. Delahunty moved to accept the motion and Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: short and sweet and basically moved to accept

MAGEE: said nothing

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

PILLING: said that this is the first time he’s had a petition like this which ‘is really a personal attack’ and ‘defamatory’. Thought that there are time when ‘you should draw a line in the sand’ on ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and that council needs to have ‘some standards’ so in that context he won’t be supporting the motion.

LOBO: fully understood what Hyams had said and that ‘i’m a councillor as well’…’I didn’t feel too happy when you said there are no grounds’. Mentioned ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of choice’ and the importance of saying what one feels and that’s why he’s been put in this council by Tucker Ward residents

ESAKOFF: wasn’t going to speak and doesn’t want to give this ‘any further oxygen’ since it doesn’t ‘deserve any’. The petition is ‘vexatious’, ‘nasty’. ‘Unfortunately it’s been moved and seconded’ whereas she would have preferred for this to ‘lie on the table’

DELAHUNTY: felt obligated to move the petition since it’s ‘come before us in the proper manner’ but ‘accepts’ that those councillors named may find it ‘vexatious’. Lipshutz made a good point about acknowledging the work of Magee in that ‘he certainly brought matters to the fore’ and ‘raised the profile of the MRC’ in the community. She hoped that the new trustees would be able to ‘carry on that momentum’ and that the community ‘would like to see a review of the trust structure’

MOTION PUT. IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING PETITION – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE, LOBO
AGAINST: Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness, Okotel

February 26, 2013

Leader & Petition

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

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

A petition of 60+ signatures was submitted for tabling at tonight’s council meeting. It reads:

“TO HIS/HER WORSHIP THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS OF THE CITY OF GLEN EIRA IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED

This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the recent nomination of 3 councillors (Crs.Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff) as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. We do not believe that these individuals are suitable candidates to adequately represent the interests of the community.

Your petitioners therefore pray that Council writes to the Minister requesting a revision of this decision and the appointment of different councillor representatives. And your petitioners will ever pray.”

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

Source: http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/funrun/

PS: AND NOW CRYING POOR!

Melbourne Racing Club struggling to profit from racing activities

by: Rod Nicholson
From: Herald Sun
February 26, 2013 12:00AM

Melbourne Racing Club is owed money from Nathan Tinkler for his sponsorship of the Blue Diamond Stakes. Picture: Wayne Ludbey Source: Sunday Herald Sun

AUSTRALIA’S wealthiest race club will report a record profit at the end of the financial year – but a massive loss for its racing activities.

Melbourne Racing Club, which runs Caulfield, owns Sandown and is in partnership with Victoria’s biggest country club, Mornington, lost $5 million last year and is heading towards a $6 million loss this year from racing.

The purchase of eight profitable hotels with gaming facilities, on top of its two massive enterprises at Caulfield and Sandown, will provide the record profit.

The club has spent millions of dollars kick-starting a new precinct, branded Caulfield Village, which will have 340 residential units, a supermarket, specialty shops, professional services, restaurants and cafes.

It has already been paid a sizeable sum this year, boosting its profits, and anticipates massive financial rewards when the precinct is completed in 2017-18. But the club is so concerned with its racing activities, treasurer Brodie Arnhold has taken on the full-time responsibility of investigating every department in a bid to curtail costs.

The money woes have been compounded by the lack of payment of sponsorship by mining magnate Nathan

Tinkler for his Patinack Farm’s naming rights to Saturday’s Group 1 Blue Diamond Stakes.

He is yet to pay what club chairman Mike Symons describes as “significant and substantial money”.

Tinkler, now having finished the last year of a three-year deal, was not bound to pay until after Saturday’s event.

The club is already talking to prospective new sponsors but remains hopeful Tinkler will honour his agreement.

Symons said the club had three areas of operation.

“The investment in gaming and other activities is highly profitable, and we have received money from our investment in the Caulfield Village,” he said.

“We will deliver a record profit for 2013, but the costs of our racing are getting out of control and we need to make that side of the business as efficient as possible without sacrificing our service to patrons.”

The club recently spent spent millions upgrading the Caulfield racetrack.

It also spent millions merging with Mornington Racing Club.

February 23, 2013

The Stench Is Getting Worse!

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

Hansard of August 15^th 2012 (Legislative Council) records MP Pennicuik reading parts of a letter that Cr Magee wrote to the Premier in regards to the countless governance issues that surround the role and function of the MRC Trustees . The letter was dated the 26^th July and requested a response from the Premier. To the best of our knowledge, no response has been forthcoming. The full letter (minus address details) is presented below:

“Dear Mr Baillieu

Re: CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about the governance of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the responsible financial management of some $2 billion dollars’ worth of public land.

Earlier this year, I was elected Chairman of Trustees.

Composition of the Trust

The Trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister for Crown Lands, the Hon Ryan Smith. The Trust is comprised of six nominees of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), three Councillors of the City of Glen Eira and six nominees of the Minister.

Those arrangements appear to date back more than a hundred years.

The MRC being the tenant and comprising 6/15^ths of the Trustees seems to institutionalise actual or perceived conflicts of interest which do not seem consistent with contemporary standards of governance. One option would be to reconstitute the Trust as independent of all interested parties.

Non-adherence to Government Guidelines

The Department of Sustainability and Environment publishes “Committee of Management Responsibilities and Good Practice Guidelines” (Guidelines). The Trustees received a copy of the Guidelines and advice from the Office of the Victorian Government Solicitor Anthony Leggiero, on the 24^th February 2012 that in his opinion,”

“It is clear that members of the general public could reasonably form the view that the Nominated Trustees may experience a conflict between their private obligations’ to the Club and their duties as Trustees, which could influence their decision-making in relation to Reserve tenure issues.”

Guidelines recommend that the Nominated Trustees manage this perceived conflict of interest by:

“Disclosing their potential conflict to the other Trustees:
Recording this disclosure in the meeting minutes: and
Implementing a transparent and accountable process to manage the perceived conflict.”

The Majority of Trustees have decided not to accept the advice or Guidelines.

Responsible Financial Management

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is Crown Land with a commercial value of approximately $2 billion. The land is used for a range of purposes including racing, racing related, recreational and commercial. At present the commercial users pay their rents to the MRC and not to the Trustees. The Trust has virtually no income with which to discharge its responsibilities.

The Trustees are currently dealing with the appropriate leasing of the Reserve or parts of the Reserve for different purposes and tenures.

The governance arrangements referred to above and the non-adherence to the Government’s Guidelines raise urgent issues concerning decision-making on these very important leases.

Tenure of Trustees

While Government and MRC-nominated Trustees retain their appointments for long periods of time, Trustees nominated by the Council are regarded as losing their eligibility at the end of each Council Term and, if re-elected it takes many months for them to be reappointed. That is likely to happen again when the Council Term expires on 27 October 2012. The Victorian Government Solicitor advises that the leases are likely to be finalised in the period immediately after this and the Council may be unrepresented in that process.

Parliamentary scrutiny

These arrangements were the subject of an all-party Report by the Select Committee on Public Land Development in 2008, chaired by Hon David Davis MLC. The unanimous Report was critical of these arrangements and called for reforms. No response was made to that Report at the time and it would be appropriate for those concerns to be addressed urgently.

For all these reasons I would appreciate it if the Government would give urgent and serious attention to ensuring that the Crown Land is subject to appropriate governance arrangements and that the process for establishing leases over this land meets all government requirements.

Yours sincerely

Cr Jim Magee

Chairman

For and on behalf of the Trustees

Of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Copy

Mr Des Pearson, Auditor General

Mr George Brouwer, Ombudsman

February 20, 2013

News Flash: The Gang As Trustees

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

The Minister has announced that the new councillor trustee representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse are non other than our infamous gang – Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff. What a surprise, eh? And what does this bode for the community voice? Zilch we suggest!

At the very least we can say that what is required is a full Royal Commission into the wheeling and dealing that has been going on for the past century and the unsavoury role of vested interests, politicians, administrators and councillors.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates