GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 12, 2012

Newton & O’Neill

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

Our previous post concerned the Racecourse and Council. It is therefore opportune to publish the following allegation made by Newton against Penhalluriack. We remind readers that:

  • Newton never put these allegations in writing
  • They were compiled/constructed by O’Neill based on the ‘discussions’ and documents provided to her by Newton
  • The following is a verbatim copy of the O’Neill compiled ‘evidence’ pertaining to Allegation 2 and presumably what Penhalluriack was expected to respond to.

ALLEGATION 2

That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings and to the CEO directly and to other Councillors in correspondence concerning the CEO’s dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club (“MRC”), the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees (“CRRT”) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (“DSE”) and Minister’s Office. These statements have been made without supporting evidence or other factual basis for making the statements.  These statements have damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermine the CEO in his employment and have caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

Early Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack distributes letter (later dated 12 October 2009) to Councillors and lobbies for support   against the CEO with respect to meetings held with MRC and the CRRT
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack attends the CEO’s office to hand him the letter referred to below. The letter does not   disclose that copies were provided to a number of recipients and not just the CEO.  The CEO reads the letter from Councillor Penhalluriack and tells him that the letter is inaccurate and he will respond in writing. The CEO declines to discuss the matter until after he has responded in writing.
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack (as Chairman of the Racecourse Committee) writes a letter to the CEO. The letter   suggests that the CEO has acted inappropriately with respect to the MRC and CRRT and makes the following allegations:

  • that the CEO met with the CRRT without telling Council first and that the CEO should have sought specific direction from his Council since “obviously more was to be discussed than a simple report on Council’s current racecourse policy”;
  • that he and other Councillors do not know why he was invited or what happened at the meeting and a full and frank report of the meeting and any other meetings with the CRRT, MPs or members of the MRC should be provided to Council.
12 Oct 2009 The CEO responds by email to Councillor Penhalluriack explaining that there was nothing inappropriate.  The letter refers to the invitation and provides a copy, the invitation request that the CEO attend the meeting to “explain your deliberations regarding the amendment to the Joint Communiqué’ and “A report on the amended plans for the Centre of the course would also be appreciated”.   The CEO confirms that he informed the Mayor and the two councillors who were also Trustees (Councillor Whiteside, and Councillor Tang) and that these   Councillors were present during the time that the CEO spoke and for the remainder of the meeting.  The CEO   explains that the Communiqué had been the subject of Council resolutions on 1 July 2008 and 21 July 2009 and was a formal decision of Council, which under section 94A of the Local Government Act 1989 he was required to implement without delay. The CEO confirms that he has only attended meetings with MPs in support of the Mayor and/or Councillors.  The only discussions with the MRC have been to get the Council approved   Communiqué implemented.
12 Oct 2009 Email exchange between Councillor Penhalluriack and the CEO alleging that the CEO had acted in a   threatening manner and lost his temper in their meeting on 12 October 2010.  Councillor Penhalluriack accuses the CEO of being over sensitive to matters that only require a “civil and respectful response. Good and   regular communication keeps working relationships much more pleasant.”   The CEO denies the allegation in his email. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the CEO is not comfortable with his election.  The CEO states that he has no difficulty with Councillor Penhalluriack’s election, but that Councillor Penhalluriack should not commit himself to “written accusations before finding out the facts.”
12 Oct 2010 Councillor Penhalluriack moved a motion (that was passed) that the CEO report on each meeting between   Council Officers and the MRC in the preceding 12 months. This was done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC.
3 Nov 2010 The CEO provides the report required by the motion proposed by Councillor Penhalluriack on 12 October   2010.  The report sets out each meeting and its content.  The report shows that the CEO met with the MRC on three matters (the upgrade of the centre, C60 and ANZAC Day) and that the CEO has declined all offers of hospitality.  The report was unanimously approved.  Councillor Penhalluriack was at the meeting.
23 Feb 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack sends an email to Councillor Magee, Councillor Pilling, Councillor Lobo and Councillor Forge. In that email he makes the following statements:

  • “…after years of mumbling and bumbling we now have Council’s policy unanimously formalized”
  • “What a fight in the pre-meeting though, as predicted. It was a bitter pill for Andrew to swallow.”
  • “Now we have to ask Andrew to give us a detailed report on all meeting which he has concerning the Caulfield   Racecourse Reserve…but they must be reported.”

At the pre-meeting, Councillors strongly disagreed between themselves, but the CEO did not speak.  Council had previously persuaded the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Land Development to tackle the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land – this was based on submissions drafted by the CEO.
28 March 2011 Email from Kerry Henningsen of DSE to the CEO requesting that Council provide a list of nominations rather   than one nomination so that the Minister can select the person to replace Helen Whiteside.  This was the first   contact that the CEO had with the Minister’s Office and he had no contact with Mr Thomas or with the Minister for Crown Lands concerning this or other matters. The CEO was also unaware that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack were meeting with Mr Thomas.
28 Mar 2011 CEO tries to call Councillor  Forge on her mobile to inform her of the email referred to above.  He leaves a message for her to call him.  Councillor Forge does not return the call. When he cannot speak to her he sends an email detailing the request made by DSE.
2 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises, the CEO, Peter Jones, DSE, MRC and the CRRT.  With respect to the CEO and his interactions with the MRC, CRRT and the DSE. He   states:

  • “The grossest example of behind our backs wheeling and dealing are the so called negotiations with the MRC.  The CEO has admitted many regular meetings between Council and the MRC, but we never receive details of what was discussed. When I asked for details I was given superficial gobbledegook” (our emphases)
  • He alleges that the CRRT is sexist “females are acceptable as typist-secretaries …”notwithstanding the fact that Councillor Forge would be replacing Councillor Helen Whiteside and there  are/have been other females on the CCRT from time to time;
  • He alleges that the CEO interfered with Councillor Forge’s appointment as a Trustee of the CRRT “… Openness and transparency is urged upon us, but as soon as Cheryl informs Council of our meeting with Hugh Thomas, senior advisor to Minister Ryan Smith, Andrew phones to interfere. Likely Hugh phoned Andrew before the meeting.”
7 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes to the CEO to raise the following matters. The letter alleges unnecessary haste in bringing forward meeting concerning Caulfield Racecourse and alleges that this is poor governance as this was done “without any discussion with Councillors”. (our emphases) He further alleges that “your Communiqué failed” as the Council had been lead to believe that training would be gone in the medium term and MRC are saying 10 years. He states that “we had better accept that we are dealing with devious fibbers”. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the public consultation is incomplete and written submissions are required with one-on one dialogue with those who actively support or reject the proposal. (our emphases)
8 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack raises two matters with the CEO in a memo received on 8 April 2011.  In this memo, Councillor Penhalluriack queries why the documents were marked confidential.  He also requests a copy of all associated documents between the CRRT and/or the MRC and or other parties. He asserts that the previous requests had been “denied  on the grounds that in your opinion they were not relevant to my role as a Councillor” he goes on to assert that this is incorrect.
8 April 2011 The CEO responds to the email  received from Councillor Penhalluriack on 8 April 2011. The CEO first explains the terminology used, the reasons for it and the need for Confidentiality.  The CEO informs Councillor Penhalluriack that the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack’s email will be responded to separately.
11 April 2011 Donna Graham, Legal Counsel, replies to the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham’s refers to the fact that she has previously provided this advice to Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham also advises that in her legal opinion the documents are not subject to any councillor entitlement to inspect and for the same reason would not be subject to a Freedom of Information application. Ms Graham also states that as Councillor Penhalluriack cannot participate in any debate on these matters on the basis of the Winky Popdecision, Officers cannot accede to his request.If Council disagrees it could seek an independent legal advice on the issue, Councillor Penhalluriack does not seek this resolution from Council. (our emphases)
11 April 2011 The CEO responds to the letter sent by Councillor Penhalluriack on 7 April 2011. The CEO refers to the   meeting on the 13 December 2010 of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee where it resolved that public consultation (or oral submissions) would take place on a date to be fixed.  The date was fixed and it was carried out on 4 April 2011.  The CEO reminds Councillor Penhalluriack that the Communiqué was authorised by Council Resolution on 21 July 2009 not by the CEO. Finally, the CEO states that the Amendment C60 is before the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee not any Officers, it originated in 2007, was exhibited in 2009 and was the subject of an independent panel in 2010 with 6 days of hearing and a 147 page report.  That Committee will decide whether to adopt  the recommendations, modify them, abandon it or take some other action.
27 April 2011 Council Meeting –Councillor Penhalluriack moved for a report on each meeting that Andrew Newton had with   the MRC or CRRT.  He referred publicly to the CEO acting inappropriately.  He states:

  • that the CEO has said that he has reported to Council on all meetings that he has had with the MRC and that he does not believe that this is the case;
  • that in the last report they got dates only;
  • that he wants the report so that “we also know what discussions and negotiations have actually been held behind Councillors backs”;
  • Councillor Hyams makes a point of order that this allegation should only be made if Councillor Penhalluriack has proof.  This point of order was not ruled on by the Mayor, instead she asked   Councillor Penhalluriack to withdraw part of the statement to the extent that “negotiations” was replaced with “meetings” and “behind our backs” was replaced with “without our knowledge”
  • Councillor Forge states that she can bear witness to the fact that the President of the MRC told her that he had met with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO and Council did not know about it. (our emphases)
28 April 2011 Local blog reports on the  request (inaccurately) with respect to the Councillor Penhalluriack’s allegation that the CEO was meeting with the MRC behind the Council’s backs. The CEO is referred to in an unflattering manner by the Blog

 

 

May 11, 2012

The Leader, Council & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[15] Comments 

About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:

  • The resident was phoned up by The Leader.  An ‘interview’ time was arranged
  • The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
  • Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
  • During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
  • Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
  • The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference

So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?

What also needs to be noted is:

The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?

Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council.  We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.

To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?

After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

May 9, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More ‘Cover-Ups’?

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

GESAC has finally opened and the basketball courts are now in use. What still needs to be determined is:

  • Are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors for any courts that they are unable to fill?
  • Are courts standing empty and therefore representing a revenue loss to Council?
  • The Warriors’ EOI presumably ‘won’ because they ‘guaranteed’ a higher revenue base than the McKinnon Basketball Association – in fact, “$95,000 per annum more”. (See minutes of 13th December, 2011). If this amount is now NOT forthcoming, what does this say about the entire EOI/Tender process and the ultimate decision of certain councillors to allocate the courts to the Warriors? Was the decision merely ‘pie in the sky’, based on a wish and a prayer? How well was the EOI investigated and corroborated?
  • Are residents now literally paying the price for poor decision making? 

The last two Council Meetings have featured public questions on this issue. With typical Council evasiveness, no adequate response has been provided, except for the carefully phrased ‘answer’ below:

The question asked in part –

1. Will any courts stand empty when Gesac opens?

2. If so, how many and for how long and what is the estimated loss of revenue to council?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “I refer you to the response provided to you at the 20 March 2012 Council Meeting. Whilst the proposed court costs and hours were disclosed in the 13 December Council Minutes, other aspects of the EOI remain Confidential. I can however add that revenue will be at the normal rate for Council courts as opposed to the alternative EOI at 30 percent lower and will amount to $95,000 per annum more.”  

All very nice and good, except that the question isn’t answered. It is clear that the Warriors do not have enough teams to cover all the Friday to Sunday time slots they’ve been allotted. If they did then there would be no need for this paragraph taken from their Facebook page –

“It is expected that all Warriors members both Rep and domestic will participate in domestic competitions at GESAC from this Winter season onwards. This can be as a member of a Warriors domestic team or in a team they organize themselves.”

The scene gets even murkier now. If there is ‘sub-letting’ then who is responsible for this sub-letting? Is it the Warriors or Council? And the $64 dollar question remains. Are all the courts being used? If they are not, then are the Warriors paying for these courts or are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors and in the meantime allowing the continued loss of revenue?

Are we looking at another ‘cover-up’? Why can’t this Council provide straight-forward answers to public questions that impact on ratepayer funds, council competence and ultimately, transparent and accountable governance?

 

May 8, 2012

Less Spin & More Truth Please

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

Spin is out in full force with the advertised Budget and Council Plan. For the past ten years residents have been continually fed the line that Glen Eira imposes one of the lowest rate hikes in the state on its community. The facts reveal a different story. Our recent post highlighted how rates in the past 8-9 years have more than doubled in this municipality. We do not believe that any of the other councils listed below fall into this category. Glen Eira is really out on its own when it comes to slugging residents.

These are the rate increases as published in draft budgets from neighbouring councils. Both Bayside and Kingston figures are still to be released.

Stonnington – 4.5% increase

Port Phillip – 5.9%

Monash – 6%

Yarra city – 5.9%

Boroondara – 5%

Manningham – 6%

PS: The main entrance under the clock tower was AGAIN LOCKED for tonight’s Special Council Meeting!!!!! This makes it at least 4 times that the door has been locked. Once is unfortunate; twice is regrettable; three times is unforgivable and four times is plain old incompetence – or, a total disregard for the community.

 

 

May 2, 2012

C87 & Crocodile Tears

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

The C87 Amendment was passed unanimously as expected. What was, in our view,  most revealing was the superb crocodile tears performance put on by several councillors. They literally shed buckets in bemoaning the fact that the Amendment was incapable of including residents’ recommendations for inclusion into the Significant Character Areas – especially Normanby Rd. We shake our heads in wonderment and ask:

  • Are councillors that impotent or stupid or guilty of collusion not to realise that when they allow the cart to be put before the horse this will be the inevitable outcome? One of our previous posts commented on the fact that the only recommendations sought came from council officers and Planisphere. Even councillors and of course residents were totally excluded from making suggestions! To now turn around and say that our hands are tied is indeed laughable. All that was needed was a motion that residents could submit their own proposals for inclusion. Simple and democratic – but obviously something that is anathema to those running Glen Eira.
  • Instead, we now have further expenditure on ‘legal advice’ to ensure that nothing can be done with this amendment! It all has to start again via a new amendment if residents are to have a say.  Oh yes, the  crocodile tears flowed in Oscar winning performances.
  • We also suggested in our earlier post that the chances of the Planning Panel actually accepting, much less listening to residents’ submissions on areas that should be included was buckleys and none! We stick with this conclusion!

The ‘debate’ went as follows:

Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Lipshutz moved that C87 be exhibited with the removal of properties from Poath Rd. Seconded by Penhalluriack.

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that VCAT ‘basically ignores’ council’s policy and that policy by itself is not the ‘appropriate method to ensure’ that neighbourhoods are protected. ‘The way to go about it’ is to pass the motion so that there’s an overlay on these areas. Said that this was a ‘vexed’ issue because some people didn’t want it and others did. Said that the Normanby Rd people ‘believe that their street has such significance’ that they should be included. ‘Unfortunately the motion…..does not provide for this…..the motion seeks to preserve their current position and will allow for a panel to consider their submissions….‘. People who think that their properties shouldn’t be there are also free to make a submission to panel. Spoke about The Highway and if the amendment would ‘restrict’ the possibility of ‘dual occupancy’ in that street. Said that wouldn’t impact adversely and that ‘panel can consider this’ and that council ‘can then determine the issue’. Amendment ‘starts the process’….‘we’ve had the submissions, we’ve had the conferences’…’the intent of c87 is to provide stronger safeguards’….(and those areas outside heritage) ‘can at least be preserved’.

PENHALLURIACK: The motion is ‘disappointing’ since ‘so many’ people around the c60 and racecourse, especially along Normanby Rd ‘are missing out’. Said he looked at old maps of the area and that there are some beautiful old homes and ‘I can’t read the mind of the town planner who said this area isn’t worthy of being included’….’but because he made that decision we are now caught between a rock and a hard place’. Said that people can go to the panel, but the amendment is ‘lacking the jewel in the crown’ (Park, Kambrook, Normanby Rd). ‘I can’t do anything, I’m tormented, I think this is a tragedy….but the officers assure me there is no option….(ultimately has to come back to council and start whole thing again. Said that maybe council should look at heritage overlays as well).

HYAMS: Reassured everyone that the status quo remains until the ‘amendment goes through’. Explained that the Significant Character Area only covers double dwelling and doesn’t protect against someone building a terrible single dwelling..’policy doesn’t have the strength at VCAT…these are less than heritage….you can demolish….pros are …protects the neighbourhood….cons are….restricts what people can do with their own houses….so not something we would impose without going through….thorough community consultation process’. Said that community does generally support this as spoken about in the various community forums. Claimed it was ‘disappointing’ that after all the letters sent out council only got 59 submissions back ‘you could read that as people being apathetic’….’people happy with the amendment’ so no need to write in. Said that the planning conference that was held had more people in favour than against the amendment. Claimed to have ‘door knocked a couple of the streets’ to get a feel for what people wanted and ‘overwhelming majority’ supported the amendment. Admitted that some areas are ‘out of character, but still worth preserving of what remains of character’. Agreed that Normanby Rd is ‘a very nice area’ and that he was ‘disappointed’ that it wasn’t included. Said that there was some discussion at the planning conference whether it could be included and that council had obtained ‘further legal advice’ which concluded that once something is ‘exhibited’ you ‘can’t put other areas in’ because it ‘denies natural justice to those people’ in that area…..’that’s the legal advice so we can’t do that unfortunately’. Summarised the processes of the panel, what they will do and how they will look at the submissions ‘in depth’….’still quite a few steps to take’.

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted that people of Normanby Rd have been ‘badly done by’ and ‘very unfortunate that they can’t be included’….(that this is the )’best we can do in the circumstances’….(Urged people who thought they should be included) ‘to make submissions to the panel’….’Id be very supportive of inclusion’. Explained process – ie goes to panel and then council will decide whether to accept or reject. Process is ‘independent and fair’. said that heritage overlay is ‘very, very restrictive’ and that there’s a difference between Normanby Rd and council’s heritage areas.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

May 1, 2012

Revisionism Or Hedging Your Bets?

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

Lipshutz got the ball rolling tonight with an incredible motion – to rewrite history and the official record. When Hyams called for confirmation of minutes Lipshutz moved that the minutes of 10th April be amended in relation to Penhalluriack’s questions and Lipshutz’s point of order inserted. He claimed that the questions were ‘a continuation of the bullying behaviour’ as ‘noted in the Ombudsman’s report”. Hyams asked for a seconder. There was a very long silence and in the end, Hyams seconded the motion himself.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack asked a ‘series of questions’ and on the 5th question he raised a point of order. Stated again that the point of order was upheld by Hyams and ‘therefore the minutes do not properly reflect that’.

HYAMS: agreed  that what’s there currently is ‘more commentary’ than an account of ‘what actually happened at the meeting’. Said that his ‘recollection’ of the events was about the three points of order that Lipshutz raised and that he ruled in favour of them.

PENHALLURIACK: “I asked a series of questions……(he paused after the first one and got Hyams permission to continue)….’those questions are vital…..(since councillors will be voting on re-opening the mulch facility)……’that is council’s right’….’but the minutes are inaccurate because they don’t record the fact that I had asked 4 questions’ (and we didn’t get notice of Lipshutz’s motion in assembly)….’the four questions should have been put on the record…they should be answered by the CEO (or relevant officer)…..Cr Lipshutz is famous for….leaping to his feet to stop me from speaking….(he should have done this with the first question but he didn’t)…(same for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th question)…..’during the 5th….he suddenly woke up…..or (decided to) stop me at that point’….(Said that Hyams pointed out that Glen Eira’s meeting procedures in the Local Law) ‘protect you from my motion of dissent’….’so even though there may have been a majority of councillors who didn’t like what you were doing….you weren’t prepared to put it to the vote’….(which democratic institutions) ‘love doing’….(You said) ‘I rule, I am the Mayor’ …(the Mayor of) ‘toss of the coin’….’I will not listen to your motion of dissent and I will not consult with fellow councillors’….’that defies logic that a point of order can go backwards’ (and delete earlier questions)….’each of my questions covered different matters’…

Hyams interrupted saying that Penhalluriack’s 3 minutes were up. A vote to extend time was taken and passed unanimously.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘we have the tape recording of the meeting’ (so can confirm what) “I’m saying is correct’…’there was silence…..until the 5th question….(Told councillors to refer to the minutes of the assembly of 10th April where it says ‘Councillor questions’ and quoted that Penhalluriack advised he had a ‘list of questions’)….’not a question….a list of questions’….’I am now demanding that this council supports me in getting those questions answered’….’councillors deserve explicit answers before they embark’ (on decisions on the agenda tonight).

HYAMS: said he wanted to ask Burke a ‘couple of questions’.

‘Is there anything in our Local Law at all that would have allowed me to do that?’ (ie put the dissent motion to a vote). Burke answered ‘No there’s not’. Next question was whether the Local Law permitted the Mayor to ‘decide all points of order?’. Burke stated that ‘the Local Law is quite clear….absolutely clear…’. Hyams then asked if Burke had heard him say ‘I am the Mayor and what I say goes’?..Burke said that he doesn’t have a ‘recollection’ of what Penhalluriack alleges Hyams said. Hyams then said that he ‘understands that you’ve listened to the tape of this discussion’….’does it reflect that all the questions were ruled out of order?’ Burke confirmed this.

LIPSHUTZ: asked Burke that when he moved the point of order whether he meant all questions?

BURKE: responded that the point of order ‘was in relation to all questions’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that in any meeting of ‘elected representatives’…..’is it possible to put anything to the vote?’

BURKE asked Penhalluriack to ‘be more specific’.

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed that the Local Law states that the Mayor can decide but ‘it does not say that the Mayor cannot democratically ask his councillors’ to vote….’that’s similar to when the Mayor has the casting vote….(and his obligation is to preserve the status quo)…’the law doesn’t say he must, tradition says he will’.

BURKE: stated that he’s only got the Local Law and that says that the Mayor is the final ‘arbiter’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that Burke is avoiding the question and asked whether ‘it was not possible for the Mayor to seek the advice’ of his councillors…..

BURKE: ‘…..ultimately (chairperson has to ensure that the)’business of council is done….in good order….(since there is the Local Law then it would be) ‘most unusual to move away from that’….there’s nothing to stop the Chairperson from doing that ( but he doesn’t have to).

PENAHLLURIACK: stated that he didn’t say that the chair ‘has to do that’…..

HYAMS: interrupted by asking if Penhalluriack was asking a question or making a statement.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Burke that when he listened to the tapes whether he noticed a ‘pause’ between the series of questions

BURKE responded that he didn’t

PENHALLURIACK asked for a copy of the tape

BURKE: “I will need to consider that request Councillor’

PENHALLURIACK: Why?

BURKE: ‘That’s my answer Cr Penhalluriack’.

LOBO: Said that he didn’t come to the council meeting for the election of the Mayor because he ‘wasn’t well’…..(Penhalluriack shouldn’t have said that Hyams is a Mayor) ‘by toss of the coin…you have to respect the seat’.

PENHALLURIACK: asked permission to answer but Hyams said it wasn’t a question. Penhalluriack said his comments weren’t a  reflection on Lobo. Hyams then said that Penhalluriack is ‘allowed to speak if you feel you’ve been misrepresented’.

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed that his habit of ‘jumping up’ is ‘not true’….(he was concerned that Penhalluriack not continue with behaviour)…’that the ombudsman and the O’Neill report (condemend)….’I’m also concerned….that the questions be proper….’not just Penhalluriack….if any councillor, including myself embark on that course (then he’d want someone to raise a point of order)….(said that Penhalluriack’s claim about ‘no notice) ‘that’s not true either….(said that at the pre-meeting he gave a) ‘clear indication’….’that I may raise a point of order’….(said that Penhalluriack was trying to) ‘revive the same motion that he had’ (before)…’reality is….listened to the question to see how far….by the 5th question pretty clear ….the whole totality of those questions were the subject of my concern…’list of questions and they were dealt with as one….(point of order was upheld)’and the minutes should reflect that’….

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. Penhalluriack called for a division. FOR – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams. AGAINST: Magee, Penhalluriack

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FORGE AND TANG WERE APOLOGIES. PILLING WAS ABSENT AND NO APOLOGY TENDERED.

 

April 30, 2012

Fudging The Facts Big Time!

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

Residents have every right to expect that information provided in council reports is accurate, comprehensive, and not a misrepresentation of the facts – or worse, ‘likely to deceive and mislead’. This is not the first time that we find VCAT reports presented to Council which do not adhere to these basic principles. We believe that the reason(s) for such doctored reports are:

  • To disguise inadequacies in council’s planning scheme
  • To disguise inadequacies in council’s presentations at vcat and planning officer decisions
  • To deflect criticism onto VCAT itself, rather than the shortcomings of Council

We illustrate the above with the recent VCAT decision on 14 Holloway Rd., Ormond. Council states:

ADDRESS

44   Holloway Rd., Ormond
Proposal Construction   of 2 double storey attached dwellings
Council   Decision Refusal   (DPC)
VCAT   Decision Permit
APPELLANT Furman   Constructions (Applicant)

 

 The land is zoned Residential 1 and is located within a Minimal Change Area.

 The application was refused by the DPC as the development of the land would result in the removal of a mature Golden Elm located in the front setback of the site.

 Although the Tribunal recognised the Minimal Change Area Policy did support the retention of existing trees, the Tribunal considered that the tree had outgrown its setting and would be more appropriate if it was replaced with another tree after the land was developed.

As a result of finding the tree could be removed, the Tribunal determined to direct a planning permit be granted.

Reading this, most people would simply think that the only sticking point was about a tree that ‘had outgrown’ its setting and that the Delegated Planning Committee was terribly concerned about maintaining the greenness of Glen Eira. The truth of the matter however reveals a totally different story and factors. We cite directly from the judgement which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/309.html

“The planning scheme’s policies (clause 22.08, Minimal Change Area Policy) seek to retain the garden character of Glen Eira, which includes landscaping and trees as a major element in the appearance and character of its residential areas. Specific policy requires the retention of existing healthy and valued vegetation.

The Ormond precinct’s prevailing character elements include “well-established domestic gardens containing low and medium scale planting.”

7.              The permit applicant provided Council with an independent arborist’s report, prepared by Mr David Sampson of P. S. Tree Care. Mr Bowden did not call Mr Sampson to give expert evidence. Mr Sampson has concluded that the Elm had been in decline for some years, that its vigour is diminished, it lacks sufficient vitality to maintain itself, has a poor structure and is prone to wood decay due to various surface lesions. He concluded that the tree should be removed and, further, that its removal “would not impact on the streetscape or any form of green infrastructure within the immediate area”.

8.              Council’s Landscape Officer reviewed the P. S. Tree Care report, accepted its conclusions and agreed “that retention of the large Elm sited within the front setback is problematic” and had no objection to the tree’s removal.

In finding that the tree can be removed, I note the following points. Firstly, the tree has reached a size which in my view is quite out of scale with either the existing dwelling or the proposed new dwellings. The tree is unreasonably large for either its existing or intended setting and is of a scale that would be more appropriate to a park-like setting. Secondly, the dominant vegetation in the street is created by the reasonably sized, evergreen street trees. These are so dense that the Elm cannot be readily seen at close quarters, only in more distant views. Thirdly, I accept the view expressed by Mr Sampson and not contested by Council’s Landscape Officer that the tree is in somewhat poor condition and, by clear implication, has a somewhat reduced life expectancy.

I therefore find that there are overall advantages in relation to the longer-term neighbourhood and streetscape character in replacing the Elm with a more appropriately scaled, canopy-forming tree. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for such a tree to be planted in a semi-mature form. That is a requirement that can be identified as part of the landscape plan”.

Council’s other contention (which is not mentioned in the VCAT report they produced) is “Council’s Delegated Planning Committee had concluded that … the proposed development will generally complement the neighbourhood character and will integrate well with the street, subject to the separation of the first floors (i.e. – providing a gap) to lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street) and to the adjoining property to the east.” The member’s conclusions on this are also worthy of citing –

“Council’s intention was that an observer should see that the two structures were clearly separated at first-floor level.

Mr Bowden submitted a plan that illustrated a 2-metre gap between the dwellings’ first floor levels, overlaid over the proposed 1.5 metre deep recess. He thereby sought to demonstrate that the visual break of the 2 metre, full-depth gap would, as seen from the street, be so little different to the proposed deep recess as to not justify the inconvenience that would be caused to the internal room layouts.

18.          I accept Mr Bowden’s submission on this point. A 2-metre gap would only be discernible as such from within a very short length of Parker Street, immediately adjoining. I find that the presumed benefits of the proposed gap in terms of the perceived scale of the whole building mass, as compared to the effect of the proposed deep recess, would be marginal at best. In effect, I find that Council’s that a full-depth, 2-metre wide gap would not “lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street)” to any significant or useful degree.

With respect to the proposal’s southern interface, the boundary setbacks of the southern two-story wall vary between about 2.2 and 2.3 metres. Mr Bowden submitted, and Mr Bromley did not dispute, that the setbacks more than satisfy Standard B17 of clause 55.04 – 1 of the planning scheme and therefore the related objective.

I accept Mr Bowden’s submission and find that council’s contentions cannot be supported in relation to the provision of the gap between the first-floor sections. Likewise, if the building’s setback from the southern boundary meets the relevant objective of clause 55, then there is no justification for requiring additional setback”.

COMMENTS

Once again, it appears that instead of honest and full reporting to councillors and community, we are subjected to nothing more than public relations exercises determined to either disguise the inadequacy of council’s policies,  planning officer recommendations, and/or performance at VCAT. In itself, this one instance may be viewed as relatively minor. However, when it happens time and time again, then it is definitely not a ‘clerical error’ but a deliberate campaign of subterfuge and obfuscation to the detriment of open and accountable government.

 

April 30, 2012

Caulfield Park Depot

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

Item 9.7 centres on the suspect Lipshutz Request for a Report on the removal of the Caulfield Park Depot. We remind readers of the Pilling email which clearly revealed how in breach of council’s own resolution this request was. Now we have the Officers’ report which of course says nothing, so that the status quo remains. We also note that there is no name attached to this report so there is no accountability or responsibility. Another frequent and handy ploy of this administration!

The report states that  “The Caulfield Park master plan adopted by Council some years ago was premised at that time on the depot remaining where it is”. So what? Not stated is that the Master Plan dates back to the dark ages and when it suits has been changed and altered and massaged according to new circumstances – ie. concrete pathways; ‘realigning’ of ovals’; fences and now the latest craze, concrete plinthing.

The argument for non-removal then continues with an exposition of the multi-function purpose of the current depot and concludes with the simple sentences “There are few areas within Glen Eira which lend themselves to these uses. It would be undesirable to relocate the depot from one park to another park or to any other site which was capable of being used as public open space”. Note the admission that there is at least a ‘few areas’ that might be suitable. Of course, none of this is elaborated upon!

The real intended killer blow is: “Officers have previously advised Councillors of an estimated cost of not less than $3m. It is not possible to be more specific until a new site is identified and the nature of redevelopment of the existing site is known”. Surely it would not have been too difficult if there are a ‘few areas’ suitable, for some ‘specifics’ to be included for these sites at least?

Thus, in the space of one and a half pages an issue that has been of major concern for nigh on forever is thus sidelined again – indefinitely!

We urge readers to note:

  • The total lack of any financial/geographic details
  • No documentation as to which sites have been investigated
  • No detail as to why any of these alternate sites are unsuitable
  • No detail as to the arrived figure of $3 million

We can only conclude that not only is the report totally substandard, but its usefulness for any responsible decision making by councillors is non existent. We believe that this is the ultimate objective anyway – ie to do nothing but create the illusion that there has at least been the attempt to solve a festering problem and councillors, especially Lipshutz, can then proclaim to his electorate – “look, I’ve tried’.  In the end, it all depends on the gullibility and/or integrity of councillors as to whether they will accept this continual manipulation.

PS:  Following several comments re the MRC’s failure to put up the fence as per the ‘agreement’, we’ve received a photo of the site taken exactly one year since the signing of the ‘agreement’ (27th April). As many residents suspected, such agreements obviously aren’t worth the paper they’re written on! The weeds certainly do add a nice touch as well!

 

April 29, 2012

Transparency & Accountability? – No Way!

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

Glen Eira Council pretends that it cares about resident views. It pretends that it is transparent and accountable. It pretends that it not only listens to residents, but acts on their views. We believe that nothing could be further from the truth. All any resident has to do is to start questioning what information is in the public domain, and the format in which it is disseminated, to realise the smoke and mirrors and selective nature of disclosure consistently practised by this Council.

Section 223 of the Local Government Act provides residents with the opportunity to make submissions on important strategic and policy decisions such as budgets, community plans, selling of property, etc. Councils are bound to ‘consider’ such submissions. Countless other councils ensure that full submissions are published in agendas and minutes – as well as an officer’s summary and response to these submissions. In other words, interested readers can see what residents wrote, as well as how their views are responded to. In Glen Eira the process is far more selective – and, we believe, censored.

Yes, the minimalist legal requirements of Section 223 are fulfilled because they have to be. But in most cases, that is the extent of it. The most important policy decisions and issues, and what residents think about such proposals have not, in recent years, been published. For example, residents have not been provided access to submissions on:

  • Community engagement/consultation policy
  • Planning Scheme Review
  • C87
  • C60
  • Bike Strategy

All of the above have been major issues for residents. Yet all that has been published are skimpy (and perhaps selectively edited?) officers’ summaries and responses. What has been provided in full is laughable in comparison – ie. submissions to the Toilet Strategy!!!!!!!!

Councillors need to realise that good governance demands full disclosure of submissions on all topics, policies and areas – unless the authors of such submissions request otherwise. Only publishing those that are perceived to be potentially less contentious and ‘sensitive’ is not a substitute for full accountability and transparency.

 

April 27, 2012

Move Over Sir Humphrey!

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

GESAC

We report that:

  • Once again no Pools Steering Committee report – even though this group are meant to meet every month and keep councillors informed as to progress
  • Of the 5 Records of Assembly (ranging over a month) GESAC is mentioned ONCE!
  • Council is still losing money hand over fist. The Financial Report lists revenue loss as now standing at $1.93 million due to the delay.
  • Also of significance is the nearly $4 million that capital works is behind schedule. Maybe the principle at work here is:  don’t spend what you promised to spend because that would drive the liquidity ratio well below the danger level of 1! Hang on to the money for as long as you can and use this to artificially boost the cash base.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

5 records of assembly are provided. We have to again question the accuracy and/or selective nature of these ‘records’. Lipshutz does not rate a mention once – it’s like he doesn’t exist. Either he is not doing his job by raising issues, or those issues simply aren’t reported. We certainly do not believe that he sits in these meetings totally mute. That then raises the question of how slanted these various records of assembly are.

We’ve gone through these and noted the number of times that individual councillors get a mention (apart from the declarations of interest).  It’s therefore fascinating as to what is put in and what is left out and the bigger question of WHO DECIDES – especially when we’re told that the meeting adjourned and reassembled but only councillors are listed. Does this mean that officers departed? If they didn’t, then why aren’t they listed as present? If they did leave then who took the minutes? Was it an independent note-taker as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?

The individual councillor mentions are:

Penhalluriack – 17

Hyams – 7

Magee – 5

Lobo – 4

Forge – 7

Pilling 1

Tang 3

Esakoff was absent for all meetings; Pilling was absent for 1.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to what this signifies. However, it should raise alarm bells as to the possible distortion(s) that these ‘records’ might represent.

C87

Overall recommendation is to go to a Planning Panel. However, the convoluted logic is worthy of highlighting. Apparently there were 59 submissions. Some favoured the Amendment, others opposed. What is important is that of these 59,

“27 submitters support the intent of the amendment but are “objecting” because their properties have not been included in the amendment”.

Since council did not INVITE comments from the community in preparing this amendment nor determining which areas are worthy of greater protection, they now turn around and argue – “This category of submissions request changes which go beyond the scope of this amendment in the form it was exhibited to the community. Any property that was not included as part of the exhibited amendment cannot now be included in this amendment.”

This somewhat patronising advice is then offered to those 27 submitters – “The suggested way forward for this category of submitters is to encourage them to put their views to the independent panel. The panel may, through their reported recommendations to Council, come to the view that some properties, not currently part of the amendment, are nonetheless worthy of NCO or DDO protection. It would then be open to Council to consider a new amendment process to include these properties.”

In other words, tough luck! We believe that the chances of the Panel investigating something outside their terms of reference is zero! Another Amendment must be devised, advertised, calls for submissions, Ministerial approval, etc. etc. As Hyams is so fond of saying, this could take years!

Our conclusion? Another tinkering with the edges of the planning scheme to deliver pre-determined outcomes that have deliberately excluded consideration of the majority of areas within Glen Eira. This is Sir Humphrey at his absolute best!

MULCH

Finally, there’s the recommendation to re-install the mulch facility exactly where it’s been – Glen Huntly. Residents are expected to believe that there is absolutely no other area within Glen Eira that could accommodate this facility and that relocation would probably cost $3 million!

We’ll comment on this in far greater detail in the days ahead.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »