GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 2, 2013

GESAC: What’s Really Going On?

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

GESAC and its costs remain a mystery. We would bet that it is even a mystery to councillors. There is the incredible spin of success after success – 7,000 members, then 8,000 members, now 9,000 members (all in the space of 3 months) and the forecast of 10,000 members by the end of the month. All remains talk as far as we’re concerned. Not once has this council published a full and comprehensive list of expenses versus income. Nothing about memberships has been put in writing, such as what do these 9000 alleged members currently consist of? Are they FULL memberships? Part memberships? How many people have NOT renewed memberships? How much money has had to be refunded? How much is staff costing? How much is maintenance costing per week or month or even year?

Nor has there been any update on legal costs and the liquidated damages bills with Hansen and Yuncken. The same repetitious blurb has appeared in the monthly financial reports for the past 3 months. Hardly an ‘update’ to inform residents as to what is going on!

Nor has there been any murmur about the basketball court allocations. Burke’s report shows that the Warriors aren’t fulfilling their terms of contract as to hourly court hire. How much have ratepayers therefore subsidised the under-usage of the courts by the warriors? How much longer will this continue? What is happening now that the contract is due for re-appraisal? What are the criteria? Will councillors have the guts to insist that sport allocations become open and transparent rather than left in the hands of public servants?

All we know about GESAC are the incredible claims and the spread of bitumen and concrete for more and more car parking. Our questions are therefore quite simple –

  • If GESAC is such a raging success, then why is this council continuing to splurge money on full paid colour ads in all the local papers?
  • Why is council now offering to waive registration fees for new members if numbers are going through the roof as they claim?
  • When will these councillors insist on a full and comprehensive ledger which shows every dollar of income and every single expense?

The spin must stop and be replaced with facts, figures, and open transparent governance. Here’s the latest extravagance:

gesac

 

December 29, 2012

Some Standout Quotes

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

The year is rapidly drawing to a close, so we thought it would be fascinating to review what ‘progress’ has been made in the past 18 months on some of the major issues which have confronted this council. These include: C60 and the centre of the racecourse; GESAC basketball allocations, Notice of Motion. There are many others that will feature in future posts.

December 2011 Pilling (from his blog) – “In the aftermath of this year’s Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.”

29th April, 2011- Media Release Headline – “Council places limits on C60”

Pilling on centre of racecourse – Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…”

Hyams on centre of racecourse – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’.”

Esakoff on centre of racecourse – The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

May 2011 – Council response to submissions on local law – ““A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

Southwick, Hansard, May 3rd 2011 – “This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement”.

June 2011 – Dropping the Development contributions levy – officer report – ““It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”

Friends of Caulfield Park submission – “We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

Lipshutz on Heritage expert advice on Seaview property – .‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’

Lipshutz on Notice of Motion – “‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’….I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that…..the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.”

 

 

December 22, 2012

Be Alarmed, Not Just Alert!

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

As one of our final posts for the year we thought it would be helpful to emphasise again how the governance of this council is totally out of step with the vast majority of its neighbours. Last council meeting featured the incredible spectacle of several councillors attempting to justify why Gibbs and McLean have repeatedly been reappointed to their posts as ‘independent’ members of the Audit committee.

At its last council meeting Port Phillip just happened to appoint totally new members to their committee. We quote from the officers’ report:

“3.3.6 External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.

3.4 Council is reminded that as the Charter states that ….. “External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.” Mr Densem’s term is for an additional 3 years with no further option to renew.”

Please also note that this is tabled at an open council meeting. NO IN CAMERA SECRECY!

By sheer serendipity, Port Phillip also considered Amendment C97 – Energy Efficient Design which proposes to “include a Local Planning Policy relating to environmental sustainable design’ and to request permission from the Minister to exhibit. Readers will remember that at the last Glen Eira council meeting, the Akehurst report had stated : “Building approval is universally required for all developments. This point alone places building in front of town planning for applying any ESD standards. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) currently sets energy efficiency standards that both residential and commercial developments need to meet. These provisions were reviewed in 2011 and have been increased to require a 6 Star Energy Rating for new residential buildings and a significant increase in energy efficiency requirements for all new commercial buildings.”

Here is the Port Phillip ‘answer’ to this position:

Currently the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is limited to setting minimum standards for energy efficiency of new buildings, as opposed to the holistic elements of best practice sustainable design, which typically includes water, stormwater, transport, waste and landscape. It is considered that leaving sustainable design requirements to the building approvals stage is too late in the design process after important design decisions, such as siting, have already been made through planning approvals.”

Diametrically opposed points of view it seems! Whom would you believe?

Sadly, our Glen Eira representatives merely delayed things once again. Another report! Another do nothing action! Their resolution read:

Crs Sounness/Okotel

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(d) requests a report on the status of Environmental Sustainable Design principles being developed for incorporation into the Building Code of Australia by the Australian Building Codes Board.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Also of real interest is the BAYSIDE SUBMISSION to  a KINGSTON PLANNING AMENDMENT! Kingston has put out for consultation its proposed Structure Planning Amendment for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre. Bayside, as the neighbouring council, has some concerns over height limits, and the need for ‘negotiation’ between these councils – AND GLEN EIRA. Strange, that we have not heard a single whisper from our planners. Even Stonnington, in one of its planning applications raised concerns about what is happening in Glen Eira along Dandenong Rd and how it will impact on its municipality. When all is said and done, our glorious council remains the lone ranger – unwilling to publicise anything, and perhaps even unwilling to work in collaboration with other councils to achieve the optimum outcome for residents. What a sad state of affairs!

In the light of what is happening in other councils, Glen Eira’s inactivity is deplorable. The status quo of open slather for inappropriate development, the lack of structure planning, and real environmental initiatives are the legacy that future generations will continue to bear.

The coming 10 months are vital for the future of this municipality. We will see:

  • Decisions on CEO appointment
  • Planning zone reforms
  • Community plan
  • Local law and probably the attempt to maintain the current abhorrent meeting procedures
  • Open space strategy

Watch this space – and be alarmed not merely alert! 2013 is certainly not going to be dull.

 

December 22, 2012

More Perfection!

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

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: ‘excellent result’. Said that Delahunty had asked that the reports be more ‘intensive’ and they’ve now included a few additional items as a result. “Council has got a work strategy’; capital works is ‘slightly behind forecast’ and they’ll catch up by the ‘end of the year’. “Council liquidity is tracking well’ and although council has to be ‘careful’ all is going well.

DELAHUNTY: ‘great’ that there is more detail in the report and ‘helps us do our job’ so that councillors can get a ‘greater picture of the finances’. There are 1.3 billion dollars of assets so the ‘big picture’ is needed. ‘Peter’ is right about cash flow in that ‘there is a definite need for caution’. ‘Our position is strong, the balance sheet position is strong’ and GESAC is ‘an absolute standout’ and because membership is growing ‘we may not see a dip’.

LOBO: said the report ‘really shows the financial strength of this council’ and not the things ‘that come on Glen Eira Debates’. There are ‘doubting Thomases’ writing ‘day in and day out’ and they write and ‘hide’ under the ‘name of anonymity’. Said that if people really believe that ‘there is a problem put your name and address’. Went on to say that being ‘negative will not keep you in good health’ because ‘negativity doesn’t give good health of mind and body’. Concluded with the hope that ‘you can take a new leaf from this’ as well as ‘stop your Glen Eira Debates’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

COMMENT

  • Caution has been urged month after month yet Lipshutz still refers to  $600,000 as ‘little’!
  • No real explanation of why capital works and other projects are so far behind schedule? It couldn’t be anything with ‘saving money’ and managing the cash flow, could it?
  • We note that $529,000 is now to be returned to the government as a result of the decision on Boyd Park water harvesting. Another ‘cash flow’ problem?
  • Previously Hyams saw no problem in calling certain councillors to account when their comments were totally irrelevant to the item under discussion. We wonder why this was not done in the case of Lobo’s comments? There was a 5 second statement about the financial report and the remainder of his ‘speech’ addressed ourselves. We are indeed flattered by the attention.
 

December 21, 2012

Ain’t We Perfect?

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

AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: started off by explaining the function of the committee and its duty to report annually to council. “The Audit committee does a great job’. Not an ‘oversight committee’ but ensures that risks ‘are looked at’. The ‘auditors identify areas that can be improved’ so it’s not a question of sitting on one’s laurels and officers implement the suggestions.

MAGEE: stated that Gibbs & McLean have been on the committee for ‘many, many years’ and they are ‘very, very capable and very, very professional’. Gibbs asks ‘pointed’ questions of officers. He’s ‘very straight’ and ‘takes no nonsense’ and if people saw how he operated they’d be very happy. McLean is a ‘very astute accountant’. They’ve been on the committee a long time but that ‘benefits our council’ because they ‘know our history’ and ‘they certainly know where council wants to head’. Magee is ‘very comfortable in working with those two’.

HYAMS: endorsed Magee’s comments since he’s ‘sat in’ on 4 meetings. Said that there had been suggestions that ‘external members had been there for too long’ and ‘getting a too comfortable relationship with our officers’ but if people could see what happens then they would never be ‘under that misapprehension’ because they ‘rigorously examine our officers’. ‘You replace someone if they’re not doing a good enough job….’or if you think’ there’s someone out there who is better. Hyams finished by saying ‘I’m very pleased with the audit committee performance’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he’s been on the committee since 2005 and that both Gibbs and Mclean have a terrific knowledge of council and ‘add value’. They’re ‘doing the job’ and respected and ‘should remain for some time; they are a bonus to council’

COMMENT

When the Minister issues guidelines, 99.9% of councils treat such guidelines as the Holy Bible. Not so in Glen Eira. Even council’s own charter is ignored when it comes to the continual re-appointment of Audit Committee members. Both the charter and the guidelines (plus best practice) recommend that there be a fixed term for members and that regular rotation of members is essential. Gibbs and McLean have been appointed and reappointed numerous times since at least 1998. Lipshutz has been on the committee for what will now be 8 years straight.

Other councils routinely advertise the positions. Glen Eira hides behind the veil of secrecy. These reappointments are made in camera with no public announcements. Why? Could it be that full public disclosure of what is going on might be a tad embarrassing given that the obvious intent of LGA is thus continually abused and perverted? When other councils see nothing wrong in tabling their deliberations on independent membership, then questions need to be asked as to why Glen Eira treats the issue the way it does.

We are not in any way doubting the qualifications, experience, nor professionalism of these members. We do however insist that when guidelines are promulgated they should be adhered to. Secrecy and the perception of cronyism undermines the very principles embedded in the guidelines and the committee’s own charter.

Finally we wish to note that this year at least Council has decided to adhere to the charter by tabling the Committee’s Annual Report at a council meeting. Last year this did not happen and when questioned about it the ‘answer’ was that the report was published in Council’s Annual Report. It had never been presented at a formal council meeting!

AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: reported on the Auditor General’s visit that not only is Glen Eira the ‘template’ for other councils but in terms of ‘best practice’ it is fabulous. ‘We are outstanding….doesn’t mean we can’t improve’ but Glen Eira is probably the ‘leading council in Victoria’ on issues. Said that council went through a rigorous process on the borrowings for GESAC and council was commended by the Auditor General. The issue of ‘reserves’ doesn’t give ‘any rise for concerns’. Glen Eira is the ‘leading exponent in terms of risk’. About ‘liquidity’ Glen Eira is ‘low risk’. The previous council said ‘we’re high risk’….’problems’…’that’s all poppycock’. Said that ‘this council is doing very well’. A ‘fantastic result’. Other councils come to Glen Eira to see how it’s done and great staff are responsible. ‘We are at the top’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘a fantastic report’ and commented on Lipshutz’s statement on risk and said that when she attended the Audit Committee and saw the Operational Risk Framework that had been done by officers she thought it was ‘exceptional’, ‘I’ve never seen anything as quite as detailed’….’something to behold’

HYAMS: congratulated officers and ‘decisions’ taken by previous councils. ‘Good news…..for all the residents of Glen Eira’. People should be happy that ‘their council is regarded so highly by the Auditor General’. Unable to help himself, Hyams then said that some people would ‘scuttle off home after this meeting and portray this as negatively as they can’ but for everyone else who really cares about ‘how the council is perceived and performs’ then this is great news.

COMMENT

Corporate memory, or Lipshutz’s memory is indeed a worry. Particularly so when less than a month ago Delahunty herself referred to the Auditor General’s classification of Glen Eira as ‘high risk’! Yes, council is now deemed ‘low risk’ but the initial grading did happen. ‘Risk’ is still risk, isn’t it?

We also raise the question that why shouldn’t this ‘exceptional’ Operational Risk Framework’ be public? If it is indeed ‘something to behold’, then shouldn’t the public see it? After all, it is only a ‘framework’ – figures, names, etc. could be removed and thus confidentiality maintained.

Our final comment pertains to the efforts that go into self-promotion and self congratulations. If a fraction of the time and expense that was expended on such exercises was actually put into listening and responding to residents’ concerns then we have no doubt that this municipality would be a far better place and organisation.

 

December 19, 2012

Conflict of Interest #2

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

Item 9.1 – Emmy Monash (Hawthorn Rd) 4 storey development

Pilling was absent. Lipshutz moved an amendment that the officer’s recommendations for setbacks be reduced. Seconded by Okotel

LIPSHUTZ: Moved the motion to delete some of the paragraphs related to setbacks. Said that Emmy Monash does a ‘wonderful job’ with aged care and that there’s a ‘huge demand’ for aged care in Glen Eira. Architects did a fabulous job and they should be ‘commended’ and that ‘they’ve worked very closely with Council’  and the plans end up respecting neighbours and streetscape. Said he chaired the planning conference and that the major concerns were ‘overlooking and overshadowing’ and that proposed tree plantings would cause problems with roots down the track. This latter concern is ‘minor’ and overshadowing meets the regulations as they stand since ‘the law says we must look at the equinox’ (ie summer rather than winter). On setbacks, Lipshutz had ‘looked at that’ and thought ‘there was no need to have further setbacks’ since the developer’s setback is ‘greater than ResCode’. Uban designer wanted more landscaping but given the location Lipshutz ‘commended the application’.

OKOTEL: was very happy with the developer’s efforts to ‘ensure that…character (is) maintained’. Was also pleased that this would ‘provide a much needed facility’ for aged care.

DELAHUNTY: Asked Akehurst why the urban designer had included the set backs

AKEHURST: Said that he understood it wasn’t about the set backs but ‘access’ to the building and the driveway which ‘probably takes up opportunities for landscaping’ so it’s all about getting more landscaping in.

DELAHUNTY: agreed that there’s a strong need for aged care and that the development proposal had taken ‘up much time’ for the Emmy Monash  board and staff. Said that the president had written to all councillors ‘outlining the consultation processes’ with neighbours and the expense they had gone to. Said that she first met the president on the ‘campaign trail’ when she was ‘campaigning on my own behalf and he was campaigning’ on behalf of ‘councillor colleagues’ and ‘now we are here again meeting’ over the application. Said that the urban designer had recommended further setbacks and that this ‘was made clear (to applicant) during pre-certification process’ and that it would ‘reduce visual impact of building’.  Said that the setback was a ‘sensible compromise’ between community need and ‘neighbourhood amenity’.

SOUNNESS: Admitted that he had spent time with ‘Joe’ as well and thought that the plans were ‘excellent’. There is a need for aged care and the community would support it. Said the setbacks were also supported by the Landscape officer and that for the people who will live there access to the ‘environment is important’. Said that trees are a feature of this area. The design does have 4 storeys and bulk in contrast to the church next door which is ‘setback magnificently’. Said that with the setbacks the possibilities of a 20, 30 metre tree are all ‘compromised’ by the reduction of these setbacks. Said that this is a ‘beautiful development’ but he’s got this reservation about the lack of trees in the area and the bulk and height of the proposed development and therefore against the amendment.

LOBO: said that this was a ‘state of the art’ building and it couldn’t be better. His concern is setback because ‘we always struggle on informing people about setbacks’. Here it is ‘in front’ and he’s got ‘no problems’ since he was told that it is permissable.

ESAKOFF: said that the setbacks are ‘generous’ and ‘in excess’ of what’s ‘legally required’. It’s a much need facility and will be providing ’94 very spacious rooms’ and ‘enormous communal spaces’. Facilities are ‘magnificent’. Said she’s never seen anything that ‘provides the sorts of spaces’ that’s included in the plans. The plans are ‘fantastic’ and will create ‘new benchmarks’ for the future. Well placed and set back from ‘residential properties’ and ‘maximum protection’ from overlooking and overshadowing. They will also be ‘no doubt’ good neighbours, ‘quiet, respectful’.

MAGEE: when he first read it he was ‘quite happy’ with the setback and he was more concerned about the 4th storey. His concern is ‘does it fit’ into the streetscape. Said that he would have been happy with the lower floor setback leaving 1st and 2nd floor ‘exactly as they are’. Won’t support the recommendation because of the 4th floor and that the added 2 metre setback ‘is appropriate’.

HYAMS: welcomed the president to the meeting and said that it’s important to ‘note’ that Emmy Monash is a not for profit organisation so the developer isn’t doing this for his ‘own pocket’. Main concern is about the further 2 metre setback or not. Said he had ‘wrestled’ with this and the issue is about providing canopy trees or providing for people so it ‘comes down to trees versus rooms’. Quoted from the report about ‘social’ needs and ‘community needs’. Spoke about other building and their setbacks including student housing that has a ‘lesser setback’ than proposed here. Because the building is on an angle this would make it ‘less visually dominant’. He’s never seen such an application where there is ‘more planning spaces than required’. Just in case he would need to use his casting vote he ‘takes comfort’ from the fact that Pilling had said he would support the Lipshutz motion.

LIPSHUTZ: said it ‘wasn’t a question of no trees’ but a question of ‘how many trees you have and how much landscaping you do’ and that if he was to ‘weigh up’ amenity and rooms against ‘trees’ the former would win. Also, ‘you can always have more trees’. This application is a ‘template’ of how it should be done because developers worked ‘strongly’ with council, neighbours and ‘took into account’ the objections. Went on to say since Delahunty ‘raised it’ that Krampl certainly did hand out How To Vote Cards for certain candidates’ that this ‘had nothing to do with the application’. Council looks at the application ‘on its merits and not on personality’. The application is ‘well designed’

MOTION PUT TO VOTE AND CARRIED. FOR – ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, OKOTEL, HYAMS

AGAINST; DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, MAGEE

 

December 18, 2012

What’s Safety Worth?

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

Murrumbeena students at risk, says mum

18 Dec 12 @ 05:00am by Donna Carton

Parents and students from Murrumbeena Primary School are campaigning for a school crossing on Murrumbeena Rd.

Parents and students from Murrumbeena Primary School are campaigning for a school crossing on Murrumbeena Rd.

WORRIED parents say busy Murrumbeena Rd is now too dangerous for schoolchildren.

They want a crossing supervisor at the busy road to allow Murrumbeena Primary students to walk to school and ease traffic congestion at pick-up and drop-off times.

A VicRoads assessment has found not enough schoolchildren cross the road to warrant a crossing.

But mum Christine Farnan said many parents drove their kids to Murrumbeena Primary, even if it’s a short journey, rather than let them negotiate the road on their own.

“For years we have been asking for a crossing to be built,”Ms Farnham said. “Parents drive their children due to the traffic dangers.”

Parents have now requested Glen Eira Council employ a supervisor to help children at the Murrumbeena and Dandenong roads lights crossing.

“It’s not ideal. That is a very busy spot, but it is better than nothing,” Ms Farnan said.

Cr Neil Pilling said he had spoken to worried parents and would ask for more council investigation.

“Council should re-examine this. This is a very busy road, not helped by one of the worst level crossings (at Murrumbeena),” he said.

“I will advocate for a crossing supervisor funded either wholly by council or shared with VicRoads.”

COMMENTS

Ostensibly this sounds like a pretty straight forward problem. However it reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of this council and the temerity of many of its councillors. Instead of real action, all Pilling can do is ask for ‘more council investigation’! If this Council was really run by its councillors instead of administrators, and the Local Laws reflected this, then the solution would be simple:

  • At tonight’s council meeting Pilling would move the motion that a part time lolly pop person be employed. End of story! Or since this council has delegated practically all responsibility to officers and the CEO has control over the hiring of staff, the issue could be solved in a matter of moments – if councillors simply ‘request’ the exercise of this delegated power.
  • We are not talking huge salaries (crossing supervisors are part time, and earn about $12 per hour). This shouldn’t even descend into the farce of Vic Roads versus Council responsibility. When Caulfield Park can be earmarked for about half a million dollars of concrete plinthing then the argument of who pays becomes obscene.
  • Given the current rigging of the Local Law meeting procedures councillors have no control over the agenda; there is no notice of motion; ‘urgent’ matters have to fall within the space of agenda release and council meeting – which wouldn’t apply in this case since the issue has been ongoing for some time; and finally, councillors have been told time and time again that they shouldn’t make any decisions without the good advice provided by officers – ie reports! Thus the wheels of democratic efficiency flounder time and time again on such utter nonsense!
  • We anticipate that Pilling may ask for a Request for A Report. If so, that will now not surface until February 5th next year – at the earliest. Kids will already be back at school by then!
 

December 14, 2012

GESAC: More Car Parking & Costs

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

Not only has council spent an additional and unbudgeted for amount of over $1,000,000 in the creation of more car parking space at GESAC and the ‘relocation’ of the existing playground, but it is clear that another $600,000 dollars is about to be spent on adding a further 60 to 70 car parking spaces in Gardener’s Road. We extend our deepest sympathies to those poor souls who live on Gardener’s Rd and immediate surrounds. Not only will this street descend into bedlam, but after years of ‘consultation’ with these residents it appears that all their concerns have amounted to nothing. Gardener’s Rd will now attract even more traffic PLUS the loss of the vast majority of nature strips.

All of this information is found in the agenda items for next Tuesday night’s council meeting in response to a Request for a Report dating from September. We note this date since the original request stipulated that the report be tabled at “one of the next two Council meetings”. Obviously this was not done!

More importantly, a significant aspect of the request has again been entirely ignored ie That a report be prepared on pedestrian safety at the GESAC and Bailey Reserve car park. In particular the report should investigate the safety of users of the soccer pavilion and the viability and consequences of a permanent drop off area on Gardeners Road”. Please note that the word ‘safety’ and ‘pedestrians’ is not mentioned once in the report! In fact the report has as its purpose : “To provide options for potential additional car parking following two requests by Council”. Neither of the stated ‘related’ requests for reports even mention car parking. But as per usual this administration has decided to ignore councillor resolutions and provide its own warped interpretation of plain old English. Surely it’s about time that officer reports actually stick to the topic and adhere to council resolutions?

Even so, this report again raises fundamental questions:

  • How sound was the original ‘business plan’ when ratepayers are now being forced to cough up an additional $1.6 million dollars on bitumen and asphalt to accommodate cars? What kind of planning went into car parking right from the start?
  • How many more ad hoc decisions will result in the loss of green grass and open space at Bailey Reserve?
  • Why, it would appear, has so little consideration  been given to local residents?
  • If the over-riding mentality of this council is ‘user pays’ then perhaps council should consider installing parking meters at the GESAC site?
  • How does the creation of more and more parking spaces fit in with the Transport policy and the Environmental policy whose main objectives are to lessen the reliance on cars – not as this is doing to provide more and more opportunities (excuses?) for people to use their cars?
  • Will councillors reject these reports since they don’t answer the specific resolutions?

PS: we are in error, but unlike Council we do cough up when mistakes are made! The report on pedestrian safety was tabled at the 24th September meeting.  This does not however detract from our assertions that far too often reports do not answer the requests made and it certainly doesn’t account for the potential expenditure of another $600,000!

 

December 7, 2012

Election 2012: Summary Of Returns

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[19] Comments 

Council has published Candidates’ Summary of Returns’.

The majority entered ‘no gift disclosed’. Those candidates who listed donations are:

Thomas Sounness – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Neil Pilling – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Rose Read – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Brett Hedger – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Karina Okotel – $500 – Donald Towns Pty Ltd & $1,000 (Frank Greenstein)

Kelvin Ho – $500 – Yabo Global Pty Ltd

Oscar Lobo – $5000 – CK Foods and $5000 (Dr Suresh Chandra)

John Barry Myers – $1,250 – Henry Buch

ALL OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE DECLARED NO GIFTS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THEIR RETURNS –

Joshua Spiegel

Wilmars Mikelsons

Michael Caspi

Rodney Andonopoulos

 

November 29, 2012

More Nonsense

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

PS: By way of contrast we’re adding this titbit of news from the Port Phillip Council Meeting Minutes of 27th November 2012, Page 3. The difference to the way things are done in Glen Eira is, of course, staggering.

“A petition was received from 14 signatories in relation to parking on Bridge Street between Lyons Street to Esplanade East, Port Melbourne.

MOVED BY CRS TOUZEAU/VOSS

That Council:

Receives the petitions and refers it to officers for investigation. A proposal will then be developed for possible new parking restrictions. A subsequent survey/questionnaire will be distributed to properties adjacent to Bridge Street Port Melbourne seeking feedback.The survey will inform any new parking restrictions that may be implemented.

A vote was taken and the motion was carried”

 

COMMENTS

We find it most refreshing that councillors actually TELL officers what to do! We also find it most refreshing that decisions are made on the spot, not a year later. We also find it most refreshing that transparency and consultation is an integral part of a response. The take home message for our councillors is that where there’s a will , there’s definitely a way!

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

The minutes of 7th February 2012 recorded this petition from residents:

A petition co-signed by 23 signatories was tabled which read as follows:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council our wish that there be trees planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond. Prioritising tree planting on our street will help realise the Glen Eira Community Plan, Street Tree Strategy and Environmental Sustainability Strategy. We believe that this action will significantly improve the psychological, social and environmental quality of our street. We understand that trees would have to be planted on the road and that there will be some associated loss of car parking space. Your petitioners therefore pray that trees are planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond as soon as possible.”

The petition, as per normal was ‘received and noted’ unanimously.

Now, 9 months later at Tuesday night’s council meeting Pilling submitted a request for a report on the planting of street trees in Murray Rd. This was seconded by Esakoff. Pilling said that it’s a narrow street and lacks trees and there was the need to improve the ‘amenity of the street’. Esakoff agreed that ‘the street could certainly do with some greening’. Okotel  was ‘pleased’ because this issue was ‘long overdue’ and that concerns of residents ‘are being heard’ and that the report will be the means to ‘ensure that (the issue) ‘will be addressed without further delay”.

We highlight this Request for a Report because it again illustrates the failure of this council and its councillors to institute processes that respond in a timely fashion to resident concerns. We note the following:

  • In other councils petitions are not merely ‘noted’ – they are immediately passed on to the relevant department for action. In Glen Eira petitions generally disappear into the ether and unless residents keep the issue up front, they are invariably ignored and forgotten.
  • Now we have the farce of waiting for another officer’s report. With NO NOTICE OF MOTION available to councillors, the community is again in the hands of officers who may take months and months to report back and then possibly another major time lag before anything is actually planted.
  • The ‘solution’ is very simple it would seem to us. Councillors must ensure that when petitions are tabled they are acted upon, or responded to immediately. It is literally a joke that it takes 9 months, and another officers’ report in order to get anything done in Glen Eira. Not only is this a slap in the face to residents, but it also means more time and expense wasted on unnecessary paper work by officers.
  • Further, if councillors were so concerned about ‘greening’ Murray Rd. did the thought ever occur to them that a simple resolution which stated ’30 street trees to be planted in Murray Rd’ might have sufficed? That is of course, if such a motion passed the ‘no surprises’ component of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law and if it could somehow be squeezed into an agenda set by Newton!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »