GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 23, 2012

Headlines: For All The Wrong Reasons!

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

Why bother, asks former Glen Eira mayor

Date October 23, 2012

Melissa Fyfe

HELEN Whiteside considers herself a normal sort of person. She’s political, no doubt – a paid-up Liberal Party member. But her time as Glen Eira mayor left her so disillusioned she wonders why an average community member would bother running for council.

With council elections winding up this week, Mrs Whiteside is calling on residents to scrutinise candidates carefully. As for the troubled Glen Eira councillors – some of whom were sacked in 2005 and are standing for re-election – they all deserve to be thrown out, she says.

Glen Eira – which covers suburbs such as Caulfield, Bentleigh and Elsternwick – consistently outperforms other councils on community satisfaction.

But in the past four years the council has faced the Ombudsman’s scrutiny over 10 separate issues, one Ombudsman’s report revealing Councillor Frank Penhalluriack’s alleged bullying behaviour and failure to declare conflicts of interest, and a critical assessment from the local government watchdog, the third since 1998.

Mrs Whiteside, a popular mayor, resigned in 2010. The council suppressed her letter of resignation. She told The Age she resigned because she felt some councillors were not declaring conflicts of interest and were set against chief executive Andrew Newton, wasting at least $30,000 on extra legal advice during the renegotiation of his contract.

Now that every sitting councillor except one is standing for re-election, the former mayor says residents should think carefully. ”Integrity is fundamental to being a councillor,” she says. ”Transparency, accountability and being objective. I believe councillors should make decisions for the long-term best interests of the entire community.

And her former colleagues? ”I don’t think they should be re-elected,” she says.

Mrs Whiteside said she was particularly disturbed about the 2010 decision to relinquish public open space to the Chabad House synagogue extension at 441-496 Inkerman Street, St Kilda East. She alleged Cr Michael Lipshutz had a conflict of interest because of an association with the synagogue’s benefactor, Jewish community leader Joseph Gutnick.

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside’s revival of this matter was ”anti-Semitism of the worst kind. She is saying that because I am Jewish I am not fair-minded … I have no association with (Mr Gutnick) whatsoever,” he said. (Greens Cr Neil Pilling also voted to hand over the park.)

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside was a ”failed councillor and a hopeless mayor who divided the council”.

Since the last election in 2008, councillors have had several brushes with the state’s integrity agencies and the court system. This year chief executive Mr Newton filed a bullying claim against Cr Penhalluriack. The hardware store owner refused anti-bullying training and is fighting councillor misconduct allegations at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

In a 2010 investigation, Chief Municipal Inspector David Wolf found insufficient evidence to prosecute any councillor, but uncovered councillor behaviour ”at odds” with the council’s objectives and ”underlying issues with regard to transparency and accountability”.

When drafting the chief executive’s contract in 2010, councillors inserted a clause requesting he notify them of any inquiries from the state’s integrity agencies. Mr Wolf found the illegal clause existed in an early draft, but no one owned up to putting it there. ”Despite all the talks and presentations the councillors get on governance, it is still not getting through,” a council source told The Age.

The Glen Eira city council elections are this Saturday.

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

First frisbees, now fitness

23 Oct 12 @ 12:01am by Donna Carton

KILLJOY bureaucrats who pulled the plug on a weekly frisbee game have now told a teen fitness group they can’t play tag in the local park.

Not-for-profit group Humans Vs Zombies was told their tag games were “unsuitable” for Virginia Park Bentleigh.

They had requested permission to take about 30 kids there for a game in which “humans” chase “zombies” with foam dart blasters. o

Humans Vs Zombies Victoria secretary Anthony Osborne said the group’s objective was to get young people “outside, exercising and interacting socially, rather than home behind a computer.”

“We are looking to partner with councils’ youth services and park management as well as grant and funding bodies,” Mr Osborne said.

“We are also looking for parks.”

Some councils have been positive but Glen Eira and Manningham have refused.

Glen Eira council is still reeling from the negative publicity it received after a group of young frisbee players said they were told they needed a permit to play in Caulfield Park.

Councillors have now vowed to review the local law concerning park permits and clarify the definition of “organised sport.”

Council public relations chief Paul Burke told the Leader the council hadn’t recieved Humans vs Zombies’ request – nor any applications “from Clingons, Romulans, Daleks or Goths.”

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

Council is where the sun should shine

2012PRINT EDITION: 23 Oct 2012

Mathew Dunckley

I love a good local council story.

There is something about the grand council chamber which suspends usual standards and leads to pitched battles over potholes.

The gravity of municipal level matters has a certain charm. A personal favourite was the Melbourne municipality that banned cricket teams from hitting sixes. Another Melbourne council threatened to use DNA tracing on dog poo on the beach to find offenders. The publicity seems to have been a deterrent. But the whiff of small-time CSI speaks volumes about local concerns.

Then there are the numerous dust-ups and petty personal political intrigues that have always filled local papers. Perhaps this is why people regard councils as sometimes annoying, sometimes amusing, and, often, irrelevant.

They shouldn’t be regarded this way. In the post-Kennett amalgamation era, Victorian councils are serious entities managing large amounts of public money. In total the 79 councils manage $55 billion worth of assets and spend close to $5 billion a year. They are worthy of scrutiny.

Right now, Victoria is enjoying its four-yearly council campaign carnival, complete with the sight of John Elliott running in the Melbourne lord mayoralty race.

All up more than 2000 hopefuls have put their hats in the ring to contest seats on Victorian councils.

Reporting on councils often falls to local papers.

As a young (or should that be younger) journalist at Leader Newspapers, I had the pleasure of covering Glen Eira Council in Melbourne’s south-east.

Every suburban journalist covers council, but not everyone gets Glen Eira. Councillors were at each others throats (sometimes literally), the chief executive was at war with the councillors, and there was a myriad more misdeeds and mischief.

The council was managing an annual budget of about $100 million a year, but after months of chaos, it was investigated and sacked.

Chalk one up to the local paper, eh? But it was not that simple. As part of the investigation I was required to front municipal inspectors, swear an oath and answer questions. The penalties for refusing to appear, to swear the oath or to answer the questions were thousands of dollars in fines or prison. There is nothing small-time about those powers. The inspectors wanted me to identify sources. I refused, citing my code of ethics. After some scoffing remarks about journalistic ethics, the inspectors made it clear they did not accept my reasons and recommended to the minister that further action be considered against me.

I happened upon that minister at a Christmas party later that year. I offered to do dishes or mow lawns to stay out of the clink. She indicated she did not think putting journalists in prison was a good idea. Lucky me.

Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu’s so-called shield laws should have fixed this problem.

Such laws, taking shape around the country, give journalists a legal right to refuse to divulge their sources. But Baillieu’s pledge went only as far as court cases and he has refused to go any further.

That means Victoria has carved out protection for journalists when dealing with a number of public institutions including council inspectors. Victoria argues it is following other states’ example, but I can’t understand why you would craft shield laws and consciously leave out local government.

Councillors and council workers who leak to journalists almost always commit a breach of the Local Government Act. They risk career-ending prosecutions, fines and even jail for talking to journalists. They warrant protection. Yet, somehow, the right of journalists to protect sources when covering local government is ranked as less important than those covering other levels of government, or crime.

Local government decisions directly affect everyday lives. And as every corruption commission in the country (Victoria’s is not yet established) will tell you, councils are fertile ground for misdeeds.

Inhibiting the ability of local press to cover councils is poor policy.

Baillieu’s attempt to improve the system looks almost as worthy of ridicule as the genetic profiling of dog turds, and equally unable to be polished.

Source: http://afr.com/p/opinion/council_is_where_the_sun_should_vtYMZ9f1triCf9riXuj6KL

October 16, 2012

Censorship, Mistruths, and Spin: The Hallmarks of Glen Eira Council

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

Magee was taken ill just before the start of the council meeting and hence was an ‘apology’. We wish him a speedy recovery.

LIPSHUTZ – moved that the minutes of the Local Laws committee be deferred until next council meeting. Pilling seconded. Reason was the the minutes in the agenda weren’t ‘as full as they should be’ and that they didn’t reflect what occured, so more ‘fulsome’ minutes are required. Did say that the committee has been looking at Local Law 326 (organised sport). Said that there had been plenty of press coverage on the frisbee story and that they’d been told that kids had ‘been fined’. That then became a ‘story not that they were fined but that they would have to get an allocation’. Said he asked officers what happened and they told him that a complaint had been made that about ’30 or 40′ people were playing with ‘football boots’ across cricket pitches. A ranger investigated and found that this wasn’t true – there wasn’t any football boots and nothing about cricket pitches. In the end ‘Yoav Silverstein contacted Council’ to ask about an allocation. ‘He was told that a one off allocation cost $120 or a 6 month allocation cost $300’. Said that this is the same for eveyrone if they wanted a barbecue. Said that the ‘whole purpose’ of allocations was to provide ‘certainty’ and paying ‘means they have priority’ but it ‘doesn’t mean’ that if kids want to play frisbee they need an allocation. Claimed that there had been a ‘total blowup by the press’. Said that the ‘truth is that no-one was warned off…..welcome to play….no fine….. Went on to say that the law should be reviewed and the reason it hasn’t been dealt with as yet is because ‘our corporate counsel has been involved idn other matters’ such as the VCAT ‘which has kept her quite busy’. In the next council the ‘whole local law will be reviewed’ which is ‘far better’ than doing it piecemeal and so ‘do the whole local law as one’. assured everyone that no permit is required if they want to play ‘catchy’, football. ‘but if you are an organised sport’ then you do need a permit. Went on to say that council has ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’ and in this instance the law has been ‘enforced reasonably’ and ‘no-one has been fined’.

PENHALLURIACK – said he was pleased that no one was fined. Said that this issue with the local law 326 had been going on for quite a whiile. Said that Mr Varvodic was fined and then the fine withdrawn and they organised a permit. The definition of ‘organised’ has been something that he’s tried to get the Local Law Committee to look at for a long time and clarify because ‘it’s fine for Cr Lipshutz to say reasonable laws reasonably enforced but sometimes the law is not reasonable’ . Said a law is only ‘reasonable’ when it can be understood by the public. this law can’t be easily interpreted. Said he doesn’t know what ‘organised’ means any more than Lipshutz does. Said he was pleased that the ‘ex-chairman (Lipshutz)’ of the Local Laws Committee was ‘now going to be working on it’ because ‘it is long overdue’.

HYAMS – when the Local Laws Committee gets together in the new council he hoped that ‘they would get around to looking at the Alcohol free area’ in Bentleigh as ‘has been agreed they should’.

TANG: said that the meeting discussed the Tree register and there was discussion about how the laws could be enforced and there were ‘sub-issues’ that should be ‘captured in any subsequent minutes’. Admitted that the issue of organised sport has been around from even before he was on council – schleppers football team – but they were more ‘frequent’. Didn’t think this was about one individual but how to interpret what ‘organised sport’ means. Problems not about the law but ‘how you interpret it’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it was a ‘definitional problem’ and that the Local Laws Committee ‘would deal with that’. Said that he didn’t believe it was ‘coincidence’ that the issue has come up ‘two weeks’ before the election in order to ’embarrass council’ and that the reports in the media are ‘totally wrong’ and that journalists should have made ‘proper enquiry’ when the ‘allegation is simply not true’.

Public questions

At least 15 questions that we know of were declared invalid on the excuse of the electoral act and hence were not read out, much less answered. This is reprehensible since none of the questions had anything to do with ‘electoral matters’ – in short, it was another instance of avoiding accountability and responding to residents’ concerns. Even those questions which were responded to, failed to answer the question asked, or basically indulged in semantics and dissembling.

Question 1: asked if Council’s submission on the Planned Zoning Reforms would be made public. The answer stated that the ‘submission’ was already available on council’s website. Untrue and incorrect. What is available on council’s website is not the actual submission, but the Akehurst ‘report’ which was tabled at council on the 4^th September 2012! The public has not seen what went in to the department! So much for transparency and answering public questions honestly!

Question 3 – asked for the results of the ‘monitoring’ of Frisbee games in Caulfield Park. The response said that there’s a “regular gathering’ in Caulfield Park by people playing ‘what appears to be’ Frisbee!

Question 4 – asked about the traffic management plans for major events at Caulfield Racecourse saying that for the past 3 events this had been substandard – either they notices went out too late, or they were incorrect. Wanted to know what Council had done about this. The response went into the need for traffic management plans to be provided and that in September Council had received from the MRC the plan for the spring racing carnival. It said that residents would be notified ‘at least 2 weeks’ prior to the events. The MRC provided notice after the 2 week deadline so that they ‘didn’t meet’ the requirements and ‘council will be drawing this to the attention of the MRC’. Big deal we say! The second part of the question remains unanswered, and as with the Camping and Caravan show, council has done nothing but a little tap on the wrist!

At this point Penhalluriack rose and said that he notified Hyams about the situation on Saturday morning – and wanted to ask Burke if any officer had gone out to ‘look at the barriers’. Also said that ‘this seems to be a consistent complaint’ from residents living in the area.

Hyams then said that this wasn’t the time to ask officers questions because that should have been done at Item 11.3 of the agenda!

Penhalluriack then said that he hadn’t ‘had the time to formalise my own response’ to the public question and that he was commenting on the answer that had been given. Since he told Hyams about this on Saturday morning he’d ‘like to think that council went out and did something about it’ because the barriers ‘were in the wrong place’ and the ‘wrong times’

Question 5 – asked about the now out of date Road Safety Strategy and why even the old one isn’t on the website and when the latest one will be prepared. The response was that the 2007-2012 strategy ‘was at an end’ and that a new one was ‘being developed’ and that when the new one is adopted it will be up on the website. Terrific! We didn’t know that ‘strategies’ disappear into the ether!

Question 6 asked about ‘advocacy’ for rail separation and whether council would table the documents related to its ‘advocacy’. The response was merely a listing of ‘submissions’ to various departments, and meetings attended by officers and councillors. Residents are obviously not going to get a look at these ‘submissions’, nor reports back from most of these meetings!

BURKE THEN STATED THAT ‘A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ‘HAVE BEEN RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE CHAIR AS THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL’S CARETAKER POLICY’ REGARDING ‘ELECTORAL MATTERS’!!!!! CENSORSHIP REIGNS SUPREME ONCE AGAIN!

PS: we’ve just broken another record – 1,335 hits for the day!

October 5, 2012

The ‘Indoctrination’ Begins!

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

Each candidate has received a personal letter from Andrew Newton informing them of the legal requirements if they are successful in becoming a councillor – ie. return of register of interests, etc. More importantly it contains a proposed schedule and the outline of an ‘induction’ program. We are of the opinion that this document also lays out the blueprint for stamping the administration’s authority and control on councillors.

Below is the proposed timeline. Important sections are highlighted. We draw readers’ attention to the following:

The ‘invitation’ to sign the CURRENT councillors’ Code of Conduct on day one! There is no requirement in the Act for councillors to sign any such document! By signing councillors bind themselves prior to any discussion and possible amendment. Councillors also have three months to sign any Oath of Office. The legislation also requires that the Code of Conduct be ‘reviewed’ within one year of an election. Bayside starts its ‘review’ in February!
The only ‘induction’ that councillors receive prior to the first Ordinary Council Meeting is a ‘folder’, part of one Assembly of Councillors, and then a nearly 3 hour ‘presentation’ on the Local Government Act from Maddocks. Then it’s off to make decisions! We imagine that at this first council meeting many important items will appear on the agenda for decision by a potential bunch of neophytes.
Then we have the almost primary school flavour of the ‘kiddy tour’ (with sandwiches). Gesac, Duncan McKinnon, Caulfield Pavilion, are sure to feature prominently! Still no real ‘discussion’ or oversight of such things as community plan, council plan, local law, etc. Once again, Bayside conducts their ‘grand tour’ on the 16^th March.
Only on the 17^th November, AFTER THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING, is there an extended ‘induction’ period of 6 hours. Too late we cry!

For comparison we’ve also uploaded the full Bayside Program. Whilst we remain dubious as to the purpose of the little ‘one on one chats’ with individual councillors, we also note the specific reference to COUNCILLOR ONLY MEETINGS THAT ARE SCHEDULED in their program. The other point of course is the fact that Bayside sees no problems in publishing such material unlike Glen Eira.

Here is the Glen Eira ‘program’ –

September 28, 2012

How’s This For Transparency?

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

Below is one page from the Manningham City Council Draft Annual Report itemising the specific salaries for their Directors. As we’ve noted in the past, Glen Eira has 5 Directors each sitting on over $230,000 as per last year’s figures. We invite readers to note the differences in pay scales and also to ask why Glen Eira residents who pay these salaries are not privy to the same detailed information that is evident from the chart presented below.

September 27, 2012

Lest We Forget! Sorry, We Don’t!

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

Carrying out Council resolutions in a timely fashion is obviously not high on Glen Eira Council’s priority list. Dissembling, distortions, and straight out fibbing characterise much of what has been going on – especially in regard to public questions and their deliberately deceptive answers! The latest outrage involves the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone in Centre Road, Bentleigh.

The following public question was asked on Monday night –

“Why has Bentleigh’s shopping strip not received the same attention as Caulfield Race Days in establishing an Alcohol Free Zone and when is Council due to consider such controls around Bentleigh’s Centre Road?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“It would be unfortunate for the reputation of the Bentleigh Shopping Centre if people were to infer that the shopping centre suffers the same extent of problems with alcohol affected persons that the area around the Caulfield Racecourse suffers on the twenty or so race days per year that are held there. There is no comparison between the two sites. Council’s Local Law Advisory Committee is looking at the matter following it being raised by the former President of the Bentleigh Traders Association.”

We’ve done a bit of checking and find that at the Council Meeting of 12^th October 2010, the following resolution was passed –

“Crs Hyams/Magee

‘As moved, except that in relation to Item M of the Minutes of the Local Laws Advisory Committee meeting that the Local Laws Advisory Committee drafts an amendment to the Local Law to provide for the provision of an alcohol free zone in the Centre Road Bentleigh shopping strip. The amendment is to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages in the shopping centre apart from within areas owned or controlled by licensed premises and is to be enforceable by the Police

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED.”

This amendment was the result of a Local Laws Advisory Committee Meeting of the 13^th September 2010 which included the following: “Alcohol Free Zones: Discussed issue associated with declaring and enforcing such zones. Determined police should be requested to utilise their move-on powers”.

Glen Eira Debates at the time reported on the ‘debate’ for the amendment. We then wrote: “Hyams moved an amendment to the Local Law Review committee’s recommendations that Centre Rd be considered for potential naming as an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’. This was opposed by Lipshutz with the argument that we don’t need it; that the police don’t want more work, they will do nothing to enforce it and hence the job will fall on the already overworked council officers. The amendment was eventually passed with the acknowledgement that council isn’t committing itself to anything but that by putting it on the agenda for future discussions all options are left open. (October 13^th, 2010)

COMMENT:

What’s the point of passing resolutions if they are never carried out? There is no equivocation in this resolution. The ‘order’ was to prepare an Amendment. This has never come to Council!
How can Hyams now read and thereby endorse this response to Monday night’s public question when he in fact moved the Amendment 2 years ago?
Why has the Local Laws committee been so derelict in both the frequency of meetings, and more importantly, providing minutes for (all) of those meetings?
Why should discussion on a public safety issue be allowed to drag on for over 2 years?
It couldn’t simply be could it, that this administration is opposed to introducing an Alcohol Ban and therefore certain councillors once again fall meekly into line?

September 26, 2012

Desperate Despots?

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

From Monday night’s Council Meeting.

QUESTIONS TO OFFICERS

PENHALLURIACK: “I ask Mr Burke when allocations are likely to be made for the Koornang Park oval for the 2013 football season, and similarly for the main oval at Princes Park. Further, are the Caulfield Bears F.C. and the Ajax Seniors F.C. being considered for ground allocations at these grounds for the 2013 season? Finally will councillors be advised of the details of your considerations well in advance of the allocations being made, and given an opportunity to contribute from their local knowledge and experience in these matters before your decision is confirmed to the successful clubs.”

BURKE: Read out a prepared answer. He began by saying that 3 weeks ago there was a report to council about ground allocations for winter and that this involved over 200 teams and that ‘allocations need to be managed as a whole’ and that because of ground conditions ‘this may involve changes for a season’ and sometimes with ‘short notice….summer season is just getting underway’ and the winter allocations will be looked at in ‘late February 2013’. So, winter allocations ‘aren’t being considered at this time’ then ‘it follows’ that these clubs that Penhalluriack mentioned are also not being considered now. Allocations are ‘managed by the Recreation Department’ and ‘councillors have been advised on several occasions’ that the system used in Glen Eira is followed by other councils. He then went on and said that the Local Government Act ‘prohibits councillors’ from directing officers in carrying out their duties but that ‘there are no prohibitions on councillors commenting on’ anything and that ‘such comments will be welcomed’.

PENHALLURIACK: began with ‘the greatest respect to Mr Burke, he didn’t answer the question’ since he had asked for dates and that Burke had ‘skirted around the issues’ and included ‘generalities’ and that ‘he has not answered the question’.

HYAMS: said that Burke did say that allocations would be done in late February.

BURKE: ‘For the record I object to the term ‘skirting around’.

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 4^th

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 27^th 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

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates