GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 24, 2012

How To Hoodwink & Control!

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

Backroom wheeling and dealing, plus the continued inability to present honest and forthright officers’ reports continues with the appointment of councillors to the various committees. There is much in this report that requires commenting upon. We will go through this sequentially

  1. Again no author noted. It’s rule by nobody in Glen Eira.
  2. Spurious claims as to the rationale behind the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee. For example, we’re told that the committee “was established because there was a risk that a Council Meeting dealing with an item concerning the Racecourse might fail for lack of a quorum”. In order for this possibility to eventuate a series of truly extraordinary events have to take place: all trustees must declare a conflict of interest; a councillor must decide to Winky Pop him/herself and someone must be absent. Even if someone is ill, there is no plausible reason as to why any meeting could not be deferred for a week, or possibly even 2! When the MRC is quite capable of delaying ‘developments’ at the racecourse we see no reason why council cannot defer a meeting for a few days until a councillor is able to attend and ensure a quorum. The C60 decision was in fact delayed for several months following the recognition that the farce of ‘consultation’ had to be endured as a good public relations exercise.

Even then, Lobo did not declare a  conflict of interest, he was not a trustee, and his presence would have ensured a quorum. The real reason for the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee is clear to everyone – insurance that the C60 and the ‘agreement’ with the MRC was passed.

The real sting in the tail however, comes with this incredible paragraph: “That Council now has a different composition and it may be possible to abolish this Special committee and deal with Racecourse matters in Ordinary Council Meetings. That will be determined after Trustees have been appointed”. Why the existence or otherwise of this Committee should be ‘determined after Trustees have been appointed” is the real question. It couldn’t possibly be that if Newton doesn’t get his little select band chosen as trustees, then he’s better off going to a full council meeting where their votes will count? If, on the other hand, the gang are selected as trustees, then residents can bet their houses that the Committee will continue! It will be business as usual if this scenario eventuates.

3.  Next we have the Roads Special Committee. Suddenly this becomes ‘unwieldy’ if dealt in an ordinary council meeting! Strange that the same argument is not used for the Racecourse Special Committee. We also need to highlight that as a Special Committee, created under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, such committees are obliged to present both agendas and minutes of its meetings. To the best of our knowledge, no agenda or minutes have been presented from this committee for at least 3 years! So much for proper governance and adhering to the Local Government Act! Even better is that the CEO appointments Special Committee is yet to publish its minutes also dating back several months!

We further draw readers’ attention to the fact that in the Annual Report the Delegated Planning Committee is referred to as a ‘Special Committee’ (Page 81). It is NOT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE established under the Act. It is the creation of delegatory authority with no published agendas, minutes, or obligatory schedules. To term it a ‘Special Committee’ is deliberately misleading and mischievous. 

4. This sentence on advisory committees is also worthy of comment – “It is important, however, to ensure that decisions and priorities are set by those who have been elected ie Councillors.” What a nice way of saying that residents will not get a look in!

5.     There’s also the blanket statement that the CEO Contractual Arrangement Special Committee, the Animal Management advisory committee and the Racecourse advisory committee will all be abolished and that these functions will be ‘handled by Council’. Of course, since Penhalluriack is no longer there, the Contractual Committee doesn’t have to exclude anyone (at this point in time) and the Racecourse advisory committee which also included Penhalluriack can also disappear. Animal management of course hasn’t had a meeting for over a year and since it takes its order from the Rec department, it is also superfluous. Interestingly, the argument used for the Roads Committee (ie that matters are too ‘wieldy’ for ordinary council meetings) doesn’t appear to hold much water in these instances. The inconsistencies and spin are quite unbelievable.

Finally, we wish to point out a couple of other salient facts.

  • With the abolition of all these advisory committees, this council has the least number of advisory committees of any neighbouring council as far as we can tell.
  • Glen Eira has the least number of committees that include community reps in the metropolitan area
  • And what of the Pools Steering Committee? Not a word! Since GESAC is doing so brilliantly, it no longer needs ‘supervision’ we assume, even though it is costing ratepayers a fortune. All can now be left in the capable hands of the Audit Committee and administrators!

 

 

November 23, 2012

Committees: Stacking The Deck?

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

 

November 23, 2012

The Myth of 80/20 & Reporting Standards

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

Council resolutions and policy in Glen Eira are very flexible instruments depending on the individual issues they cover, and the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of these issues. Planning undoubtedly comes under the umbrella of ‘sensitive’. Hence, formal council resolutions, such as items from the Community/Council plan are repeatedly ignored, forgotten and distorted. The Community plan, repeated in the 2011/12 Annual Report under Strategic Planning, stated:

“Strategy: Ensure town planning controls and policies are as clear, concise, relevant and helpful as possible in deciding planning applications in a logical, repeatable and transparent manner.

Action: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas.

Measure: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly.”

Unless we are entirely deficient in our English Language Skills, ‘numbers’ does not mean PERCENTAGES, and ‘quarterly’ refers to the 4 times a year SERVICES REPORT. The last council meeting had the Services report (ending September 2012) as one of the items. Included in this report was the following:

“84% of dwellings approved for first quarter are in Housing Diversity Areas.”

That’s it! No numbers, no mention of Minimal Change statistics, and no real overview of what is happening in the municipality in terms of the success of failure of the 80/20 policy. We have to go to the Annual Report to glean some information on this vital question.

The Annual Report includes in very small font this statement for dwelling approvals– “Total for 2011–12 minimal change 345, housing diversity 830”. This means that the so called 80/20 division of Glen Eira is rapidly falling to bits since we do not believe that the majority of approvals in these areas would be the simple replacement of one dwelling for another single dwelling. Further, 345 approvals makes the ‘division’ of Glen Eira more like 60/40 instead of the touted 80/20. Amendment C25 claimed to “re-direct multi-unit housing into appropriate locations” and “within the minimal change areas, existing low intensity, low-rise character will be protected and enhanced.” It goes on to claim “For the majority of the City, single houses, extensions to existing houses and two dwelling developments are envisaged as the predominant types of dwellings. By limiting development to this level, existing neighbourhood character can be protected, while still promoting a range of housing through the City.” Is this really happening? How many developments in Minimal Change Areas are more than 2 units per block? How many protect ‘neighbourhood character’ given that there is no real mandatory Urban Design Framework in Glen Eira?

Again, we have to go back to the crucial questions of:

  • Where is the information that will reveal the true ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these objectives?
  • What’s the point of having Council Resolutions when these aren’t adhered to?
  • Why aren’t councillors insisting that their Resolutions are carried out to the letter?
  • Why are such vital statistics allowed to be buried, instead of highlighted?
  • How much longer will ‘transparency’ be merely a word, rather than the fundamental tenet underpinning all operations in Glen Eira?
 

November 20, 2012

“Unelect 2012”

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

This comment has come in which we repeat as a post in the public interest.

Delegation to the Minister:
On November 14 a delegation meet with the Minister for Local Government (your member Jeanette Powell) to discuss the plight of the ratepayers relative to inputs to local government.

The thrust of the discussion was to be about how ratepayers are disadvantaged when compared with Municipal Association of Victoria and Victorian Local Government Association and other high profile peak bodies.

Our intent was to solicit her help in how to get more ratepayer input into key documents like The local Government Act, and to stress the point that we are all volunteers competing against high profile organizations that have lots of $$$ from councils while we are significantly disadvantaged and without any professional staff and our voice is marginalized as a result.

After meeting with the minister, I felt like I had been blasted with the Ghostbuster Proton Pack and needed a shower.

Had I not taken my dog tranquilizers prior to the meeting I would have left Parliament house and laid on a tram track waiting for a tram to end my misery.

It was a humbling experience to visit with a minister who has no empathy at all for the plight of the ratepayer and was too busy spinning how great she was doing to actually listen.

However a snitch at Parliament House told us that the government fears inputs from an organized group who represents ratepayers as the changes to LGA1989 would have to be monumental.

So the State government, like our local government, marginalizes ratepayers and community groups.

Every time we tried to make a point she would say that our recourse was at the ballot box to vote in who we wanted and get rid of those not doing our bidding in local government.

It is obvious that she has little grasp of the real world in this instance and with this in mind it is more important than ever to address this issue.

So I am soliciting your support to use our power at the voting box and to make sure she is “unelected”.

Would appreciate any links to other ratepayer organizations I could contact.s.

If you would like a copy of the slide presentation that we wanted to make (sidelined, of course) I can provide it to you.

Cheers, Joe Lenzo; OAA, OADH, OASP:
Mornpenshire.elected2012
“demanding, nurturing, and realizing
transparency, accountability and democracy”
Mornpenshire.elected2012@gmail.com 0430.450.657

http://mornpenshireelected2012.net/

 

November 18, 2012

Governance: More Of The Same!

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

Poor governance has been the perennial issue at Glen Eira. It continues unabated. We’ve taken the time to compare the Community Plan as accepted by formal Council Resolution on June 26th   and what now appears as part of the formal Community Plan in the Quarterly Report (13th Nov minutes). The changes are alarming. Further, they have NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY FORMAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION and nor has there been any public statement, officers’ report, or open discussion about these alterations. We allege that these changes represent another failure of transparent and open government in Glen Eira. We are especially concerned about:

  • Changes in wording from the accepted Community Plan to what is now paraded in the current Community Plan
  • The removal of certain actions from the original plan
  • Resolutions relating to Amendments withdrawn without another full council resolution
  • Measures that are meaningless and do not address either the objectives or the stated measures

There are only two conclusions possible – either unelected bureaucrats made these decisions or, if councillors did have a say then they were made behind closed doors in secret. We find it appalling that unless the public are willing to analyse and compare documents word for word, then such changes remain unknown, hidden, and the public is continually being duped and kept ignorant. The only conclusion possible is that this tactic is deliberate. Important policy decisions are continually buried in the volumes of waffle rather than highlighted and commented upon. The result is the failure of good governance and open, transparent government.

In the June version of the accepted Community Plan there was this ‘action’ item: “investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan”. The ‘measure’ was stated to be – “Report provided to council”. This has now completely disappeared from the September version. We ask: who made this decision? When was it made? Where is the ‘report’ to council?

Next there is the subtle change in language. Another of the ‘action’ items from the June version states “Introduce a Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”. The measure is: “Local Law considered by council” The September version has altered this to read: ‘Local Law adopted by council”. Whilst not earth shattering in itself, the very fact that  terms can be changed without formal resolution is a concern. Again, who decided and when was the decision reached? Doesn’t this in fact pre-empt the entire process of community consultation on the Local Law?

We also need to highlight just one of the ludicrous ‘progress reports’ on vital aspects of planning which totally ignore both ‘actions’ and ‘measures’. Here is an example:

Measure – “Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.” The progress reports says: “DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 4 mediation meetings held to date”. We note that:

  • No report has gone to a formal council meeting
  • No logical connection between the ‘success’ of a video and ‘mediation’
  • No  statistics that reveal the success or failure of mediation, video, or anything

Also buried in the documentation is the withdrawal of Amendment C90 – ie the ‘Transition Zones Policy”. This came before council on the 30th August 2011. The resolution to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit the amendment was passed unanimously. Now over a year later we find out that “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”. Once more the question becomes: who decided upon this? When was it decided and why, oh why, did this not go to a formal Council Meeting? Even the language associated with this decision is conflicting and unclear. The Quarterly Report stated the the Amendment will be ‘withdrawn’. The Community Plan Report simply states this is ‘on hold’. Whichever is closer to the truth the fact remains that none of this has ever been highlighted, explained, or discussed in an open forum.

Since a year has now practically passed since the original council resolution we cannot believe that the matter wasn’t referred to the Minister for permission to exhibit. The Amendment has not been advertised as far as we know, nor has it been gazetted as granting permission. Thus we suspect that someone must have contacted the Minister and said ‘hold on’ – again without any formal announcement to the public, nor any formal council resolution.

It would appear that it’s business as usual with this Council – a clear case of the tail continuing to wag the dog! Residents would be well advised to ask their supposed representatives the following questions –

  • How well do councillors actually read officers’ reports?
  • Do any of them question the data/information that is provided?
  • If the above questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then why was nothing said about any of the points we have raised in this post?
  • Why do these councillors continue to allow what appears to be unelected officials to make crucial decisions on issues that dramatically impact on residents?
 

November 16, 2012

Shame! Shame! Shame!

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

This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.

Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.

Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity,  jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”

However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”

 
Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.

In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.

In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
 Community needs
 Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
 Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
 Government policy on open space contributions
 Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
 Access for all abilities
 Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
 Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
 Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
 and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.

Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
 providing opportunities for participants,
 conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
 exhibiting good governance
 respecting public facilities
 and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.

In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.

Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”

 

November 10, 2012

Consultation: The Truth Revealed!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[4] Comments 

We must congratulate council for finally placing a document in the public domain which clearly reveals the shortcomings of its processes and performance on community consultation, plus highlighting the entire mess that is Advisory Committees. The ‘evidence’ we are referring to comes in the form of the Community Consultation Advisory Committee Meeting ‘minutes’ from the current agenda items.

The opening paragraph reads: “The Committee noted the final printed version of the Glen Eira Community Plan. Committee members agreed that the final printed version was a high quality document and that its layout and design appropriately highlighted Council services and community needs”.

COMMENT: We find it strange that the phrase “final printed version” is repeated twice and that “high quality” would seem to largely pertain to “layout and design”. This sounds very much like the “awards” that council wins for its Annual Report. That is, nothing about CONTENT, but all about the bells and whistles of presentation. The Community Plan itself is therefore not endorsed as ‘high quality’ – merely its format, and overall look. Not exactly providing us with the full ring of confidence! We also remind readers that one of the community reps on this very committee felt compelled to put in her own submission on the community plan. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of “high quality” if a committee member comes up with ‘recommendations’ for improvement!

Then comes the real nitty gritty – the admission that not everything is perfect. Note this sentence – “The Committee suggested that the following improvements could be incorporated into future Council community planning processes”. The suggested ‘improvements’ are:

  • “Council to adopt a longer community planning process to provide more time for the development of the community plan”. Does this mean that the plan was rushed? That time given to integrate community feedback was insufficient and deficient?
  • “Ensure future plans articulate links between consultation outcomes and actions contained within plans”. Implied criticism perhaps that what residents had to say was basically ignored? That the action plan had no logical connection with community aspirations – that it was set in concrete from the beginning?
  • “Improve induction processes for community representatives joining Council Committees, specifically, indicating that decisions are made by consensus in the Committee and that the Committee is advisory only to Council.” A really fascinating sentence in that we have to ask: does this apply only to the Consultation Committee or all Advisory Committees? If, on the one hand it applies to all committees, then we are in the territory of hypocrisy, lack of due process, inconsistency, and plain old humbug. What does consensus mean? And why is this possibly only applied to the consultation committee? In the same agenda there are the minutes for the Arts & Culture Advisory Committee. Motions, including names of movers and seconders, plus whether the motion is carried is included for this committee as well as the Community Grants Committee. The Environment Committee, which also happens to have community reps DOES NOT include formal motions but ‘Recommendations”. The names of mover and seconder are provided (and they are invariably councillors), but no outcome as to voting is recorded. Instead, we have an item curiously labelled ‘action’. Our conclusion can only be that where committees have community representatives on them there is NO FORMAL MOTION AND VOTE RECORDED. Only those committees which consist exclusively of councillors and officers are afforded this right. Of course such committees are a closed shop so the formalities of a motion and vote are permitted What this highlights for us is the failure of this council and its councillors to ensure two basic democratic rights – community reps on all committees and more importantly, that community reps have full voting rights. It also makes a sham of the minutes themselves when we see no consistency between the reporting formats for each committee. The minutes can and have been doctored at will. There is absolutely no logical and valid reason why formal votes should be taken at some committees and not at others. Furthermore, it is incumbent that specific terms of reference are set for each committee (we have been unable to find such terms for the consultation committee) and that definitive processes are set down for the tabling of minutes. These are all matters that must be included in the Local Law meeting procedures.
  • We must concede that our favourite recommendation for improvement is: “Committee minutes to be distributed to all members of the Committee prior to adoption by Council.” In other words, it is pretty obvious that committee members did not get to see (and therefore) comment on the minutes before they appeared in council agendas! Officers were the arbiters of what appeared in these minutes not, we presume councillors, and most certainly not, community reps!

It now remains for things to be set right via the total amendment of the Local Law.

We repeat what we have previously stated. If these councillors are really interested in transparency and accountability and proper community consultation, then the following must happen:

  • All advisory committees to come under the umbrella of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law
  • All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit Committee) include community reps
  • All advisory committee minutes be consistent in reporting, format, and voting procedures
  • Community reps have voting rights on such committees

Without such changes community consultation will remain the sham it currently is and which has finally been conceded by these minutes. Over to you councillors!

 

November 4, 2012

Monty Python, Basil Fawlty, & Catch 22 All In One!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

The amended Local Government Act has now come into effect. In our humble view it is a mess, a piece of legislation that the Monty Python’s of this world would have a fine time in lampooning. We will highlight only one aspect of the new legislation.

In their infinite wisdom legislators have decided that a Probity Auditor is necessary to investigate THE PROCESSES involved in any complaints of bullying, sexual harassment against a CEO. Please note – the probity auditor will not investigate the actual complaint, just how it was handled. But it gets even worse! At the 11th hour legislators decided to introduce an amendment which gave the CEO the power to declare complaints as “vexatious and frivolous”. So what we have is the ludicrous situation where the person complained about can decide whether the complaint is bona fide or merely vexatious.

Given that some Labor members then raised the perfectly logical argument that this in effect would constitute a conflict of interest, Minister Guy and later Minister Powell argued that this could be overcome by the CEO delegating this function to one of his/her underlings!!! This should work a treat in Glen Eira no doubt.

For those who would appreciate a good laugh (or cry) we’ve uploaded the sections from HANSARD which deal with this issue. We have to seriously question where plain old common sense has disappeared and why bureaucrats are increasingly becoming a protected species thanks to both Liberal and Labor governments.

 

October 30, 2012

Cracking The Whip – Already!

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

Thursday night (8pm) will see the first meeting of this council. The agenda items make for interesting reading.

  • Council has generally left the frontispiece on its Agenda and Minute papers for Special Council Meetings blank apart from the date and logo. Not this time! There’s a nice little subliminal ‘message’ reading – “The primary object of a Council is to endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions.” – s3c(1) Local Government Act”.
  • Councillors, apart from signing the Oath of Office will also be “invited” to sign the Code of Conduct.
  • There are also 4 options in relation to the Mayoral election – 1. Vote for a 1 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 2. Vote for a 2 year term for Mayor and Deputy Mayor; 3. Defer till next Ordinary council meeting or (4) Defer until no later than 30th November.
  • There’s also a notice about Councillor Expenses policy and remuneration.

We’ve done a quick search to determine how other councils may be approaching the first meeting of the new councils. Whilst not too many agendas are up as yet on other councils’ websites, we have located the following – none of which make any mention of the election of Mayors, nor of the ‘offer’ to sign the Councillor Code of Conduct. Most councils appear to be taking the sensible option and allowing a couple of weeks for councillors to come together and work out who will nominate, and how they will each vote. (See: Port Phillip, Boroondara, as examples).

The outcomes of Thursday night’s meeting will reveal much about the new dynamics and the power structures within Council. Meanwhile, the administration is still up to its old tricks we feel.

 

October 25, 2012

Time For Change – NOW!

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

In less than 48 hours the electorate will be voting. The calls for change have been loud and clear from many candidates. We sincerely hope that the new council will signal the beginning of a new era  – one of respect for the community and processes of governance that are scrupulously fair, transparent and accountable. The acid test for all councillors will come in the first few months. Residents will then have the opportunity to gauge whether they have been sold empty promises or whether words will finally be matched with action.

We set out below what we believe must eventuate in order for real and lasting change to occur. These are not prioritised in any special order – apart from the first item regarding Meeting Procedures. We welcome your comments and any additions you might like to make to this list of ‘must do’s’.

THE LOCAL LAW AND MEETING PROCEDURES

The entire Local Law needs immediate and speedy amendment. It must include:

  • Notices of motion
  • Rescission provisions
  • Dissenting from Chair
  • Councillor questions without notice
  • Rights of reply without notice
  • Agendas to be set in consultation with Mayor and one other councillor
  • Advisory committees incorporated into meeting procedures with full agendas and minutes published
  • All advisory committees (apart from Audit) to have community representation and to be open to the public
  • Officer reports tabled at advisory committee meetings to be included in minutes of such meetings
  • Public questions at start of council meetings
  • Current ‘harassment’ provision removed from public question exclusion criteria
  • Residents provided with 20 minutes to ask verbal questions of individual councillor, officer, or Council without notice at each Council Meeting
  • Removal of Clause 326 (‘organised’ sporting groups)
  • Petitions to be submitted by ward councillors and vetted by ward councillors. Once accepted then obligatory that the petition is forwarded on to relevant department for further action and responded to within the next 2 ordinary council meetings.
  • Guidelines/policy created to limit the overuse of ‘confidentiality’ ( ie. secrecy)

DELEGATIONS

How and what authority is delegated to officers requires careful consideration. We suggest:

  • Councillor ‘call-in’ for all planning applications (ie. if one councillor decides that the decision should be made by council rather than officers, then this application will go to a full council meeting)
  • Planning applications to automatically go to council when 5 objections are submitted
  • Sporting allocations to be decided by Council resolution

PLANNING & MISCELLANEOUS

  • The development of structure plans for major activity centres
  • Creation of Parking Precinct Plans for all Housing Diversity Areas
  • Insistence on removal of training from Caulfield Racecourse in accordance with 2009 agreement
  • Revamping, with full consultation, Local Area Traffic Management Plans and adherence to those plans
  • Reworking of the Community Plan that fully incorporates and addresses resident concerns
  • Tendering decisions to be tabled at council and to include selection criteria, officers responsible, final grades for each tender
  • Website that includes capital works program including information on: progress, cost to council, grants from government, projected completion date and final completion date
  • Delegated planning committee reports to feature in every council meeting and to include ‘user satisfaction surveys’
  • Audio/video recordings of council meetings to be placed on the web, or available to residents upon request
  • Revamping of Audit Committee including advertising of external membership for all incumbents
  • No councillor to serve more than 2 consecutive years on Audit Committee
  • Councillors be provided with ‘portfolios’ as part of their responsibility
  • Councillors decision to have their email accounts treated as confidential to be strictly enforced
  • Officers to be named in all reports (ie authors, and who is ultimately responsible)
  • Immediate full review of the Planning Scheme and updating of all policy documents. This is to be done with intensive, full community consultation and the establishment of a resident/councillor/officer working party which will report fully and regularly to Council
  • Publication of grant applications – their success and/or failure
  • Regular ward meetings and/or the establishment of Village Committees. Council to respond promptly and fully to issues raised
  • No development which increases or intensifies dwellings per lot to be issued with residential parking permits anywhere in the municipality
  • Cost benefit analysis to accompany all Officer reports for major projects
  • Maximum open space levies for all developments in municipality
  • Revenue from above to be used to only acquire open space
  • All councillor Requests for Report to be tabled at ordinary Council Meetings

Councillor/Staff Code of Conduct

  • The Staff Code of Conduct be publicly available on website
  • Staff/councillor conflict to automatically go to mediation as first step
  • Removal of ‘gagging’ strictures in the Councillor Code of Conduct

This is a long list but essentially all these ‘reforms’ deal with governance and transparency. That has been the root cause of the ills which have plagued this council for over a decade. The final point we wish to make is that we also believe it is imperative that the CEO position be advertised and that ALL councillors be part of the selection process. What do you think?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »