GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 10, 2012

Deck Shuffling On The Titanic!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
Comments Off on Deck Shuffling On The Titanic! 

March is upon us and that means deciding which councillors go onto which committees. We won’t cover all of them, but here are a couple of suggestions for what have been the most contentious groupings in the past few years:

AUDIT COMMITTEE – Penhalluriack and Lobo. Reasons – these are the only two councillors who have had direct experience of business and finance. Both Penhalluriack and Lobo have in the past stated the need for ‘cost benefit analyses’ as part of everyday council procedures and in particular when matters come up for decision.

Further, it would be absolutely unforgiveable if Lipshutz was on this committee. That would make it about 8 years straight for the same individual. This goes against the state guidelines and is certainly not what we would regard as correct probity. We’ve commented many times already on the continual reappointments of Gibbs & McLean – not strictly ‘kosher’ and needs to be addressed. Never again should councillors allow such decisions to be made in secret and without subsequent public announcement. And again we remind readers that the Audit Committee’s Annual Report has still not been made public.

RACECOURSE COMMITTEE: Given the track record of this committee and their total cave in to the MRC, we advocate for its abandonment. All councillors should have a say in what happens – not just four!

FINANCE COMMITTEE – we are not even sure if this committee exists anymore, since no meetings have been recorded for the past few years. It is absolutely essential that such a committee is functioning and active. Its role in other councils is to oversee the general strategic financial planning and to maintain independence from the Audit Committee. Glen Eira desperately needs such a committee.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE – Lawyers are not necessarily an advantage on such a committee. What is far more essential is common sense. Council has enough lawyers to handle the semantics. What is required is a group of councillors who view laws in a far more pragmatic and community conscious manner. We suggest that the councillor reps on this be: Forge, Tang, Penhalluriack

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE: again, it is essential that those councillors who sit on such committees actually believe in the principles of genuine consultation and transparency. This has not occurred.

Finally, true transparency and good governance will only occur when:

  • All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit/Finance) have external community representation
  • When advisory committee meetings publish agendas and are open to the public to attend
  • When advisory committee meetings – their processes and reporting requirements – are incorporated into the Local Law’s Meeting Procedures. Currently they are not, allowing such committees to operate as they wish
  • When reporting processes are consistent and timely and minutes are a true and accurate representation of what occurred. Currently minutes are a farce, frequently doctored, and tabled up to 6 months later.
 

March 8, 2012

A Little Arithmetic

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

We freely admit to a growing sense of frustration every time Lipshutz states that GESAC is ‘progressing well’ and ‘on budget’. It’s laughable because the ‘budget’ has undoubtedly been blown out of the water countless times already. We also freely admit that the following is mere supposition. It has to be, given that this Council has steadfastly refused to provide real facts and figures on GESAC. We know so very little about the expenses, about the costs, about revenue losses. The bottom line in all of this is a mystery. However, we like mysteries and present the following figures – simply as a guide. We stand to be corrected and we’ve undoubtedly left out much simply because Council has left out much in its disclosures to the most important people – us – the ones who are paying all the bills.

Here’s what we do know:

  • Vic Roads demanded that ALL the costs for the installation of the traffic lights in East Boundary Rd., plus all the necessary re-routing be paid for by Council. We estimate on very old figures that traffic lights are in the vicinity of $150,000. Add to this roads, pavements, landscaping, etc. and it’s feasible to suggest another $300,000 to $400,000. We are also willing to bet, that this figures isn’t included under GESAC CONSTRUCTION. Rather it is more likely to be camouflaged under ‘roads, drains’ etc. We maintain however that if this council was fair dinkum, that the cost should be directly attributed and counted into the GESAC BUDGET.
  • $450,000  for car park extension
  • $391,000 for playground ‘relocation’
  • $1,820,000 on interest repayments for one year
  • $330,000 for outfitting a café
  • Speed humps galore along neighbouring streets. Estimated at $16,000 per speed hump which would equal close to another $50,000 – should also be included under GESAC construction
  • 50 additional staff. Let’s be conservative and say that most would be part time and hence around $20,000p.a. That’s another million at least!
  • $760,000 hire purchase agreement for 4 years – making it $190,000 per year
  • Cardio equipment at $277,000 for 4 years – thus approx. $70,000 per year
  • $100,000 ‘promotional materials’
  • $60,000 chemical costs
  • $47,000 printing and stationery
  • $72,000 ‘referee’ payments
  • $95,000 GESAC software
  • $1,653,000 furniture & fittings
  • $49,000 – Pool vacuum and two way radios

These are just some of the things that we do know from the proposed budget and recent events. What still has not surfaced are the following facts and figures:

  • How much will heating/cooling cost?
  • How much will cleaning cost?
  • How much will lawyers ultimately cost – especially if Hansen & Yuncken don’t play ball?
  • How much will general maintenance cost?
  • How much will water cost?
  • How much revenue has been lost due to delay in opening?
  • How much revenue has been lost if basketball courts are not fully utilised by Warriors? And for how long will this continue and will ratepayers fork out the bills?
  • How much will lighting cost?
  • How much did relocation of electric power station cost?
  • How much did consultants cost, not to mention staff time?
  • How much did relocation of historical society cost?
  • Will tenants sue for lost revenue? How much will this cost?
  • Will tenants’ rent really cover costs?
  • What’s the cost of insurance?

There are probably scores of other items that we’ve neglected to list. This is only a start! It’s definitely time that Council stopped calling this a $41.2 million dollar project. That sum is ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION. It does not account for anything else! The total amount is astronomical. Now if this Council was a true believer in transparency, residents would have all of these figures at their finger tips. Councillors probably would as well – which we doubt they have!

The most crucial question though is: If projects had gone ahead on time (ie McKinnon grandstand/pavilion as previously noted on Neil Pilling’s blog) what would this do to cash flow and liquidity base? Maybe that’s our answer as to why so many things are so delayed? No wonder the Auditor General declared that Glen Eira is ‘high risk’.

 

March 7, 2012

GESAC: April, May, June…..?

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

At last Tuesday’s council meeting the magical word APRIL was used by Lipshutz for the very first time as to the potential opening of GESAC. The usual spin featured in his report on the Pools Steering Committee. We were again told that everything is ‘on budget’ and ‘progressing well’. Council is of course, ‘disappointed’ that the opening is now at least 4 months late, but as usual that’s ‘no fault of ours’ only the builder’s but Council is ‘taking action’ via its liquidated damages. Lipshutz ended by hoping that the pool will be open ‘for the basketball season’.

Again we highlight the lack of substance in this so called ‘report’; the staggering claim that GESAC is ‘on budget’ despite no income for 4 months – just expenses. We also maintain that such spin is an insult to the intelligence of ratepayers since only the most gullible or imbecilic would believe a single word of this propaganda. When oh when will this council actually come clean and provide residents with the truth as to the full financials of this project?

One thing however has been successfully completed – the chopping in half of Bailey Reserve for the car park extension and the relocation of the playground. Extra unbudgeted cost – just under $1,000,000. The image below captures the full horror as of February 15th.

 

March 4, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer!

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

In this big bad ugly world of bureaucracy, it’s incredibly difficult to know what and whom to believe – especially if contradictory advice is given by the same source! We just have to wonder why one individual is told ‘no it can’t be done’ and another individual is given an official order to do exactly what individual one wanted done! Are great big porkies being told? – or is this just another example of sheer bureaucratic bastardry, or we simply can’t be bothered doing anything about your case? What’s particularly disappointing about this whole set of circumstances is that poor old Neil Pilling, and Forge in recent times, have had their names attached to these formal letters without we presume any questioning. Here’s what we’ve learnt.

A resident from a local walking group wrote off to council complaining about fences on a property that obscured sightlines and hence were unsafe for pedestrians and traffic. The response from council with Pilling’s name attached said in part: “Following an inspection of the subject site, it was noted that sightlines for motorists exiting the ROW are obscured by the high fence at (address deleted)….In order to substantially improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians, the subject fence needs to be splayed. However, as this property is already developed, Council cannot require the owners of this property to lower their fence at this stage”.

So, we’re told that there’s nothing that good ol’ Glen Eira Council can do until there is another ‘redevelopment’. Tough luck for pedestrians, kids riding cycles, and motorists. It’s very strange then, that ON THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, we have another letter, signed by John Bordignon and written to a different resident. In this case, after years of the house being completed, the resident was officially ordered to:

“demolish and remove the illegal building work, being the section of fencing from the eastern and western timber paling fences, within three metres of the street alignment to a maximum height of 1.5 metres from natural ground level in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006”.

They were given 30 days to comply with this order! We also note that the Building Act, 1993 at Section 106(d) states: “the building, land or place or building work on the building, land or place is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or of any person using the building, land or place or to any property” then an order may be issued. This surely belies the advice given to Resident 1 and is more reprehensible since there is an admission that ‘sightlines’ are obscured and hence logically, create an unsafe environment.

COMMENT

How on earth can two contradictory statements be made about an identical issue? Is this nothing more than an attempt by this council to fob off a resident’s legitimate concerns by resorting to what can only be interpreted as a blatant untruth? Or again, is this just mere incompetence or plain old sloth – we just can’t be bothered? Perhaps it’s even bureaucracy deciding to flex its muscles because the second resident decided to seek legal advice? As we’ve stated before, such incidents do nothing to endear this bureaucracy to residents and certainly destroy any faith that anyone should have in their pronouncements, professionalism and actions. In permitting their names to be attached to such letters, councillors are complicit in these untruths and they are the ones who end up carrying the can – not those who are, and should be held responsible.

 

March 2, 2012

What Very, Very, VERY Expensive Games We Play!

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

From the minutes of 28th February 2012.

OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Item 10 Urgent Business

Crs Hyams/Tang

That a matter relating to the VCAT matter between Council and Cr Penhalluriack be considered as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

(a) Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

1. That Council place on the public record the resolution for Item 12.5 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 2, 2011, relating to a Councillor Conduct Panel, other than paragraph 5 which relates to legal advice, and all attachments.

2. That the following facts be placed on the public record:

  • As a result of concerns that some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff may cause Council to be in breach of its occupational health and safety obligations to provide a safe work place, Council unanimously resolved to engage a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety to investigate these concerns.
  •  As a summary of the investigation report records, some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate. The summary recommended, among other things, that Councillor Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality and his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.12 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack participated in various Council discussions and determinations in relation to the above matters. Councillors believed that this conduct breached the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act. Those councillors present therefore unanimously resolved, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2011, to make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel and to seek a finding of misconduct against Councillor Penhalluriack for these alleged breaches.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack denies these allegations and exercised his right to refer the matter to VCAT for determination. While Councillor Esakoff, as then mayor, was appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the Councillor Conduct Panel and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a councillor or councillors, once the matter was referred to VCAT, it was possible, and therefore appropriate, that Glen Eira City Council be named as the applicant.

That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.

9.45pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 2011

Item 12.5

LEGAL ADVICE COUNCILLOR CONDUCT PANEL

Enquiries: Peter Jones

Director Community Services

This item is confidential pursuant to s 89(2) (f) “legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” of the Local Government Act 1989.

10.45PM The CEO and Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel under section 81B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the conduct of Councillor Penhalluriack for alleged breaches of Councils code of Conduct and the Local Government Act in the form generally of the attached application. (Attachment 1 Application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel)

2. That Council seek a finding of misconduct against Cr. Penhalluriack.

3. That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally.

4. That Councillor Margaret Esakoff be appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the application to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

5. REDACTED.

REDACTED

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Forge

Except that all references to a failure to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the mulch facility be removed from the application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

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

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

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

That Council:

i) Note the Elster Creek Trail, including part of the shared path, encroaches onto the title of properties at 14 and 16 Hopkins Street, McKinnon.

ii) Note that the owners of 14 Hopkins Street intend to erect a new fence on the rear title boundary of this property.

iii) Note the owners of 16 Hopkins Street have applied to Council for a Town Planning Permit to subdivide this property into three lots including a lot along the rear. Further, that the owner agrees to gift the rear lot to Council to create a 1.5 metre buffer between the shared path and private property.

iv) Subject to approving the Town Planning Permit for the subdivision of 16 Hopkins Street, agrees to pay the owner all reasonable costs to prepare necessary plans and transfer the rear lot to Council.

v) Advise the owners of 14 and 16 Hopkins Street of Council’s decision including thanking the owners of 16 Hopkins Street for agreeing to gift the rear lot to Council.

vi) Incorporate this resolution in the public section of these minutes.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

 

March 1, 2012

Pavilions, Politics & Polling

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

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS

Esakoff made two requests. First was about the ‘progress’ of consultation on the Booran Rd. Reservoir including dates for such meetings and that the report be tabled back at an Ordinary Council Meeting. Seconded Lipshutz.

Esakoff spoke about how the community in 2007/8 had made it clear that they wanted to have a say on the future of the site. There had been plenty and regular enquiries about ‘what was happening with this site’…..’a growing frustration’…..’I will not be forming any view until we hear from the community’ (She would then)’form a vision based on those views…..beginning of process of bringing it all to fruition…open space…concerns all of us…..(talked about more dense living and why this makes open space even more important)…..’site is unique, enormous’….

PENHALLURIACK: said he thought it was a ‘wonderful idea’ and supported the request.

MAGEE: asked if council would also be consulting with the State government as part of process as to their ‘plans for funding’. Hyams replied that it would be part of ‘funding process’ rather than ‘consultation process’.

ESAKOFF: said that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: We find it fascinating that this item rears its ugly head at this particular point in time – an election year! Booran Rd. has been on the ‘agenda’ since at least early 2008. This comment appears on the Glen Eira Environment Group’s website: “Council has said that there will be a second round of public consultation possibly in 2010 to gauge the public needs relating to the end use of the reserve. FOGHR hope that this second attempt in public consultation will be transparent and fair and not be loaded to achieve a predetermined outcome as the first round of public consultation clearly was.” To the best of our knowledge, no such ‘consultation process’ has ever occurred. Yet, here we have the ‘sudden’ call for ‘consultation’!!!! Just plain amazing what an election year can throw up!

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

LIPSHUTZ: asked for a report on ‘options available” for removing the Council Depot from Caulfield Park and the costs involved. FORGE seconded. Lipshutz said that ever since he has become councillor people have been asking him about this issue and that the depot is ‘a blot’ on the park. ‘we’ve looked at that a number of times’….(now that the park has been ‘beautified’ the depot is) ‘in the wrong place and shouldn’t be there’…..’not suggesting that it should be done prior to anything else….’should be brought to the table’…(issue has come up again and again)…‘It’s not an electioneering issue as Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested.… ‘everyone’….’including Friends of Caulfield Park‘….’we may in fact decide that it is too much money’….’Cambden ward does not have too many issues’….’happy little vegemites in Cambden ward’….but certainly that is one issue…..

FORGE: ‘should be ashamed to have this blight in Caulfield Park….(thought that things can) ‘easily be relocated’….(hot house is) ‘derelict and not functional’….waste of space….(cars/trucks so that park has been) ‘inundated with….unnecessary function….(would like extension of aviary and more barbecues)….’I think the whole area could be much better….’beautified and cared for’…..

MAGEE: Asked Lipshutz to include a ‘joint venture’ in the report with neighbouring councils. Gave example of Bayside’s ‘huge depot’ and Glen Eira could share this and thus save costs for both. Both Lipshutz and Forge agreed to this amendment.

PENHALLURIACK: Penhalluriack spoke about an architect friend who had drawn up some plans for what might work at Booran Rd and that the depot could be moved there. Asked Newton to include these as part of presentation. Went on to call the depot ‘a horrible blight’ at Caulfield Park….(spoke about Friends of Caulfield Park’s latest newsletter which showed how cars and other vehicles are using the park even at night) ‘parked all over the place’….(Supported both Lipshutz’s and Magee’s ideas).

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: Again, an old issue suddenly bursts forth. We have previously written on this as part of ‘untabled requests for reports’ by councillors. We reiterate that on 16th November 2007 Lipshutz and Whiteside had this passed in council: “That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City.”. We also note that 4 years later Mr. Jack Campbell asked a public question as to the outcome of this report. The response led to a single line reference in an Annual Report that an ‘investigation had been undertaken’. End of story! Now, 5 years later we get a very similar request! We might well ask what Cr. Lipshutz has done in the interim and why now, this issue should again be brought up. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are around the corner? We would also like to make the point that it was NOT PENHALLURIACK WHO RAISED THE QUESTION OF AN ELECTION YEAR BUT LIPSHUTZ HIMSELF WHEN HE CLAIMED HE WAS ‘NOT CYNICAL’!!!! 

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

ESAKOFF: asked for a report on ‘available options for the provision of female facilities’….’at Lord Reserve Pavilion’ and ‘baseball pavilion in E.E. Gunn Reserve’. (Read from phone). Hyams asked for seconder. Lipshutz seconded. After Lipshutz spoke briefly Hyams asked Burke to read out the request. Esakoff then spoke and said ‘I probably should have said change facilities and toilet facilities….'(NOTE: at this point Esakoff had switched off her phone). Tang then said that he thought that ‘Esakoff had changed the motion’ (in the last thing she said) and that this requires the ‘endorsement of the seconder’….(Lipshutz accepted the changes). Esakoff then spoke about ‘clarifying…by adding on a word’ ….’intention was’ (change and toilet facilities are) ‘two separate things’. Penhalluriack asked Burke to read the motion.

ESAKOFF: summed up by ‘reiterating the need throughout the community’ (about pavilions)….’not modern facilities’…’these two….placed above the Victory Park pavilion priorities….because of that deserve to be deliberated on…as much as we need to deliberate on Victory Park.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: We strongly suspect that 2 of these requests for reports (Lipshutz’s one on the park depot and the Esakoff one on pavilions) did not accord to council’s requirement of 24 hour notice in writing. Lipshutz mentioned a ‘foreshadowing’ of his request during an earlier part of the meeting. If notice had been given as required, there would be no need for such a statement.

Hyams claims that Esakoff’s request was ‘legitimate’ since it was part of the debate on the Victory Park item. No it wasn’t. Both of these other parks were part of a spurious argument designed to derail the motion under consideration – ie. Victory Park. Council’s resolution, which Hyams has quoted, reads in part that 24 hour notice must be given – “except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” We see no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here and no ‘motion’ was put ‘during the course of the meeting’. The Victory park item had been debated and decided. It was a closed matter. Esakoff’s request was therefore unlawful.

We also maintain that the confusion as to what the actual wording of the request for a report (as noted by Tang) is the result of Esakoff first reading from her phone, switching it off, and then not having the original wording in front of her. Again, this claim is verified by gallery observers. All in all, these episodes do nothing to instill confidence and trust in the workings of this council.

 

February 28, 2012

Victory By Stealth?

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

In this post we are reporting on one single incident that occurred at tonight’s council meeting which illustrates fully the extent to which this Council and some of its councillors are prepared to ‘bend the rules’ and ignore good governance in order to serve the interests of their masters. We are referring to the ‘debate’ on the Victory Park ‘refurbishments’. A full account of this item will appear soon. However, here is the chronology of events:

  • Lobo’s motion to accept Option 2 and include the funding in discussions on the 2012/13 budget was passed 7 to 2.
  • Esakoff and Tang voted against the motion. Only after Lipshutz saw everyone else’s hand go up and he realised the cause was lost, did he sheepishly and belatedly raise his hand in support of the motion.
  • We now jump to Esakoff’s Request for a Report. The look on all councillors’ faces was priceless – this had clearly not been previously discussed in the Councillor Assembly. So much for the ‘no surprises’ policy and the recently passed resolution that councillors shouldn’t vote for something or even second something that had not been presented with 24 hours notice!! But let’s face it – Esakoff isn’t Penhalluriack!
  • What is even more alarming is that ESAKOFF READ OUT HER REQUEST FROM HER MOBILE PHONE. In other words, she received a text in the middle of a council meeting and as the good little servant she is, acted upon these directions. At least 3 members of the gallery can verify this.
  • We suspect that the message either came from Paul Burke or Jamie Hyams since both sit elevated in chamber and behind panels. In other words, we believe that Esakoff received clear directions on what to say and what to ask for!
  • Her Request for a Report related back to the Victory Park issue (her argument had been defeated) but the request was basically a reiteration of her previous rehearsed and probably trumped up argument. Again, we will provide the full details in time.

It is indeed a very, very sad day that certain councillors are nothing more than pawns under the direction of ‘faceless men’. As for adhering to council’s Local Law and recent resolutions re the ‘no suprises’ policy, it’s obvious that this only applies to certain councillors and not to others. Hyams’ silence here makes him equally complicit and culpable in this chicanery. As Chair of the meeting he should have ruled her Request for a Report out of order – unless of course, he was the author of the text message! Governance is truly moribund in Glen Eira and no amount of carefully arranged stage craft can hide this fact.

PS: It would also behove Cr Hyams to ensure that he disseminates the truth rather than what is good for public relations. He claimed that the Booran Rd Reserve had been ‘gifted’ to council and that Council now in fact owns the land. Not so. At least the State Government at the time had enough good sense not to hand public land over to Glen Eira – they simply appointed them as a Committee of Management. Residents deserve accuracy instead of continual spin – especially from the Mayor!

 

February 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball: The Saga Continues…..

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

GESAC Update 26-Feb-2012
As reported previously, Council awarded use of GESAC to Oakleigh Warriors but made provision for McKinnon to use the courts on Saturdays in exchange for providing two of our existing courts to Oakleigh.  Oakleigh advised us that they would only be interested in Bentleigh or Brighton under such an arrangement.  We approached the principals of both schools to see whether they would be prepared to entertain a sub-lease arrangement with Oakleigh. Unfortunately, in each case the schools rejected the proposal as they prefer to continue to deal with one organisation.

We now expect to have discussions with Council about using any surplus capacity which Warriors are unable to utilise.  As you may be aware, the mayor and other councillors have advised that any space which Warriors are unable to occupy will first be offered to McKinnon and that Oakleigh cannot be allowed to sublet the space. We will be asking the council how we can have access to the surplus space.
Kind regards
MBA Executive Committee

 

 

February 27, 2012

Agendas & More Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

In the overall scheme of things, this is probably a very minor issue. However, we believe it illustrates much about both the continual bungling by this council and then the abuse of the ‘in camera’ component of the legislation in order to cover up and avoid real scrutiny of such bungled operations. We refer to Item 12.1 of the ‘in camera’ items: “12.1 under s89(2)(e) “proposed development” which relates to the gifting of land to Council (Hopkins St, McKinnon).”  It looks like we were again dead right!

Readers may recall that several weeks ago we highlighted the fact that owners along the Elster Creek trail were reclaiming their rightful land by moving their fences out into the trail proper. We also queried how council had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yellow brick road without doing the necessary homework first.  It is now obvious that the path was potentially under threat by the realignment of property fencing. We concluded that council should have known what was likely to happen given past history of this area, and that they were literally caught with their pants down. We now conclude that this in camera item relates to this bungled issue for the following reasons:

  • Hopkins St. backs onto the Trail
  • Why would anyone ‘gift’ valuable land to the council unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why would council go through the expense of ‘accepting’ such land unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why is this item in camera? Surely when someone is so very generous and magnanimous as to ‘gift’ thousands of dollars of private property away, they deserve to be applauded, lauded, thanked. It isn’t every day that someone ‘gifts’ land  – especially with the price of land these days?

We connect the dots and make the following observations. The reason that this item is secret is because it would draw attention to another bungled Council operation. Council did not take into account the fact that its new path was either directly encroaching upon, or too close to residents’ properties to make for a viable shared path. The only solution was to either buy, or have land ‘gifted’ to them to avoid embarrassment and disclosure. Further, the fact that there is a plaque stuck in the middle of the trail at present acknowledging previous title transfers (2008) is further evidence that council should have known that there were numerous private parcels of land within the trail. This only raises the question of why these earlier land transfers are publically applauded and this one very generous act by a resident is conducted in secret. Our answer? To cover up what is another example of poor planning, poor decision making and a waste of residents’ money. All of this of course begs the question of how many other properties are entitled to move out and thus endanger the viability of the path? Will someone else suddenly ‘gift’ land to council?  Or will they exercise their legal rights to claim what is their land?

 

 

February 25, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors II

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

Agenda Item 9.7 features a report presumably written by Paul Burke on the possibility of redeveloping the Victory Park pavilion. In November 2007 there was also a report which included a ‘Pavilion Priority Listing’. Victory Park was ranked 6th in 2007 for redevelopment. In this latest report on Victory Park we find the usual tactics employed – need to adhere to the strategic resource plan and budget, as well as providing 4 options, two of which will cost the earth and a third which recommends ‘do nothing’. Option A is of course the cheapest, so if councillors are really adamant they’ll opt for this far from ideal solution. Memories of the GESAC car park extension argument resonates strongly here.  Apart from all this history, there is one vital sentence in the current Burke report:

“A recent review in August 2011 of the report ranked the Victory Park Pavilion seventh in priority list.”

We point out that such a ‘review’ has never made it into the public domain. Further, if such a review was conducted in August 2011, then why on the 20th September 2011 was this August ‘review’ never mentioned? Instead there was a vote on the redevelopment of the Centenary Park pavilion and the $500,000 grant received from the State Government? If councillors were aware of this August ‘review’ then the following debate from the chamber is superfluous, if not ridiculous. However, if they were not aware of the review and its sudden reassignment of Victory Park to category 7, then what does this say about information dissemination within council? Or is such a ‘review’ only for the eyes of Mr Burke and the Sports Department? Or the other possibility of course is does such a ‘review’ even exist?

Below is part of the post we put up following the September council debate. Please note carefully the interchange between Hyams and Tang.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

COMMENT

  • In September councillors are still referring to the November 2007 priority list. No mention of Burke’s review of August 2011!
  • The magical appearance of grants for Centenary, and now Marlborough even though these are out of order according to the priority listing from November 2007
  • If priority listings have changed then to quote Tang, ‘council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’!!!!!!!
  • What is the real truth and how much of this report is just more smoke and mirrors? Does this report even exist? If it does, then it must be in the public domain and the criteria and rationale for changes also published!
  • Finally, we mustn’t forget to mention that the Audit Committee Annual Report still hasn’t appeared! Why?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »