GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 21, 2012

A Really Transparent Council!

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

Several items on the agenda for Monday night’s council meeting provide further evidence as to why there must be radical change in Glen Eira. We will deal with these chronologically.

‘Retrospective’ Planning Permit

Not for the first time we discover that individuals, or organisations, have gone ahead and erected structures WITHOUT THE REQUISITE PLANNING PERMIT. What does Council do? Nothing! – except grant them what they want after the event! Residents should be asking:

  • Why wasn’t the original permit enforced?
  • What penalties, if any, did Council attempt to impose?
  • Why is unlawful behaviour so often ‘rewarded’ by this Council?

Even more disturbing in regard to this item is the fact that at the Delegated Planning Committee meeting, a somewhat strange event occurred. We quote from an email received from an objector: “The Chair declared a potential conflict of interest in that he had had many dealings in council with one of the proposers present but did not feel that this disqualified him. They knew each other by first names”.

What’s good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander. When councillors have to declare conflicts of interest at the drop of a hat, leave the room and not participate in any debate, it would seem that officers have no such strictures placed on them!

Then there are plenty of questions to ask about how Councillor led Planning Conferences are run and whether Planning Officers and councillors are in fact representing everyone impartially. Numerous reports have surfaced (ie. Mahvo St) about how residents are basically gagged and the stated purpose of ‘mediation’ is nothing more than another public relations exercise. If Council was fair dinkum then they should provide and publish all ‘satisfaction surveys’ that result from each of such meetings. Of course, the actual questions need to be carefully vetted first of all.  Such surveys used to appear in the minutes, but we guess it was becoming too ‘transparent’ and possibly too critical of the process so it was ditched. 

C93 Amendment

A paltry few  officers’ report pagesaccompanies this important policy change. Only ONE SENTENCE FROM THE PANEL REPORT is included. The Panel report itself is not attached, and thus residents who may want to read the objections and the recommendations for themselves have to either physically front up to council offices and MAYBE given access instead of this being placed on the website and in the agenda/minutes. We wonder how on earth councillors can be expected to make important policy decisions when we doubt that many of them would have read the Panel Report either.

Then we have this wonderful paragraph: “The State Government has recently released draft zones: Industrial, Residential, Commercial and Rural. It is recommended that this amendment proceed whether or not the new zones are approved as it removes duplication in the scheme”. Please note that no justification is given for this ‘recommendation’. Why the rush then? Why not wait and see what eventuates?

GESAC: pedestrian safety 

A 2 page report only. Again, no facts, no figures, no costings, no nothing. Another report will be forthcoming in the future it seems. As for the current state of affairs, we’re simply told: “The audit provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented. Five recommendations specifically related to disability access.

It follows that the car park complies with relevant traffic safety standards.” 

Financial Report: Hansen & Yuncken & Liquidated Damages

Not a shred of new information is forthcoming as to what is going on with this ‘adjudication’ nor why council had to hand back $3 million dollars! Watch this space is the ongoing message!

Tenders

3 seems to be the magical number in Glen Eira when it comes to tenders. We’ve noted before that many other councils publish their tender assessments, and the officers who sit on these panels. Not so in Glen Eira. Other councils also have many, many more criteria by which to evaluate their tenders. Not so in Glen Eira – 3 is the usual number even though the ensuing contracts may be worth millions of dollars! Nor are these criteria ever published. Long live transparency and accountability!

Finally, it is worth pointing out that as per usual every possible obstacle and delaying tactic is placed in the way of residents actually knowing what is going on. We highlight the following examples:

  • Even though the upcoming council meeting is scheduled A DAY EARLIER THAN NORMAL, the agenda items didn’t go up until well after 1pm on Friday afternoon on the website. That leaves the weekend and half of Monday for residents to familiarise themselves with the agenda and submit appropriate questions. There is absolutely no logical reason why the agenda could not have been put up on Thursday at the latest.
  • No sign of the Panel Reports for Amendments C87 and C93 to accompany the officers’ report and recommendations. Again, residents have to hunt through the Department’s website if they actually want to read what the Panels had to say. Why aren’t these important documents made accessible to residents? Or is this again part of the overall strategy to keep residents in the dark – as well as councillors perhaps? When the nonsense about this being an open and transparent council is continually trotted out, then it is obvious that there is absolutely no intention of ensuring that actions match words.
  • Woeful editing of agenda in that it is stated that records of assembly and committee meeting minutes be noted and recommendations accepted. The problem is that THERE ARE NO MINUTES OF ANY MEETINGS INCLUDED!!!!!!!
 

September 18, 2012

More Muck-Raking And Investigations!

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

We present a series of emails from the Municipal Inspectorate. This is the result of a complaint to the Inspectorate to investigate a potential ‘leak’ (presumably by a councillor). The catalyst for this investigation was a public question asking whether more than one firm of lawyers was involved in the O’Neill affair and whether council had hired a consulting firm in its CEO appointment process. Of concern were the costs involved if either of these events took place.

The first email from the Inspectorate read in part as follows:

“I am an Inspector of Municipal Administration appointed pursuant to section 223A of the Local Government Act 1989.  I am currently making some inquiries into a complaint from the Glen Eira councillors, which allege that public questions you asked of the ordinary council meeting of  xxxxx referred to matters which had been earlier deemed confidential by Council.

I am making inquiries to ascertain whether there is any evidence to support a misuse of position breach by any of the councillors.”

Months later, there was another email, the most important paragraph reading:

“The Inspectorate has ascertained that the matters which were subject to your public questions were not deemed confidential by a resolution of Council. The Inspectorate has concluded its inquiries into this complaint as there was insufficient evidence to support a misuse of position breach under the Local Government Act 1989 by any of the councillors. Council has been advised of the outcome of these inquiries.”

Unsure of what the opening sentence actually meant, the resident contacted the Inspectorate seeking clarification. The response was: “Even if a council meeting is closed to the public, whilst the content discussed may be confidential, any resolution made at that meeting does not automatically become confidential unless a resolution is passed declaring it as such. Council meeting minutes usually provide the topics discussed in camera and these minutes are made publicly available.  This was the case in this instance, therefore the Inspectorate was satisfied that there was enough publicly available information in relation to the questions you put to Council.”



COMMENT


These remarks and the events themselves are indeed extraordinary:


    

  • Does this mean that Council has been operating ‘illegally’ for eons since NO RESOLUTION to maintain confidentiality has ever been recorded in the minutes of council meetings?
    • 

  • Is this what we elected councillors for – to spend all their time complaining to ‘integrity’ agencies when residents are merely trying to get answers that should be freely available?
    • 

  • Paranoia does not enhance good governance!
    • 

  • Secrecy, as continually practised in Glen Eira is abhorrent and on the basis of the Inspectorate’s comments, highly suspect, if not in actual breach of the Local Government Act!
    • 

  • How many complaints about Glen Eira City Council has the Inspectorate had to handle in the past ten years? We would not be at all surprised if it constitutes a world record!
    • 

  • We note that Council has again retained the veil of secrecy since it has made no announcement regarding this investigation, nor its findings!
    • 

  • Finally, we note that the scheduled CEO Special Committee of July 31st has still not made its minutes available. Maybe they are hoping that people will forget it ever took place!
    • 


	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 18, 2012



	

			Letters To The Editor
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[15] Comments 


	

		
Hyams selective with facts


Re Cr Hyams’ letter (“VCAT will make decision”, September 4), Cr Hyams says the matter was referred to VCAT following the report of a legal expert. He does not mention that neither he nor then-mayor Esakoff made any effort to require the CEO to go through mediation (normally the case) before engaging the expert.


Cr Hyams does not say he and other councillors have refused to provide me a copy of that expert’s report nor that only one incident of bullying is not alleged against me – comments I made in a private letter to Cr Esakoff.


Secondly, Cr Hyams says legal costs will be determined by VCAT. Whatever the VCAT decision, council will have to pay its legal costs, and most likely my legal costs as well.


Thirdly, Cr Hyams refers to the minister as saying councillor conduct panels are the appropriate place for matters to be dealt with. But they do not give parties the opportunity to properly test the evidence. Once the 40 or so allegations against me were subjected to the VCAT spotlight, they were reduced to four.


Glen Eira ratepayers require explanations from the mayor as to:


    

  • Why he and Cr Esakoff did not require the CEO to go through mediation?
    • 

  • Why he continues to assert I am responsible for the waste of ratepayers’ money?
    • 



I am confident voters will have faith in my integrity, and return me to council office.


Cr Frank Penhalluriack


 +++++++++


The Hyams’ Letter from September 4th


VCAT Will Make Decision


Regarding “Council coffers take hit” (Leader, August 22) some points need to be made clear to understand Glen Eira Council’s action against Cr Penhalluriack at VCAT.


The council made applications to the Councillor Conduct Panel alleging misconduct by Cr Penhalluriack, following recommendations by an independent legal expert on workplace behaviour and by the Ombudsman after lengthy investigations. The council chief executive took no part in any council discussion or decision on the referral of Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel.


Cr Penhalluriack exercised his right to refer the case from a Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.


Whether the council or Cr Penhalluriack will ultimately be responsible for payment of legal costs will be decided by VCAT. The council’s directors and offer’s insurance may also cover a claim for costs.


There is now a Bill before Parliament that will require councillors to pay their own costs if they refer a conduct matter to VCAT.


The Minister has stated that a Councillor Conduct Panel is the appropriate place for matters of this kind to be heard.


Cr Jamie Hyams


Mayor, City of Glen Eira.


COMMENT


Our view has consistently been that it is high time that the machinations that are endemic in Glen Eira be brought out into the open. That can only occur under cross examination and in public. When we have an administration that has been involved in investigation after investigation, when charges of bullying rear their ugly head time and time again without ever being truly substantiated, then there’s obviously something drastically wrong with the workings of this council.


Recent events, such as the testimony of Jones and Burke, are indicative we believe why the so called evidence must be tested in the public domain. Councillor Conduct Panels are secret. Our view is that they are nothing more than an ‘old boys’ club’. When Hyams and his cohorts have no regard for public monies and can throw away up to half a million dollars, then they should also be called to account.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 13, 2012



	

			The Danby Letter
		


	Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[9] Comments 


	

		
Dear Mr Xxxxxxx,


Many Caulfield Residents have written to me to express their disappointment at the Caulfield Village Development given approval by the Glen Eira City Council. Last month the Melbourne Racing Club awared the lucrative Caulfield Village development contract to the Beck Probuild Consortium.


The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve should benefit all local residents through the provision of a racecourse, public, recreation ground and public park. My office has been in contact with you recently to express my personal disappointment at the size of the development which will take more than 15 years to build, create an additional 1,500 dwellings, including a 15 story (sic) complex, over 5 hectares of land. This will affect all residents in our local area, decrease our local amenity, increase traffic congestion and more parking pressures, overcrowd the area and disrupt the local area with increased commercial activity. The actions of the Council and the State Government in approving this oversized project will cause nothing but future problems for local residents.


This development was strongly opposed before the 3010 State Election by the newly-elected Member for Caulfield David Southwick and the (then Shadow) Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Mr Southwick called it a ‘monstrosity’ and vowed to stop it. Contrary to their stance, then both have since reversed their opinions following election and now support this over intensive development.


VCAT has unfortunately approved the MRC State government grandiose plans for this massive development on land at Station Street and Normandy Road that is now grassed car parks. However, Councillor Jim Magee is the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve’s new board Chairman. He is seeking to change the trust’s oversight making it more independent. He has asked Ted Ballieu to take action by implementing a governance review. I add my support for increased transparency and scrutiny of the actions of the board to ensure the Trust’s purposes are met and amenity of the local area is maintained for all Caulfield residents.


Not all Councillors are supportive of this massive development. On 27th October, you will have the opportunity to cast your vote in the Glen Eira City elections. I encourage you to consider current Councillors standing for re-election and their stance with regards to this monstrous development. The candidates standing in your ward against this development include Frank Penhalluriack and Mary Delahunty and their respective teams.


If you, like many of your fellow residents, share my anger at this development, I encourage you to contact the Glen Eira City Council to register your disapproval for this development on (03) 9524 3333 and email mail@gleneira.vic.gov.au to express your concerns at the size of this development in our local area.


Yours sincerely,


Michael Danby MP


Federal Member for Melbourne Ports

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 11, 2012



	

			Time For Change!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[27] Comments 


	

		
In just on two weeks the deadline for nomination for council elections will be upon us. It is therefore time for reflection and for answers to the following questions:


    

  • Has this crop of councillors ‘delivered’?
    • 

  • Have they made major progress on such vital issues as planning, traffic management and consultation processes?
    • 

  • Have they really and truly delivered the best outcomes for the vast majority of residents?
    • 



Our answers to the above have to be a resounding ‘No’. What we have witnessed over the past 4 years is simply more of the same. And that ‘same’ is anathema to the hopes and aspirations of this community. Put simply, we sum up the past few years as:


    

  • Higher and higher rates
    • 

  • More and more investigations and waste of public monies
    • 

  • Horrendous decisions (C60; 10 storey developments; centre of the racecourse; no notice of motion; continued gagging of councillors – to name but a few)
    • 

  • Governance at an all time low with no transparency, no accountability, and too much secrecy
    • 

  • A dysfunctional council run by a ruling clique (the ‘gang’) that far too often ignores community concerns and favours hidden administrative agendas
    • 

  • A pro-development council with no sign of even attempting to control and rein in inappropriate development – ie. low open space levy; dropping development contributions, dropping of commercial policy, removing childcare from non residential uses in residential areas policy and amendments galore that favour developers
    • 



These are just some of the perennial problems that Glen Eira has faced for more than a decade. Many of these councillors have simply been there too long and even the ‘newbies’ have been seen to flounder and lose their way..


We urge all readers to think carefully about their votes and the significance of this upcoming election. Glen Eira desperately requires reform. It desperately requires a change in corporate culture, where it is councillors who lead and officers simply follow. Under Newton, this has never been the case. It is time for long overdue change! This can only happen if most of the current incumbents are denied your vote.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 7, 2012



	

			Censorship & Public Questions
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[4] Comments 


	

		
For the second time in a row a resident’s public question has been edited. Vital information that clarifies the circumstances is thus being with-held, resulting in answers that are anything but accurate and reflecting what actually happened. The full question was:


Please find below two public questions for this week’s Council meeting (4 September 2012).


Please publish each public question in the Minutes in full. Please refrain from editing my public questions.  


Public Question 1 


I refer to my earlier public question I posed directly to Mr Lipshutz for Council meeting 14 August 2012.


To recap, a group of Rowan Street Elsternwick residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 regarding Council’s decision to install 2 hr parking restrictions in the street based on only 8 of the total 15 properties responding to Council’s consultation.


Councillor Lipshutz in his reply to the public question at the 14 August Council meeting indicated that he had advised the residents group that Council Transport Planning department was to hold off implementation for a month. The installation was completed on 25 July to the absolute shock & amazement of the residents.


However, Councillor Lipshutz, we must beg to differ, following our meeting with you on 4 June or in subsequent exchange of emails, you gave NO INDICATION of a timeframe what so ever. In fact we the residents kept you informed frequently via email of progress we were making in collecting all 15 residents survey responses. In fact out last email to you on 13 July 2012 indicated that we had collected all but 2 responses  – at that stage the majority of respondents had indicated clearly that they were NOT IN FAVOUR of the restrictions.  


Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?


 COUNCIL’S VERSION AND RESPONSE –


Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?”


Cr Lipshutz responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. He said:


“ There was no so called residents group but rather there was a meeting with two residents of which you were one. As you will recall, following a questionnaire by Council, there were more non responses than responses and of the responses there was a majority that did not oppose parking restrictions being imposed. You may also recall that I advised you that if you wished to halt Council imposing those parking restrictions it would be necessary for you to move with alacrity in providing Council with evidence that a clear majority of residents opposed those restrictions. You undertook to do so and I accordingly requested that Council withhold action.


Council acceded to my request and initially there was no time frame discussed as it was my understanding that inasmuch as you were being proactive in obtaining responses there would be little delay.


I am informed that a period of 6 weeks ensued without the foreshadowed responses and accordingly Council thereupon proceeded. This took place at a time when I was on leave from Council and overseas.


The arrangement to withhold action was never open ended one and given that you did not comply with your end of the arrangement Council was not prepared to wait indefinitely. The ball was very much in your court to demonstrate that a clear majority of residents opposed the implementation of parking restrictions and it was not for Council to wait indefinitely.” 


SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS


 “Please outline Council’s current parking restrictions enforcement strategy for Elsternwick. Please also provide statistics and data (i.e. frequency of inspection by date by name of street/road by result of enforcement activity (i.e. parking fine issued and amount or no parking fine) of Council parking restrictions enforcement activity in Elsternwick for 2011-12 & 2012-13 to date.”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“Council enforces parking restrictions uniformly across the municipality. The fundamentals applying to enforcement include:-


 Ensuring residential streets in proximity of shopping centres are balancing the parking demands of residents, shoppers and shop keepers alike.


 Placing an emphasis on safety related offences in general.


 Placing an emphasis on school crossings and drop off/pick up around schools.


 Ensuring a turnover of customer car parking aimed at improving the economic viability of shopping centres.


The specific statistical data you requested is not available in the form you have requested it.”


 +++++++++++++++++


“Has Glen Eira City Council received a claim against it for a sum of $4.2M for incompleted payments to GESAC’s contractors or does Glen Eira City Council feel so aggrieved by the work undertaken by it’s contractor that it has withheld over 10% of the money it owes?”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“Agenda Item 9.20 in this Meeting is the Finance Report to the end of July 2012.


That Report states that Council had paid $36.99m against the contract awarded for $41.2m. The Report also states that the contractor had applied for adjudication under the Security of Payment Act. The application was for $4.2m. It would not be correct to say that the application involved either “incomplete payments” or “withholding money Council owes”.


The adjudication has been completed. As at today, Council has paid $39.99m against the construction contract that was let for $41.2m. The contract provides for processes to determine matters in dispute. These include claims which would result in deductions in Council’s favour as well as claims which would result in additional payments. Those processes are underway. Each monthly Finance report will include the status of expenditure under the contract at that time.


GESAC continues to cover all its operating costs and make a contribution towards the costs of borrowings.


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


 “I notice that the Crs Forge and Penhalluriack have erected a billboard pledging zero rate increases. I ask Cr Forge what services and capital works she intends to cut in order to achieve this outcome, and whether she has in fact previously voted in favour of rate rises. If Cr Forge is unable to answer this question at the council meeting, I ask how can she justify making such a public pledge without knowing how it will be achieved.”


Cr Forge responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. She said:


“There are many avenues that Council can reduce expenditure which would contribute to limiting additional rate increases. A good start would be to reduce new staff hirings and to rationalise staff replacement of those who leave.


There is also a cost saving to be had by deferring capital works and infrastructure programs. eg. Item 9.15 of tonight’s Agenda where Council spent approx. $750.00 on the Murrumbeena Park Play Space. We have to balance what is spent on ‘essentials’, viv a vis what would be ‘nice’ or ‘prestigious to have!


In regard to your question whether voted in favour of rate increases? Yes, I have in the year 2010 – 2011, to help with the costs of financing the GESAC development. I was not on Council when the GESAC development was approved.


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


 “My question relates to usage of the multi-purpose courts at GESAC and is in 2 parts: 1. It is clear to the casual observer when visiting GESAC that the courts are not utilised for significant periods of time during the weekend, therefore please advise what proportion of the hours allocated for use by the Warriors Basketball Club from Friday to Sunday are actually being utilised; 2. Given that the initial allocation was for only 12 months, how & when will interested parties be advised of the process to apply for allocations following expiry of the initial allocation.”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“The indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, other sports, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more. The courts are not only for basketball.


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.


On 15 May 2012, Councillors were advised:


“Opening at short notice has been fine for individuals Opening at short notice has not been fine for Seasonal activities. Many Clubs and teams have commitments at other venues. Seasonal activities will get fully underway from the start of the next Season(s). This is true of all Seasonal sports. GESAC is arranging casual hire of the courts. ”


No Club has breached its allocation agreement. GESAC is covering all its operating costs.


The Warriors Basketball Club is operating in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. The Warriors are currently utilising the facility against the following allocation


 Fridays the facility is used between 6.30pm – 10 pm against the allocation of 6pm – 11pm. This is subject to game allocations from the Victorian Junior Basketball League as Friday night is primarily for representative basketball games.


 Saturdays the facility is used between 9am – 6.30pm against the allocation of 8am – 7pm


 Sundays the facility is used between 9am – 10pm against the allocation of 9am – 11pm


In these allocated periods, the Warriors are currently utilising 57.5 hours a week against the allocation of 88.5 hours. This equates to around 2 courts being in use at all times on average and has been growing since the facility opened.


As President of the McKinnon Basketball Association, you would know that the representative basketball season is currently in its finals period. Due to this it should be noted that representative squad training and representative games which make up a large proportion of the court use on Friday nights and Sunday morning and afternoons are currently greatly reduced.


In relation to part 2 of your question, all sports will be operating in new Seasons from October 2012 (or earlier). Council will be reviewing allocations after the Council has had the opportunity to properly assess the utilisation rates in the new seasons and learn from the experience of the start up phase at GESAC.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 5, 2012



	

			GESAC, Hansen & Yuncken & Lawyers Galore!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[10] Comments 


	

		
The black hole of GESAC is clearly getting bigger and bigger – despite all the assurances from Lipshutz and the other financial whiz kids on council. After enduring a quite nauseating performance by Lipshutz on the audit committee minutes and how much the Auditor General had praised council for its performance and how it is an example to other councils, some of the truth finally emerged about the Hansen and Yuncken call for their money through another report by the auditor general which highlighted the call for ‘adjudication’ by Hansen & Yuncken.


The past few financial reports have consistently stated that Council is withholding over $4 million dollars as part of the ‘liquidated damages’. The building contract was $41.2 million and up til last month council had only handed over approximately $37 million. We now learn that the adjudication has in fact forced council to cough up $3 million of the money it was holding back. But, there’s much, much more to this as we report below.


LIPSHUTZ: on the Audit Committee minutes –  ‘we were praised for the transparent way we went about GESAC’….(Auditor General gave council) ‘profusive praise’ in how ‘we managed our finances’…’I was particularly chuffed and enthused’ as he said ‘we were an example to other councils’. …’leader in the field’…..


PILLING: reported on community grants and claimed that over $300,000 was given out (OUR COMMENT: note that this amount also includes government grants!!!!!)


PENHALLURIACK: said that he went to the Audit Committee meeting and that the Auditor General did praise Glen Eira but ‘it was in a non specific way’. Referred to a ‘report that the Auditor General has commissioned’ about GESAC and that there’s ‘an adjudication of almost $5 million dollars to be heard against Council…and that was in a separate report to the meeting’.


MAGEE: said he attended the meeting. Stated that council oversees a budget of over $100 million and over 130,000 residents. Council ‘very adequately allocates those funds’. Went on to explain about the external auditors and kept reassuring residents that the finances are being well handled. Stated that those in the gallery should be ‘well assured’ that the rates are ‘being well administered, well spent’. If money was being wasted then auditors would pick that up and ‘that’s not the case’.


HYAMS: asked Penhalluriack whether he said that ‘the Auditor General commissioned a report into GESAC’?


PENHALLURIACK: ‘not into GESAC. He commissioned his own report’.


HYAMS: asked Newton whether the Auditor General ‘commissioned a report as described by Cr Penhalluriack’?


NEWTON: ‘Not into GESAC, no’.


LIPSHUTZ: said he was present and ‘did not hear anything of that nature’. Said that council’s got the money in the bank and that it then becomes ‘an issue between the builder and ourselves’. Claimed that none of this ‘comes as a surprise’ that it was ‘expected’. Went on again about the Auditor General and how council had a good ‘business plan’.


Towards the end of the meeting Hyams requested a report on the state of the basketball allocations at GESAC. Said that since GESAC opened in mid season that by the next meeting this situation should be ‘resolved’ and that the courts should be ‘in full operation’. Pilling seconded. Motion passed unanimously.


There was then one Public Question that asked ‘what proportion’ (of court time allocated to the Warriors from Friday to Sunday are actually) ‘being utilised’? Also wanted to know how interested parties would be advised about next years’ allocations since the Warrior one was for only 12 months.


The response was a wonderful sales job on what GESAC caters for; problems with builders, etc. Claimed that next season would see full use and that the warriors use of the courts was currently 57.5 hours instead of 80+ hours.


PENHALLURICK: SAID THAT ‘WE DIDN’T GET EARLY NOTICE OF THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS’ and that he would like to say something in ‘response to some of them’. Asked if the 57.5 hours ‘is being paid for’?


HYAMS: mumbled and fumbled his way through in response saying that the Local Law lets councillors put in individual responses but doesn’t allow ‘supplementary questions’ from councillors.


PENHALLURIACK: said that he would have provided his own answer ‘if I had notice of the question’. Went on to say that he was asking a question about the answer given.


HYAMS: ‘The Local Law doesn’t allow that’. Said that it could be a question on notice for next meeting.


PENHALLURIACK: claimed it was a silly local law. Hyams came back with you ‘probably voted for it’. Penhalluriack agreed.


Next public question asked about the liquidated damages and why council was withholding 10% of the money it owes to the builder. Hyams then read out the answer quoting the financial report which says that council has paid 36.99 million. Contractor had gone to adjudication for 4.2 million and that ‘it has been completed’. Said that council has now paid 39.99 million. Went on to say that the contract allows for these matters in dispute to be settled and that there are processes which could end up with council receiving money or facing ‘additional payments’….these processes are underway’. 


COMMENT: These exchanges certainly make a mockery of Lipshutz’s claim that council has been ‘transparent’ in its dealings over GESAC. Further, we wonder if:


    

  • Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the Hansen & Yuncken adjudication whether anything at all would have been stated
    • 

  • If Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the issue would the public question have been asked and some form of answer supplied.
    • 

  • As far as the answer goes we still have major concerns. The door is still open for further penalties paid by council. Will Hansen and Yuncken claim interest on their money owed? Will they claim legal expenses? Will they sue for more money as Hyams indicated is a real possibility? Penhalluriack spoke about $5 million we remind readers.
    • 

  • What has this handover of $3 million done to the budget/cash flow especially when there’s another 3.1 million due for super top ups?
    • 

  • Have the Warriors actually paid a cent to council or have they been granted free access? What impact has this had on proposed income at GESAC?
    • 



There are countless questions that require straight forward answers. No spin, no obfuscation, and no porkies, and certainly no deft sleight of hand as evidenced by Lipshutz’s claim that he does not remember the Auditor General’s commissioned report being ‘discussed’ at the Audit Committee. We point out that perhaps this wasn’t DISCUSSED but presented in a pile of papers and reports that few councillors actually bothered to read?!!!!! We suspect that this is standard practice for this administration!


Finally we can only highlight again the tactics of withholding public questions until too late to respond and the recourse to gagging tactics via the lame excuse that the local law does not carry a provision for councillors to ask questions when they like! So much for open, transparent and accountable governance! Lawyers must be jumping up and down and rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of unending work!

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
August 31, 2012



	

			News Flash: GESAC – The Mess Continues!
		


	Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[5] Comments 


	

		
Hidden away in the agenda for next Council Meeting we find this small paragraph:


“Recently as advised to Councillors, the contractor applied for adjudication pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2001 (Vic) for a sum of $4.2M. Progress with these claims will be disclosed as it occurs”.


Reading between the lines this can only mean one thing – Hansen and Yuncken aren’t taking the withholding of over $4 million in ‘liquidated damages’ lying down. Chances are that not only will they sue for this money but also ask for compensation, interest and god knows what else. The final sum could be millions above the $4M. Then we have to add on legal fees (and these have surely already been accumulating).


Other news on GESAC is that there are still ‘problems’ that need fixing! We also note that in this financial report no mention is made of the GESAC consulting suites and the loss of income. Are we to assume that after months of months of bringing in no income these suites have finally been let, or is it simply that council forgot to mention this item in its report?


PS – In addition to the matters referred to above there are also some other very, very strange goings on according to the Records of Assembly.


    

  • One item from the 7th August is utterly bewildering and we can only speculate as to its import and reason(s) for being brought up. It reads – “Agenda Item 9.3 – VCAT Watch July 2012 decisions. Amended recommendations to include incorporation into the Code of Conduct”. Checking back to these minutes the VCAT decisions were highly contentious in that one rejected council’s proposal for a 4 storey dwelling and made the order for this to be a 5 storey development. The argument was that this was more in keeping with the obvious intent of council’s planning scheme and policy. So we are left scratching our heads as to why a VCAT decision should suddenly be seen as appropriate, or even relevant for a ‘Code of Conduct’. More importantly is this paving the way for more restrictions to be placed on councillors?
    • 

  • From the same Record of Assembly there is: “Cr Forge – Caulfield Racecourse. Said she was of the view that the number of fences appears to have increased with the park development in the racecourse centre” AND there is this one as well: “Cr Penhalluriack – programming a meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Advisory Committee and informed the groups that he had invited one local MP and would invite the MRC. Following discussion it was agreed to defer a meeting of the Advisory Committee until after the next meeting of the Racecourse Trustees.” Wonderful! When was the last time this Advisory Committee met? It’s a relief to know that councillors are so busy doing council work that they can’t even get together in over a year and have to wait on the outcomes of a secret, behind closed doors Trustee meeting before they can even discuss a single thing! These last two items should really fill residents with confidence as to how the entire Racecourse issue is being handled, supervised, and reported upon. In other words – disgracefully!
    • 


	

			

	
 



									

							

					
August 31, 2012



	

			Trust Me – I’m A Councillor!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[2] Comments 


	

		
The Panel Report on the C87 Amendment is now out (uploaded here). No surprises as to what the recommendations are. But that’s not the end of the story. The story itself would appear to be one of back room manipulation on the part of administrators and councillors. The only plausible excuse that councillors may have is that they are just plain ignorant or stupid, but ultimately compliant with the questionable agendas implemented by this administration. Here is what we know:


    

  1. Every important draft amendment has been subject to a Council Resolution to forward it on to the Minister for permission to exhibit. Following permission for exhibition, there is the compulsory ‘consultation’ phase, a potential Panel hearing if objections are raised and then the final Council Resolution as to accepting, adapting, or rejecting the Panel report.
    2. 

  2. With c87 no such formal resolution to seek permission to exhibit from the Minister has ever been passed. The Minister’s approval was however gained in June 2011- we presume under officer delegated powers with no clear, open council resolution supporting it. In other words, residents did not get to see the proposed Amendment until it had already gone off to the Minister – far too late to change anything!
    3. 

  3. Following the consultation period and the number of objections, both Lipshutz and Hyams encouraged residents who wished to add properties to the list to put in submissions in the hope that the Panel would listen to their objections. Utter nonsense as we stated in previous posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/c87-crocodile-tears/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/move-over-sir-humphrey/). No panel was ever going to exceed its terms of reference, and those terms were set solely by the officers. Hence, we need to ask how honest were both Lipshutz and Hyams in their encouragement of residents to waste their time in writing submissions that would without a shadow of a doubt be ignored? Or perhaps we should ask whether Lipshutz and Hyams were just plain stupid and didn’t know any better? Or were they simply indulging in some political face-saving in order to take the heat off themselves and their colleagues for once again dropping the ball and not exercising their duty to set policy that involved the community at the outset? Or finally, as the examples keep piling up, supporting the administration to the hilt at the expense of residents?
    4. 

  4. The proposed amendment NEVER gave councillors and residents the right to have any input at the most crucial stage – that is, which properties might be added, removed, etc. The officers’ report in fact stated clearly that once an amendment was exhibited it could not be changed and if properties were to be included then this would involve ANOTHER amendment! Yet Lipshutz and Hyams persisted in telling residents that they should put in their submissions to the very Panel that would reject them. If they did not know that this was a useless exercise, then they should have known. If they did know, and continued to perpetrate this myth, then they should be hauled before a code of conduct panel for deliberately misleading the public!
    5. 

  5. The upshot is that the community has been duped; councillors have either been duped, or been fully complicit in perpetrating this deceit. It once again illustrates exactly what goes on in this council and how the normal and expected processes are abused, distorted, and manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes that do not in any shape or form benefit the vast majority of residents. In Glen Eira, residents are personae non gratis. Their views do not count, their objections do not count, and their aspirations do not count. All residents are good for is to continue forking out higher and higher rates to cover up poorly managed projects (ie GESAC) that do nothing except serve the gigantic egos and current power structures.
    6. 



Come election time we urge all residents to take these issues into account when they cast their votes.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
August 27, 2012



	

			Lest We Forget!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance 	

	[14] Comments 


	

		






ISSUE




VOTING






    C60
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling – FOR




    Centre of   Racecourse
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling – FOR




    500+   resident petition to advertise CEO position
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff – AGAINST accepting petition




    Budget   & 6.5% rate rise
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Tang, Lobo, Magee




   Reappointment   of Newton
We guess –   Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang & Lobo voted for reappointment




   Extension   of GESAC carpark
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Magee




   Warriors   over McKinnon Basketball
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Tang, Forge (won on Hyams’ casting vote)




   Notice of   Motion
Lipshutz,   Hyams, Esakoff, Tang – Against. Esakoff casting vote.




   10 storey   application in Glen Huntly Rd – cut down to 8 storeys by amendment
Lipshutz,   Pilling, Hyams, Magee





	

			

	
 



									

						
« Previous Page — Next Page »