GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 25, 2012

The Dog’sTail Keeps Growing!

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

The fun and games began with several of the first items on last night’s agenda – a petition, committee minutes, records of assembly minutes, and the motions to accept them. This is what happened.

The petition was from a group of traders who queried why unnecessary footpath works were taking place outside their shops. They highlighted the impact this had on their businesses in these hard financial times as well as the fact that there had been no warning, no consultation, and no justification for the necessity of these works. We conclude: another perfect example of this council’s failure to consider, much less consult with residents prior to spending their money on arguable needless works! We also note that the names of the traders weren’t mentioned!

Pilling moved that the minutes of the Community Consultation committee and the Arts & Culture committee be adopted but that the minutes of the Environment Committee  be ‘deferred until next Council Meeting’. Esakoff seconded. Pilling’s argument for deferring one set of minutes was that the last Environment Committee meeting was ‘long’ and ‘a lot of issues’ were discussed. He stated that draft minutes had been circulated but 2 members were overseas and there was some ‘conjecture’ and that it was important to get ‘some different views’ on ‘what was recorded’. He therefore wanted to defer until everyone was back. Esakoff then reported on the other two committees. Motion was passed unanimously.

Next item was the Records of Assembly. Penhalluriack requested that one record be ‘treated separately’. The motion was then put by Magee that this occur. Penhalluriack then spoke about the minutes of 19th June and the references to himself in these minutes. He moved that the records be accepted except for the part which stated: “Cr Penhalluriack – raised a matter of rumours being circulated saying that he is costing the Council a lot of money by fighting the Ombudsman and Council. In relation to the recent media coverage aboutjk an illegal rooming house operating from a property he owns, Cr Penhalluriack said that backpackers were using the property and that he did not know who they were.” Penhalluriack wanted to amend this so that it read that he did raised the issue of rumours. He had ‘received an email from journalists’ and that he had said that ‘these rumours are malicious’…..’one councillor in particular had affected his reputation’….’backpackers had left a mess’….’he was not costing Council anything….as Council was taking action against him’…’it is tough being Cr Penhalluriack in this council’…..’Mayor reminded council’ that there’s independent ‘legal advice’. Forge seconded.

Penhalluriack then went on to speak to the amendment. He said that the original draft minutes had been ‘discussed around the table’ at the Assembly and the ‘majority said that should remain as is’….’for some reason….the minutes were changed’ and that’s why he was moving this motion.

PILLING then spoke against and said that he’s got a ‘bit of an issue’ with what Penhalluriack wants to put in the minutes.  He said that council wants ‘clarity’ in minutes and what Penhalluriack wants to put in represents a ‘discussion’ and not just ‘items’. It’s important to be ‘consistent’ …’irrespective of personalities’…’and conjecture’….(Penhalluriack is) ‘setting a precedent here and treating this issue in a different way to other issues’ so he’s voting against it.

MAGEE:  stated that he couldn’t see anything wrong with ‘having more detail’…..’takes anything away from the report’….’makes it clearer for people to understand’. Conceded that there is a ‘system where we’re consistent’….’but when a councillor decides that he wants more information’….’I would certainly find it difficult to vote against that’ since it’s really about the ‘transparency of the minutes’. More detail helps people who are reading it. ‘I do understand that over the years we do have a protocol…..is important to be consistent…..(overall being individuals that Council) ‘has to accommodate those issues’.

HYAMS: agreed with Pilling that ‘if we start putting in verbatim speeches by councillors’ that means that any councillor who thinks he’s got ‘anything good or popular to say’ that the argument would then be that this should go into the minutes. Referred to the Act that only demanded topics and conflict of interest disclosures so ‘we already go far above what’s required’ and therefore should ‘keep it to our usual practice’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he supports ‘minimalistic reporting’….’but unfortunately the author of these minutes does not’. Said that the records of assemblies for ‘week after week after week’ there is ‘Cr Penhalluriack verbatim’. Magee then raised a point of order that since Burke was absent it wasn’t fair what Penhalluriack was saying because the individual wasn’t present to defend himself. Hyams than warned Penhalluriack to ‘try and not say anything that might need to be defended’. Penhalluriack said he handed named anyone and that ‘the minutes as written’ have been ‘inconsistent’. He then referred to the immediate item above the one he read out which simply said ‘Cr Lipshutz –….. Statue’….’that means almost nothing to anybody’ (referred to a statue by Boyd that was in the front garden of council has now been removed and put outside GESAC) ‘Unless you have that information….that means nothing’…’what I’ve quoted to the meeting was in the original set of minutes….and let’s not forget he who writes the minutes writes history’…..’Ive been asking for a long time…whether we follow the Local Government Department’s recommendations (on minutes) or go along the path we’ve been going along for quite some time’.

Hyams put the motion to the vote. For – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge. Against Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling, Lobo. Motion defeated.

COMMENTS: Pilling’s inconsistency, if not straight out hypocrisy is quite unbelievable here. His argument for deferring the Environment Committee Meeting minutes was that it was a long meeting, many issues discussed and that people were overseas – so presumeably everyone should have a right to voice their opinion on the final set of minutes. According to Penhalluriack, the majority of councillors agreed to the draft version of the minutes, yet these were changed presumeably by Burke. How then can Pilling argue on the one hand that there should be consensus about minutes and then within a few nano-seconds basically disown this very same argument when it comes to Penhalluriack?

Interestingly, we have commented previously on how many of these Records Assembly feature (in far greater detail than for anyone else) every single utterance by Penhalluriack. We also commented at the time that we find it impossible to believe that Lipshutz sits there quietly without ever opening his mouth – judging by the number of times he is named in these minutes.

In the end, this entire episode is distasteful and further proof of the manipulations and how desperately there must be a complete overhaul of the way that minutes are drafted, presented, and doctored by this council. There simply is no consistency across any committee meetings or assemblies. Truth, transparency and governance are the inevitable victims in such shameful practices.

 

 

July 24, 2012

Academy Awards All Round!

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

Residents have nothing to fear. That is, if we want to elect actors, spin doctors and install administrators who cannot answer questions directly and instead rely on semantics and deliberately misleading statements – then look no further. The vast majority of the current crop of councillors and those officers who pen the responses to questions fit that bill to a tee! Or as Cr. Lipshutz has stated- all must belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda – say something often enough and even they may blissfully come to believe their own nonsense.

Tonight’s council meeting proved once and for all how orchestrated, rehearsed and unethical this entire council is. In what turned out to be a major talk fest of bubble and squeak, two important things were revealed:

  • Council’s legal advice in pursuing Penhalluriack now totals $147,000 PLUS another $120,000+ from early on. This will be paid by ratepayers and not council’s insurance company. We remind readers that the bill will escalate even further when the VCAT hearing gets underway in the second week of August. Certainly a very hefty price to pay in the attempt to silence one councillor!
  • The Ajax footy team will have their 1st September Anniversary celebration, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will now go to the bottom of the allocations listing. You simply can’t screw Burke and hope to get away with it unscathed in Glen Eira.

We will report on all this (and more) in detail in the days ahead. The performances overall were truly outstanding and gain our unqualified support for Academy awards.

 

July 22, 2012

Between A Rock & A Hard Place

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

In allowing officers to exercise full control over sensitive and community oriented issues such as sporting ground allocations, councillors have now found themselves literally between a rock and a hard place – do they support the community or the questionable decision making capacity of officers under delegation? First there was, and continues to be, the farce of the GESAC basketball allocations which resulted in ratepayer funds being wasted on legal advice upon legal advice, and the issue dragging on for 6 months or so. Now we have another instance of dictatorial decision making by the Sports Department (Linda Smith and her master Paul Burke) in their refusal to allow the Ajax footy club to hold a community event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the junior footy club on September 1st.

The outcome is a lengthy so called ‘report’ appearing in this week’s agenda. Once again, it  does not bear any officer’s name and basically seeks to justify the decision to deny Ajax the opportunity to celebrate this anniversary via dissembling, half truths and selective publication of correspondence. We’ve uploaded the report for all to read.

A few salient points need to be made regarding this ‘report’.

  • Much is made of seasonal allocation to sporting clubs and the need to submit an expression of interest each year for ground allocations. We question the mentality and efficacy of such a system. Surely all sporting clubs need more than a year’s notice to ensure the growth of their clubs and to facilitate proper planning? Contracts are surely written with caveats that would allow the suspension of leases because of anti-social behaviour so this shouldn’t be an issue?
  • Allegations were made at last council meeting that grounds are not for sale to the ‘highest bidder’. Ajax is now accused of entering into a private arrangement with the Caulfield Bears for a ground swap and a financial ‘incentive’ to improve the pavilion facilities. The report states that this disadvantages other clubs and that all pavilion redevelopments are funded by Council. Funnily enough, Council did not seem to have any problems in accepting close to $1,000,000 from Maccabi in order to allow this group to build the Leo Haskin Tennis Pavilion and associated courts. In fact, Maccabi proudly writes –

“Maccabi Victoria Sports Foundation oversaw the fundraising, planning and construction of the Leon Haskin Tennis Centre which opened in February 2008. This state-of-the-art home for the Maccabi Tennis Club features eight Plexicushion courts, a Pavilion and Club Room, providing a fantastic venue which will be a magnet for Jewish tennis players, and will serve the wider Maccabi community and the local community for many years.”

http://www.maccabi.com.au/VIC/Page/259/Sports-and-Social-Facilities.cfm

  • The report also goes to great lengths to drag up ancient history on the Caulfield Bears – going as far back as 1999. Apart from being totally irrelevant to what is happening today with this club, and the issue of a community event for one, single day, we just have to wonder: if the club has really been as bad as all this, then why has their tenancy been renewed year after year? Why haven’t they simply been chucked out?

There’s much more that could be said about this report. At the heart of this issue is the question of control. What stands out clearly is that the biggest crime committed by Ajax and the Caulfield Bears is the fact that they got together and worked out a mutually beneficial agreement to the exclusion of the power brokers. God forbid that clubs should be talking to each other and actually sidelining the bureaucrats. That is the ultimate threat to their power base.

We end with this letter received from Ajax which logically and sensibly reveals how slanted and totally irrelevant the officer’s report really is. Councillors, through their temerity and continued blind support of officers, show again and again how they fail to represent their constituents.

“Dear Councillors,

I have read the report supplied by the Council Officers in response to a previous request from an earlier Council Meeting.

Council at its last meeting was considering the reasons for rejection of the request for a Community Day-and the fact that those reasons were not relevant to the actual request for a one day use/hire of a public facility.(Paul Burke’s letter of 27/6/2012)

The Council then requested a report on:

1. The activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

I wish to make the following comments , so that you all have the opportunity to consider both sides, before you make an informed decision whether to allow the AJAX Football Club’s request or reject it.

I will restrict my comments to the only relevant matter- Ajax Football Club’s request to hold a Community Day,at Princes Park, including 2 games of VAFA senior AJAX football to celebrate the 40 years of the existence of the AJAX jnr Football Club, which is a tenant at that facility.

The Officers’ report begins with comments about the facilities at Princes Park-and elsewhere.ie the general aspects of open public space within the Glen Eira Municipality.

We agree that the upgrade of facilities at Princes Park are fantastic, and were done to allow football to be played there.

The Council’s own web site encourages the use and hiring by the public and sporting clubs, of Council-owned Public open spaces and parks-including Princes Park.

Local Parks

No matter what your age, our parks and reserves have something for everyone.

There are plenty of reasons to be out in one of the 67 parks in the municipality — from wide open spaces to shady hollows and playgrounds of all shapes and sizes to attract the young to barbecues that provide a meeting point for families and walking tracks for the more energetic.

Enjoy the flowers, marvel over the exotic trees, relax in a delightful rotunda or simply enjoy the fresh air.

With so much on offer, the recreation opportunities in Glen Eira are almost limitless. Take a look at these great parks and reserves.

The fact that the applicant is a tenant at Albert Park is irrelevant to the request to use/hire Princes Park for one day.Glen Eira Council allow anyone to hire public facilities. (our emphases)

The report then refers to an Agreement between Caulfield Bears and AJAX and then spends several pages on Caulfield Bears/Koornang Park/liquor licences etc etc

There is a financial agreement between two football clubs  One is the Ajax Senior Football Club Inc (“Ajax Seniors”). It has ground allocations at Albert Park, owned by the State Government, and located within the municipality of Port Phillip ……………………………

The agreement would appear to constitute a contingent liability on the part of one club and a contingent asset on the part of the other club and would need to be reflected in the clubs’ financial statements from the time that the agreement came into effect.

There are several other comments made in the report about the Agreement.But Council Officers have not seen the Agreement and it has nothing to do with the request to have a Community Day on 1/9/2012.There is no “contingent asset nor liability” and it is in fact totally irrelevant to the issue currently at hand for Councillors consideration and determination. (our emphases)

The Officers make many implications and assertions that are wrong and irrelevant about the Agreement.The Officers admit they have never seen the said Agreement.So it is wrong for Officers to make comments about an Agreement that :

1-they have not seen

2-that is irrelevant to the request for senior footy to be played on 1/9/2012.

It is critical that Council only considers the relevant matters as regards to 1/9/2012 and a Community Day with senior footy on Princes Park-on one day.Nothing else is at all relevant.Any Agreement between 3rd parties that do not concern Council I believe should not be raised at all nor considered.The officers’ report finally correctly states that the Agreement has no effect on Council processes and decisions.So why is it raised at all? (our emphases)

Princes Park is owned and controlled by Glen Eira Council for the general public.This Community Day request is not about seasonal ground allocations-this request is to have a one day community event to celebrate the 40 year anniversary of the AJAX junior football club, which is in fact a tenant of the Glen Eira Council at Princes Park.The AJAX junior players would have the best possible opportunity to see their senior teams play competitive footy at their own “home” ground on a Saturday, and they could aspire to play for that same club in future years.It is policy of Council to support and encourage junior and senior teams where possible to play from same ground to encourage that pathway.

The report rightly concludes:

5. Recommendations

That Council note that a financial agreement between a Glen Eira based club and a non-Glen Eira based club has not had any effect on Council’s systems of allocation of grounds or improvements to pavilions

So the Agreement does not effect Council’s allocations, systems and decisions.So the Agreement should be totally ignored.

In fact the report clearly does not set out ANY…..

……. activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

There are no activities nor functions displaced by the AJAX Football Club Community day on 1/9/2012 at Princes Park.The Council officers’ own report clearly answers the specific request by Councillors from the previous Council meeting.There are no reasons to reject the request for a Community Day.

So the request should not be rejected nor denied.In fact it should be actively encouraged and supported by Council.

Hence the only fair and reasonable conclusion is that the request to hold a Community Day on 1/9/2012 including 2 senior AJAX Football Club VAFA games should be allowed as no other Club, activity nor functions is displaced-on that day.In fact the majority of the local community would support and encourage this Community Day. (our emphases)

The fact that the proposed game is currently scheduled at Albert Park is irrelevant . Anyone can hire the open public spaces in Glen Eira.

AJAX jnr. Football Club is a tenant of Princes Park.

AJAX jnr.Football Club is celebrating 40 years since it began.

AJAX Football Club is the only Jewish football club.

A large proportion of rate payers in Glen Eira Municipality are Jewish and keenly follow the AJAX football club where their children, family, friends play footy.

The Jewish Orthodox community could walk to the game on Saturday.They can not do that at Albert Park.

The Council encourages the use and hiring of Public open space by any persons-there are no restrictions on hiring of open space for events and functions.There should be no discrimination.

This would be an event that the Jewish community would fully support.The Councillors would be seen by the voting community in a very positive way as Council would be facilitating the use of a state of the art facility, built and improved at substantial public expense for the specific use-football.

No one else is effected.no other activity or function is displaced.

The South Caulfield Cricket club does not need the centre pitch to Mid-October.There is ample time to have ground ready for the cricket season allocation.

This is a simple and straightforward request to celebrate a milestone event-40th anniversary of a tenanted club- on one day that does not effect anyone else.No one is displaced nor disadvantaged.It would be a great and memorable event for the Glen Eira Council.The Council would be paid for hiring of the facility.

We would ensure the facilities are properly cleaned after the event.

The Council web site sets out the guiding values.

Our Organisation

Our guiding values

Community focused, responsive and inclusive

We work to develop a tolerant and caring community, where everyone can feel they belong and participate in the decision-making that leads to achieving the best possible health, safety and lifestyle options within the City.

Accountable and relevant leadership

We consult, listen, and take note of community views to determine its priorities and needs and then acts through open, transparent processes that are financially and environmentally responsible and sustainable. We constantly work to find innovative ways of providing services measured against recognised benchmarks to improve services and set improved standards that will meet tomorrow’s increasing demands.

Community wellbeing

Glen Eira City Council, with an increasingly diverse community, treats all people with respect and dignity, providing equal access for all to services and resources. We operate to identify gaps and lift standards, currently not being met by other community providers or levels of government, within the constraints of its limited resources.

I hope and expect the Council will agree to approve the request as it would be consistent with, the Report provided by the Council Officers, and with the general policies of Council.

If any of the Councillors would like to meet with me to further discuss any matters about this request I am available to come to Council Chambers at mutually convenient times.

Thank you for taking the time to consider both sides.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

July 20, 2012

Unbridled Arrogance!

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

The agenda for next Tuesday night is out. It must go down in history as one of the most arrogant pieces of work ever to issue from this administration. When councillors pass resolutions and these resolutions are not carried out to the letter by council’s employees, then proper governance is truly dead in Glen Eira. Two important officer reports again have no names attached to them (rule by nobody!); specific requests are either overlooked or summarily dismissed in a tone that is condescending and totally unacceptable.

For this post, we will concentrate only one of these instances – the rest will follow once we’ve had time to properly digest the full implications of such arrogance.

At last council meeting, Lobo sent back the officers’ report on his request for the aboriginal flagpole. He specifically asked that the new report include ‘costs’. This second time around there is no ‘report’ as such, but an attachment from an Assembly of Councillors meeting dated the 17th July. We cite one paragraph from this in its entirety –

“The costs of these three options are not material. The issue is not so much cost but what is appropriate and what the community would prefer? Those are matters for judgement by elected representatives.”

What in effect this is saying is:

  • We will not answer your question
  • To hell with your council resolution for answers, and
  • Logically it is untenable. How can councillors decide on any option without knowing costs?

In the great scheme of things, this issue is trivial, inconsequential, and certainly doesn’t warrant the attention it’s been receiving. However, what it reveals about the workings of this council, its culture and mentality of administrators is priceless. It clearly indicates that for officers they will brook no opposition to their plans – even if that means not fully adhering to council resolutions. Councillors and their requests are mere flies in the ointment.

Over to you councillors. Will you accept this further slap in the face, or assert your legal rights and electoral responsibilities?

 

July 18, 2012

When Minutes Aren’t Minutes!

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

Almost half of the 2010 Municipal Inspector’s report concerned itself with council ‘minutes’. Councillors were cautioned to ensure that an independent minute taker was present at councillor only meetings; that all minutes include resolutions. The drawback was that there was no ‘breach of the Act’ even though minutes were doctored, changed, amended repeatedly.

Two years later, nothing much has improved in this area. If anything it has got worse. Advisory committees now often come under the umbrella of ‘records of assembly’ so all that is legally required is noting those present, the subjects discussed and if there are any conflict of interest declarations. The Pools Steering Committee is the perfect example of this. Even worse is that a perusal of the records of assembly feature numerous ‘amendments’ and the deletion of phrases. The most frequent advocate for this is Hyams. The Sport & Rec meeting of several years ago is clear testimony to how much is censored and left out.

Then there’s the question of consistency of reporting. The Environment Committee has arguably the most ‘extensive’ minutes, although when a community rep on this committee lamented that the minutes needed to be far more expansive, she was told that minutes aren’t Hansard. In contrast, other committee minutes such as the Pools Steering Committee are lucky to consist of 100 words most of the time. There simply is no consistency, no procedures, and no mechanism within Council’s Local Law Meeting Procedures which ensures full transparency and accountability for all meetings.

One way of doing away with this problem of accurate reporting is simply not to hold any committee meetings. The Finance Committee has been allowed to evaporate, as has the Roads Special Committee, the Racecourse Advisory Committee, the Animal Management Committee, and so on and so on. The latter 2 have not met for over a year we believe.

Such is governance in Glen Eira. Secrecy is all and accountability the poor relation. What minutes are published admittedly do not have to be the equivalent of Hansard, but they must be a truthful and accurate account of what went on. We assert that this principle has been flagrantly abused.

 

July 16, 2012

The Secrecy Continues…..

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

The minutes from last week’s CEO Special Committee have been published. The relevant motion reads:

Crs Magee/Pilling

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider Agenda Item 6.1 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and is confidential pursuant to section 89(2)(a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Forge and Lipshutz were absent and Penhalluriack obviously excluded. Several observations are necessary:

  • Newton’s latest contract officially began in April 2012. Hence less than three months into this new contract we have a performance review? Why? Local Government Victoria recommends one performance appraisal per year. Even if Newton’s contract varies these terms, it is still most unusual to conduct this appraisal so early into a new contract. We surmise that these tactics are due to the upcoming election and the real possibility of a different group of councillors. It would thus make sense to bank some brownie points whilst the gang is still in office.
  • It should also be asked why the meeting went ahead when two councillors were absent – leaving only 6 to adjudicate. Surely no catastrophe would have occurred if the meeting was several weeks later when all councillors were present?
  • The continued secrecy of this council in all matters dealing with the CEO is unacceptable. Other councils appear to have no problem with making public the performance criteria that is used to assess their CEOs. In Glen Eira, nothing is public. The following links provide clear examples of how other councils choose to operate –

http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Files/CEOPerformanceReviewCriteriaAppointmentReappointment2011.pdf

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13_-_Chief_Executive_Officer_Annual_Review.pdf  AND http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13-_Attachment_1_-_Achievements_Against_2010-11_Council_Plan.pdf

When salaries of well over $300,000 (PLUS POSSIBLE BONUSES) are paid to individuals, it behoves organisations to ensure full transparency and accountability. Note, we are not suggesting that performance reviews be done under the full glare of public scrutiny. What we are suggesting is that it is imperative that residents know precisely HOW and against what targets performance is assessed.

 

July 4, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #2

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

Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.

TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.

Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t  take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.

MAGEE:  Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it?  And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…

LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.

ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?

BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’

HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers

TANG:  Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.

COMMENTS

We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!

Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.

This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?

PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.

 

June 28, 2012

Hyams: The Curse Of ‘Uniformity’

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

Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.

Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.

The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison.  More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!

Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.

 

June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

  • Lipshutz and Forge were absent
  • The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
  • Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
  • Lobo did not utter a word
  • Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
  • Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the  lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’.  ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being  paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

 

June 26, 2012

Here We Go Again!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

The fun and games are back on with this typically buried announcement on Council’s website. It reads under the heading of Special Committee Meetings:

“Notice is given of two meetings of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee to be held at 7pm on 10 July 2012 and 7pm on 31 July 2012 in the Council Chamber Glen Eira Town Hall. The meetings are expected to be closed to the public.”

Questions that immediately spring to mind are:

  • Will Penhalluriack still be excluded from this ‘committee’? If so, then what is the justification for this discrimination since the contract negotiations are now past with Newton’s re-appointment?
  • What are these meetings about, and why the need for two of them? If it’s about the contract then that needs to be made clear. If it’s about performance appraisal then this is indeed strange since Newton’s term only began in April 2012 and basically only one performance appraisal per year is recommended by the government.
  • Secrecy remains in the way this council operates and in its total failure to be upfront about anything it does. If it wasn’t this advertisement would be in plain view on the home page for all to see. We at least congratulate council on its consistency!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »