GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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!
 

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

 

June 21, 2012

Hansard: More ‘Window Dressing’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

20th June -Second reading: Jeanette Powell

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) —

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 will make a variety of amendments to local government legislation to improve the operation of councils. It includes amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Amendments to the Local Government Act will improve the conduct of council meetings and clarify decision-making processes. This includes inserting a clear statement in the Local Government Act about the way council decisions may be made. Council decisions may only be made in a properly constituted council meeting or, if council has delegated its decision-making power to a committee or officer, by that committee or officer.

A council decision must not be made in an assembly of councillors, such as in an advisory committee or in a councillor briefing.

The bill will remove an unenforceable provision that makes it compulsory for all councillors in a council meeting to vote. This will be replaced by a provision specifying that a majority of the councillors in the meeting must vote in favour of a motion before the motion can pass. This will allow a councillor to abstain from voting in a meeting, but the abstention will not alter the number of votes required for the motion to pass.

A councillor who has left the meeting because of a conflict of interest, or who is otherwise absent, is not counted as either having voted or as an abstention for the purpose of this provision.

The bill also includes some specific procedural improvements for conflicts of interest. These include allowing a councillor with conflicts of interest in sequential items before council to make all his or her disclosures before the first item, rather than having to re-enter the meeting to disclose for each one. A councillor who has a conflict of interest in an item in the council plan will be able to vote on the final council plan if, and only if, council has previously voted to include that item in the plan and the councillor disclosed the conflict of interest when the previous vote was taken. It is important that all councillors are able to participate in approving the council plan.

Some amendments deal with processes to be followed when dealing with alleged misconduct. New provisions will allow the appointment of a probity auditor, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development.

A probity auditor may only be requested by a chief executive officer or a mayor. A council does not require the ability to request a probity auditor, as it has the power to appoint a probity auditor at its own discretion. The role of a probity auditor would be to monitor internal council processes where there has been a formal complaint of bullying, victimisation or harassment against the chief executive officer. The probity auditor may also provide advice to the council.

A probity auditor’s area of interest will be limited to council processes in relation to the complaint. He or she will not deal with the substance of the complaint, which will continue to be subject to any relevant judicial, administrative or contractual arrangements. At the conclusion of an audit, the probity auditor will provide a report to the council, the mayor, the chief executive officer and the secretary.

In regard to councillor conduct matters, an amendment to the VCAT act will help clarify some issues in councillor conduct hearings. An existing provision, which requires the council to pay the costs of individual councillors in a VCAT hearing, will be limited to situations where the council is the applicant in VCAT or where the council voluntarily becomes a party to the matter.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove a possible inducement for individual councillors to apply for their councillor conduct panel matter to be referred to VCAT so that council will have to pay their legal costs. It will retain the protection for an individual councillor when the council has initiated action against him or her in VCAT.

The members of a councillor conduct panel are required to be parties to any application to VCAT when there has been an application for a review of the panel decision. The bill will extend the term of office of panel members to the end of any such VCAT hearing. This is to ensure that panel members continue to be subject to immunity under the Local Government Act and they continue to be paid by the council.

A significant amendment in the bill will require each chief executive officer to publish a summary of election campaign donations, disclosed by candidates in the council’s elections, on the council’s website. This will include the name of each donor and the value of the donations made by each donor. The bill will remove a provision making it an offence to defame a candidate in a council election. This is an inappropriate and ineffective provision. Defamation is treated as a civil matter in state and federal elections and should be the same in local government elections.

The bill will alter the meeting requirements for regional library boards. Currently regional library boards must comply with meeting requirements that apply to councils, which imposes some unnecessary burdens. The bill will allow members of a library board to attend meetings by electronic means, subject to approval of its local law by the member councils.

Significant reforms are proposed to legislation relating to the levying of differential rates. This is in response to a recent trend for councils to use differential rates in ways that discriminate against particular industries or businesses by imposing artificially high rates on them. The bill includes a head of power for the minister to issue guidelines on the appropriate uses of differential rates. Councils will be required to have regard to the guidelines when setting differential rates. If the minister considers that the imposition of a differential rate will be inconsistent with the guidelines, he or she will be able to seek an order in council to prevent the levying of a differential rate in respect of the particular type or class of land. The bill will require councils to publish details of  differential rates on the internet as well as increasing, from 30 to 60 days, the time allowed for a person to seek a review in VCAT about the way their land has been classified for differential rating.

An amendment is also proposed to the way penalty interest is calculated on unpaid rates and charges. In future, penalty interest will only be payable from the date when each quarterly instalment is due. This will apply even when a council allows payment in a lump sum. If a lump sum is not paid on time, penalty interest will be calculated as if the rates were being paid in instalments.

The bill includes a number of administrative changes. Members of council audit committees, who can have access to confidential and sensitive information, will be required to lodge regular returns in which they disclose their interests. An obsolete provision, preserving long service leave rights in a way that is inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, will be repealed.

Provisions allowing councils to dispose of unregistered and abandoned vehicles will be amended to mirror provisions in the Road Management Act 2004, applying to VicRoads. This will include having to take reasonable steps to notify a vehicle’s owner before disposing of the vehicle.

As titled, this bill will make a number of miscellaneous amendments to local government legislation. Some of these amendments are quite significant and the bill will substantially improve the administration of local government in Victoria.

I commend the bill to the house.

 

June 20, 2012

Local Government Act

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Today’s Media Release from the Minister for Local Government –

Improving the Local Government Act

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell has today introduced the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 into State Parliament.

The Bill amends the Local Government Act (the Act) to correct a number of shortcomings in the legislation and provide better governance for local government.

The Bill deals with, amongst other things, differential rates, election campaign donations, processes regarding complaints about council Chief Executive Officers and council costs in VCAT hearings into councillor misconduct.

The Victorian Coalition Government will develop guidelines for the appropriate use of differential rates by councils and empower the Minister to seek an Order in Council to stop councils applying differential rates that are inconsistent with the guidelines.

There will be a six month public consultation process regarding the new guidelines before councils determine their budget for 2013.

“There are concerns regarding the growing use of differential rates by councils,” Mrs Powell said.

“”In my view the Act currently provides councils with insufficient guidance regarding the application of a differential rate.

“A significant increase in the use of differential rates by local councils has created a complex web of different rates for similar ratepayers across Victoria.

“There is considerable variation in the application of differential rates between councils with 14 councils levying no differential rate, 39 councils having four or more differential rates and six councils have at least 10.

“Some differential rates are only applied to a small number of properties. 36 councils have differential rates that apply to less than 30 properties.

“The Bill will also improve the public transparency around campaign donations in council elections.

“Candidates are required by law to disclose all election campaign donations, in money or in kind, that are valued at $500 or more.

“In future, each council will be required to publish a list of all donations disclosed by candidates on the council website.

“The Bill also includes amendments to provide for a probity auditor to oversee handling of a complaint about the conduct of a Chief Executive Officer.

“The amendment will give all parties to a complaint confidence that proper processes are being followed by allowing the Mayor or the CEO to ask the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to appoint a probity auditor to monitor the council’s processes.

“The Bill will also reduce the incidence of councils having to pay the legal costs of councillors in VCAT misconduct hearings.

“Under the changes a council will only be liable for a councillors costs when the council is the applicant in VCAT or has requested to become a party.

“A council will not be liable for costs when an individual councillor has applied for the matter to go to VCAT instead of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

“Councillor Conduct Panels are the appropriate forum to deal with most councillor misconduct matters, as they specialise in councillor conduct matters and involve less cost to ratepayers,” Mrs Powell said.

COMMENT

Without seeing the actual draft legislation it is difficult to comment. However, a few initial thoughts:

  • Removing Council’s liability to pay for VCAT cases into councillor conduct issues is fine. However, this would appear to totally ignore the current problems. As it stands, a Councillor Conduct Panel is conducted in secret, behind closed doors. We believe that it must be an open forum so that accountability is achieved.
  • Secondly, Councillor Conduct Panels do not permit the presence of lawyers. They are chaired by Municipal Association Members only. We again think that if someone’s reputation is on the line then they should be entitled to a proper legal defense.
  • Rulings on various matters that are brought to Councillor Conduct Panels should not remain the domain of ex-bureaucrats. Independence is essential, not only to be seen to be independent, but independent in reality . The ‘boys’ club’ of ex ceo’s and high flying bureaucrats is  far too entrenched we believe to leave such matters entirely up to them. Ideally a former judge or magistrate should chair and conduct these investigations.
  • We will have to wait and see exactly what the role and function of a ‘probity’ investigator is defined as. If it relates strictly to financial matters, then again we do not believe this goes far enough. Currently the majority of the LGA focuses on councillors and their responsibilities. Very little is directed towards staff. The Act must be reviewed and residents must have confidence that the exact same legal strictures that apply to councillors, also apply to employees and are spelt out precisely. The latter’s accountability and transparency must become a formal legal requirement.

All in all, we live in the most interesting times !

 

June 19, 2012

Racecourse Machinations: A Little History

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

The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.

We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:

  • On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
  • Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.

What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!

It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.  What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.

WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.

POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.

In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.

It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).

COMMENT

There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »