GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 24, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors

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

For all those residents who want a clear understanding of how the Glen Eira bureaucracy works to obfuscate issues, hide the truth, contain (deliberate?) inaccuracies, and befuddle councillors with nonsense, then the agenda items for the upcoming council meeting are the perfect example. We’ll go through these one by one.

FLOODS, DRAINS AND ‘IMPERVIOUS SURFACES’

The Environmental Advisory Committee has been contemplating the need to do something about the amount of ‘impervious surfaces’ allowed on new developments.  Four months later, there is finally a ‘report’ written by Jeff Akehurst. True to form (ie. ESD design) the general gist of the argument goes– ‘let’s advocate to state government because we really don’t want each municipality to have its own set of rules and regulations, and of course Glen Eira Council has already got in place its own ‘existing tools’ to deal with this problem.” The only concession is that the Council will ‘advocate’ to government to allow them to reduce the current 80% limit – but only in MINIMAL CHANGE AREAS!! Tough luck if you happen to live in the majority of HOUSING DIVERSITY! Here are some wonderful quotes from this “report”.

“It is acknowledged that impervious surfaces and water run-off are important issues but it is considered preferable that they are managed in a more broad and uniform way rather than differently by each municipality. It follows that State initiated controls are favoured.”

“…as an interim measure only, an “Impervious Surface and Storm Water Practice Note” could be developed.”

“If policy is regarded as too onerous by the development industry, it will be challenged and most likely successfully challenged through the VCAT process.”

“A further policy limitation is the time it takes to amend the planning scheme to incorporate new policy. It could take years and ultimately there is a risk it may never be approved by the Minister.”

“Any policy, procedure or practice note to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces or retain water on site is not a long term substitute to upgrading the drainage system.”

Overall solutions recommended – an ‘information kit’; advocate for only Minimal Change Areas.

GESAC: POOLS STEERING COMMITTEE (9th February)

Most of this contains the Lipshutz ‘statement’ that’s on the GESAC webpage. However, under the heading of ‘cash flow’ we find: “The actual forecast reflects that the project is behind schedule and that council has levied significant Liquidated Damages due to delays”. Yet, we are still told that the project is ‘under budget’! Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess considering that expenses keep rolling in and that income is non-existent! Surely the more honest approach would not be to claim that the implied entire project is under budget, but just that the building contract may be – that’s if Hansen and Yuncken decide not to challenge the Liquidated Damages! Finally, there is a little note stating that Liipshutz actually ‘requests’ that councillors be briefed ‘at the next opportunity’!!!!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY (6th and 13th December – so much for January and half of Feb!)

These ‘records’ are nothing short of astounding. First off, we make the observation that there is incredible inconsistency in the declarations of conflict of interest by various individuals. Repeatedly councillors and administrators leave the room for a minute or two with no clear indication as to whether there has been a conflict of interest declared or whether this is simply another case of weak bladders!

One such instance is that Andrew Newton has left the room when the Grill’d item is discussed. We wonder: did he declare a conflict of interest? Is that why he has left the room? Is that why this item was deemed ‘confidential” when every other lease agreement is reported openly? If this was a declaration of conflict of interest, then why isn’t it recorded as such in the records of assembly?

Another important item reads: “Cr Penhalluriack – said that a Councillor Conduct Panel hearing was being held at the Town Hall tomorrow. He advised that his solicitor has written a letter”. This is an extraordinary inclusion since the decision to send Penhalluriack to a Panel was obviously taken ‘in camera’. Previously we’ve had numerous excuses as to why in camera items cannot be disclosed. Yet, here we have a seeming lapse in ‘confidentiality’ from those responsible in the creation of the document. Again, we have to ponder the consistency, rationale, and agenda of all such publications.

Also worthy of note is the number of ‘amendments’ to these records suggested by Hyams.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS REPORT

‘Clerical errors’ are becoming a way of life with this council. This is now the second time that there is an inaccuracy in reporting on public questions. We are told that 19 questions were asked from October to December and that only 1 was declared inadmissible. Again, totally wrong. Our records show that at least two public questions were declared inadmissible during this period due to ‘harassment’. Further, two questions were taken on notice at the December 13th council meeting, but only one has been recorded in the February minutes. Again, the other clerical error contained in this ‘response’ is that the questioners’ NAME AND ADDRESS are included in these public minutes. This breaches the Information Privacy Act!

There is plenty more in this agenda that we will report on in the coming days.

 

February 17, 2012

Penhalluriack & VCAT Directions Hearing

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

The hearing apparently went for just under half an hour this morning. Both Council and Penhalluriack were represented by lawyers. The sequence of events went something like this:

  • Member asked each lawyer how long they anticipated the full hearing would go. Council’s lawyer said 3 days; Penhalluriack’s 5 to 7 days.
  • Council’s lawyer asked (with agreement from Penhalluriack’s lawyer) that the names of Donna Graham and Margaret Esakoff be removed and that Glen Eira City Council be substituted. Penhalluriack is the respondent.
  • Penhalluriack’s lawyer then raised some points about how nebulous and vague the 128 page document of allegations presented by Council were. For example: alleged failure to declare a conflict of interest but no precise reference to what the conflict may have been, nor the date, time, etc. Another allegation was ‘interactions’ with Mr. Newton and again no specifics. It was claimed that basically, the allegations lacked detail and substance and therefore council needed to specify their case far more clearly.
  • The member ordered that council produce a summary of the allegations that would be far more specific. He also ordered a compulsory conference and stated that there are two possible outcomes – either, the parties agree to some resolution, or if this fails, then the full VCAT hearing to proceed. Council was ordered to have the summary completed by early March and the conference to occur soon after.
  • Apparently Penhalluriack has also lodged an FOI application which council are opposing him on. This matter is to be heard before the compulsory conference. More residents’ funds going to lawyers!
  • Costs were reserved

COMMENT

Judging by all of the above it seems as if ratepayers are in for a very expensive ride. If QCs are employed for a week then we are really talking major expenditure – and this does not take into account briefing barristers or solicitors, much less the funding that has already gone into this exercise!

It’s also quite laughable that after so much ‘legal advice’, council still cannot get its act into gear and has to be ordered to produce a summary of 128 pages of vague, non-specific, allegations. We simply are left to ponder exactly how much this obviously sub standard tome has cost ratepayers!

 

February 16, 2012

News Flash: Glen Eira v Penhalluriack

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

The VCAT Daily Law List for tomorrow contains the following item under ‘Directions Hearing’ –

“9:30 AM G8/2012 Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Donna Graham, Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Margaret Esakoff v Mr Frank Penhalluriak”

This is really a startling development and adds another tawdry and expensive item to the saga of poor governance in Glen Eira. We surmise the following:

  • Council, or individual councillors, have sent Penhalluriack to a Councillor Conduct Panel. Since Glen Eira CC is noted and Esakoff was the Mayor last year, we conclude this is a formal Council decision taken some time back and again in secret. This may explain the countless in camera items over the past few months that referred to ‘legal advice’. Start counting the cost!
  • If this has ended up at VCAT, then one of two things must have happened. Either the Panel directed that the matters be heard at VCAT, but only after they’ve found a case of misconduct – which is unlikely since under legislation council has 28 days to publish the findings – OR Penhalluriack himself (as the respondent) has asked for the issue to go to VCAT. This is within his rights.
  • Since no findings have been included in council minutes, we conclude that Penhalluriack has decided to ask for a full VCAT hearing. 

The consequences of this are enormous. According to the MAV, a panel hearing would be a minimum of $1500 just for the sitting members. This does not include lawyers’ work prior to this. The legal fees for one lawyer at the Heritage Panel review which lasted a few hours was $9,000. We cringe at how much this may have cost. Next, there’s the fees for lawyers at VCAT – and if this goes for 2 or 3 days, then we’re literally talking tens and tens of thousands of dollars. If Penhalluriack chooses to employ a QC, then Council pays for his legal bills as well. All in all, ratepayers could be looking at something in the vicinity of well over $100,000 – and for what? 

As to the actual charges, then again, we have to conclude that they involve things like Newton’s allegations of ‘bullying’ and since Penhalluriack was excluded from the CEO Special Committee, which had as part of its schedule the extraordinary clause of Occupational & Health matters, then let’s throw in potential conflict of interest claims as well. We’re sure there are countless other charges.  

The fact that ratepayers’ money is being expended on, what in our view, is an attempt to silence an outspoken councillor, then this signals the death of free speech in Glen Eira. It also signals the death of councillors daring to question administrators and seeking quantified justifications for their recommendations. If councillors voted for this action, then they are culpable in the wastage of resident funds and in foresaking their commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance.

 

 

February 14, 2012

Public Questions On Grill’d

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

The minutes of last week’s council meeting, record the following public question and ‘response’ on the Grill’d episode.

“I am asking the question of every councillor and would like to know from each of you individually if you were aware that public seating had been removed before you decided on this lease of public land on Jersey Parade at the last council meeting.” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Your question suggests that public seating in the licence area, that was freehold land and not part of the road reserve, was removed prior to Council considering the matter in the in-camera part of the 13 December 2011 Council Meeting. This is not correct. No public seating had been or has been removed from the area that was under consideration.

To ensure that you are properly informed Council is able to advise you that following on from a Town Planning application in 2011 relating to 86 Koornang Road, for which no objections were received, a footpath trading application was submitted by the applicant that led to a number of old public seats being removed from in front of the address. Newer higher quality public seating has been installed slightly north of the former location that enjoy the amenity provided by the nearby trees. The relocation was carried out under the supervision of a highly qualified Urban Designer.”

COMMENT: This response is both disingenuous and revealing. We assume that the questioner was simply asking whether councillors knew beforehand that public seating had been removed when they made their decision on the lease for Grill’d. The response is technically correct, since the lease was for land in Jersey Parade and not Koornang Rd where Grill’d is situated.

Of greater significance is the admission that the footpath trading application ‘led to a number of old seats being removed’. Hence the application went in and this resulted in the removal of public seating along Koornang Rd. None of this explains why the lease was deemed ‘confidential’, who paid for the removal, and why Grill’d would appear to have been granted some special treatment. For example:

  • below are 3 photographs. The first is of the site where the public benches and tables were removed.
  • The next photo shows the new ‘higher quality’ seating that has been put in. We calculate that 4 benches have been replaced by 2!
  • The third photograph is of Michel’s Pattisserie, also in Koornang Rd but where public seating is smack in the middle of private seating! Now, why should one retailer be granted exclusive rights to what was public space, and another (regardless of whether an application went in) have to arrange his tables around such public seating.

The questions remain –

  • Why was public seating removed AFTER a footpath trading permit went in?
  • Who paid the bills?
  • If this was ‘old seating’, then why hasn’t the rest of the seating in the street also been upgraded? Being steel framed surely the expected lifespan of such seating should be more than 5 years?
  • Why was this entire issue dealt with in camera and unlike countless other leases not out in public?
  • Why does Grill’d appear to have been given special consideration, whilst other retailers having to ‘fit around’ existing street furniture?
  • And surely, the ‘replacement’ seating could in no way be a response to the adverse publicity that has ensued? It would be fascinating to see the internal documents as to when and why such a decision was made!

Finally, we wish to make it absolutely clear that our concerns are with the processes of Council alone and not with Grill’d.

 

February 11, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Public Questions

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

As in many other matters, public questions at Glen Eira have steadily become a bureaucratic tour de force. You ask, and pray, that you receive a decent reply. It is no coincidence that the Mayor’s signed letter uses the words ‘council’s response’ since on far too many occasions the ‘response’ is certainly not an ‘answer’! If anything, council’s ‘responses’ often become a game of semantics, evasion, and pure doublespeak.

Glen Eira is also in the minority when it comes to the timing of public questions – at the end of often tedious and excruciatingly boring council meetings, when most of the gallery have left so that there are very few ‘witnesses’ left to the responses and the mumbled and hurried performance by Mr. Burke.

Residents should also note that two public questions taken ‘on notice’ at the December 13th Council Meeting are still to be tabled. That’s two months to receive a reply when residents are told that ‘responses’ will be available within 10 working days and tabled at the next ‘appropriate’ meeting.

By way of contrast, we’ve taken the following from The Mayne Report. Not included are the handful of councils that still have their public question time at the end of meetings. What should  be carefully noted are the number of oral and unscripted questions allowed by various councils and that questions may be directed to officers. None of this is permissible in Glen Eira!

Banyule – 15 minutes of oral questions are permitted before the formal commencement of each council meeting with a limit of 3 minutes per resident.

Darebin – unscripted oral public questions are permitted for up to 30 minutes during the formal meeting at the start after councillors have reported back on their activities

Moreland – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Nillumbik – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Ballarat – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say

Bayside – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them.

Boroondara – written questions are to be submitted in writing before the meeting, and are addressed at the beginning of the meeting.

Brimbank – The public have the opportunity to raise questions before an Ordinary Council Meeting, which are then answered in the Council Chamber at the beginning before general business. Questions must be submitted on a Council Public Question form

Casey – questions are allowed at the beginning, after confirmation of minutes, but the questioner must be present when the question is read, a maximum of two questions from any one person are allowed at each meeting.

Frankston – A Public Question Time is held at the beginning of each Ordinary Meeting where questions with and without notice are addressed. A maximum of three questions will be permitted per resident per meeting

Greater Bendigo – The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions

Greater Geelong –  Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say.

Knox –  Council Meeting procedure includes public question time as a standard 3rd item on the Agenda in order to facilitate community participation in the meeting.

Maroondah –  question time is the second order of business at every Ordinary Meeting, to enable the general public to submit questions to Councillors or members of Council staff. Up to fifteen minutes will be allowed for the answering of all questions. A person must not submit more than two questions to a Council Meeting and must be present

Melton – Persons present in the Public Gallery will be given the opportunity to present any questions to Council during the meeting at the beginning, before items of business. All questions must be in writing and placed in the facility available in the Council Chamber Foyer by 7 pm on the evening of the meeting. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

Moonee Valley – From 6pm to 6.45pm, there is public forum and question time, and covers listed presentations, issues raised by citizens and questions without notice, so therefore it is not listed in the minutes. Formal meeting begins at 7pm.

Stonnington – unscripted public questions are permitted during the formal meeting at the beginning

Yarra Ranges – They can be lodged until 5pm on the day of the Council Meeting. A maximum of 15 minutes each meeting will be allocated to Question Time at the beginning as the last item before business. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

 

February 9, 2012

Council Meeting: The Bar Sinks Even Lower!

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

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

Penhalluriack’s question, as included in the agenda items, reads: “The tabling of a petition by constituents of this city was not accepted unanimously, but was opposed by certain councillors at the council meeting on the 22nd November 2011. A petition is one of the oldest and most sacred means of expression used by citizens. Tradition dictates that even the King must pay heed to his petitioners. I ask those Councillors on what grounds those (sic) they opposed its presentation to this Council?”

HYAMS: ‘aware that petition was being promoted through a blog’… (that always presents an) ‘unremittingly negative’ (view of council)……(gave example of Leader reporting on Community Satisfaction results and the blog printed this and not the later recant which was only referred to in a comment and this was to support) ‘a ludicrous conspiracy theory’ (about the Leader and Council. Went on to state that if the blog owners ‘have the confidence (about ‘accusations’)…’they would put their names to them….(which says a lot for) ‘their honesty and integrity that they hide behind anonymity…..(Regurgitated the Community Satisfaction Survey where 86% assessed council performance as ‘excellent’ and this ‘speaks volumes for the objectivity….of that blog….there has never been a positive post about Council…..unrepresentative ….of community sentiment…..(Thus the people who signed the petition) ‘were given misinformation in order to procure their signatures’ (and that’s why Hyams won’t accept the petition)…..’Question implies that petition should be received as a matter of course……we have the discretion to choose not to receive them….I chose to exercise this discretion…..Councillors should carefully consider every decision they make (and shouldn’t automatically accept everything).

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I concur with your comments’

ESAKOFF: ‘I also concur with your comments’.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

One question relating to insurance for sporting groups was declared inadmissable due to ‘harassment’. Penhalluriack then rose and asked for an explanation of why the question is regarded as ‘harassment’. Hyams responded that council had ‘received over 130 questions’ in the space of a year ‘on one topic’ after which ‘the Council determined….(harassment and) this is another question along the same lines’ (therefore harassment again)…..

Penhalluriack then made the point that ‘harassment’ is from an individual and not about a subject…’a topic can’t harass’….’and isn’t the question also’ directed to Cr. Lipshutz?

HYAMS: repeated the 130 questions business  and said that the intention was to harass council ‘until councillors saw things the way’ (the group wanted them to see it)….’on that basis we decided it was harassment’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘May I move dissent’.(from the ruling)?

HYAMS: ‘Yes, if you can find somewhere in the Local Law that allows you to do that’

PILLING: wanted to ask a question. Wanted a judgement on a clause in the Local Law

BURKE: basically (mumbled) that the chairperson has authority to rule. Burke then read out the followiing questions which included one to Lipshutz asking whether he would apologise for potentially misleading council via his statements of December 2010.

Lipshutz responded that he hadn’t mislead council so no apology ‘is required’.

Another question asked about the Facebook page published on this website and whether the public would be correct in concluding that there was a conflict of interest.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘never bother to read the blog…..(never) ‘anything positive about the council’….(when reading the blog you have to conclude that council is incompetent)….(reiterated about the Community satisfaction rating and ‘hiding behind anonymity’… (this anonymity would not protect the blog and moderators) ‘from damages claims….’I do not read the blog….(if his son’s name did appear on the blog then he was ‘unaware’ (and did not) ‘authorise’….’you have little knowledge or no knowledge of how Facebook operates’…..

TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question

HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors

BURKE: read out next question which asked whether council had finally validated the signatures for the petition and for the final number of signatories.

HYAMS: Stated that the petition had already been dealt with  on November 22nd and that it wasn’t council’s ‘role to validate the signatures’ on the petition.

PENHALLURIACK: that he had a ‘second response’ to the question. ‘I dissent….(referred to council website and the need to submit petitions 2 days prior to council meetings and the purpose would be so) ‘that officers can count and validate the sigatures….I am disappointed that the petitioners…..(weren’t counted since it sets a poor precedent for future petitions) ….‘subject of a petition should be irrelevant to the way it is handled‘…(here the subject matter) ‘has meant that petitioners have been treated with less respect’ …’for my part I apologise for that’.

 

February 6, 2012

Funny Business Is Getting Funnier!

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

We’ve just had an email from an alert reader informing us that the Grill’d restaurant (where public seating was removed and replaced with private (commercial) tables and chairs) now has a LIQUOR permit application sticker on its window. Even more strange is the fact that the table and chairs which had begun in Koornang Rd and then spilled over into Jersey Parade have recently disappeared from the latter location.

The plot gets murkier day by day. First the disappearance of public seating to be replaced by the restaurant’s private table and chairs; next an in camera decision on the lease of land; no announcement of result and now, this perhaps final piece in the jigsaw. A liquor licence application for public open space right next to a library where kids, mothers etc. frequent.

We simply ask: what funny buggers have and still are going on? Why the secrecy? Why a land lease in the first place instead of a normal permit application for tables and chairs? Why no announcement and why at this point in time (after the awarding we presume of the ‘land’) there is now a liquor application? Does this mean that liquor will be consumed out in the open at those private tables and chairs? Should there be any concerns about the chronology of these events? How much did councillors know about anything? All questions that require answers councillors!

 

February 5, 2012

Consultation Via ‘Consultants’: The Biggest Con?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[10] Comments 

Consultants are generally hired on the recommendation of administrators. The public never gets to know how much these high priced ‘consultants’ cost and we doubt that councillors even know. We have also long suspected that in Glen Eira such consultancies simply deliver pre-arranged and pre-determined findings or outcomes. In other words, they are nothing but a huge and expensive public relations exercise that gives the pretence of actually listening to the community – but the outcomes are already fixed and set in yellow concrete. It’s the old story of ‘he who pays the piper plays the tune’ and more importantly, he who writes the brief and gives instructions, controls the so called ‘findings’ and outcomes.

Nothing illustrates this more than the processes involved in the current C87 proposed Amendment. Please note the following:

  • Both Bayside (in 2008) and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the research on Significant Character Overlays
  • Both Bayside and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the review of the original Neighbourhood Character Research

What we present below is a table comparing the comments by PLANISPHERE from the Bayside study (uploaded here) as opposed to the Glen Eira study.  The differences in tone, content, methodology, level of community engagement and depth of analysis is mind boggling. As we stated earlier – you get what you pay for and what the carefully scripted brief (plus private conversations?) tell PLANISPHERE to ‘research’. We conclude that the C87 report is nothing more than an administration directed document that totally fails to incorporate community views and values as mandated by the legislation.

BAYSIDE PLANISPHERE REPORT

GLEN EIRA PLANISPHERE REPORT
“Since the   completion of the Stage 1 Review, other streets were identified for   investigation by Council and   community groups, and these have been included in the study” (p.4)

 

“The Study   area included areas that were identified in Stage 1 of the Review by   Planisphere as well as those additional areas or streets that were   subsequently identified by Councillors,   planning staff or the community”.   (p.6)

 “These   were new areas of significant neighbourhood character or extensions to   previous areas and were either recommended   by Council officersor recognised by the study team…..” (p.23)

 

COMMENT:   Even councillors don’t get a look in in Glen Eira!

 
“At Council’s request consultation   with property owners and residents was conducted as the next stage of the   project. This included an information   package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open-house’   drop in information sessions.

Over 1,000 submissions were received   via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the   values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the   recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in   detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional   information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site work and in some instances   adjustments to precinct boundaries have been made”. (p. 4)

 

 “A   preliminary survey and assessment was also undertaken of the 15 SCAs listed   in the Minimal Change Area Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Clause   22.08) as well as potential areas of significant neighbourhood character recommended by Council”. (p. 5)

 

“Community   awareness of the importance of
neighbourhood character issues is an essential aspect of implementation.   This applies to a range of different groups in the community where a range of   approaches to communication are required. This includes:

  •   Education   of real estate agents and developers
  •   Working with residents’ groups and landowners   generally
  •   Education of design and building professionals

The final   report and Design Guidelines will form a large part of this communication. Additional techniques that could be   used include:

  •   Awards or encouragement schemes for ‘good   character’ developments
  •   Workshops with residents’ groups, Council   staff, developers, or design professionals
  •   Public displays
  •   Media articles/events”. (p.61)
“Exclude   Lawrence Street which has been recommended   for Heritage Overlay controls”. (p. 19)“Neighbourhood   Character Overlay to apply to the south western side of Loller St, and a   Heritage Overlay to apply to Lawrence Street”. (p. 19) “Whilst   this report identifies potential heritage significance it does not go so far as to make recommendations on future Council   actions in relation to heritage matters”.(p.13) 
“Consultation with the community has   provided an indication of the types of development pressures taking place in   each area, and the community views of this”. (p.30) “An understanding of the pressure for   development in each area has also been gained from discussions with Council’s   planning staff”. (p.37) AND“Field   trips around Glen Eira’s residential neighbourhoods revealed to the study team a range of scenarios where inappropriate design responses were felt to impact adversely upon neighbourhood character”. (p.27)

Nothing about the C87 Amendment has been transparent and accountable. It has been designed, and orchestrated ‘internally’. No officer’s report has been tabled at a council meeting recommending sending off to the Minister for permission to exhibit – as is the case with practically all proposed Amendments. Instead, the ‘legal’ excuse undoubtedly used here, harks back to Council’s resolution of 2010 which included as an Addendum to the sham of the Planning Scheme Review, the C87 proposed amendment. But even this resolution contained the words “with the approval of council”! Hence, a vague rider to a resolution taken 18 months ago is now the legal ‘excuse’ for no report, no consultation, and no explanation. Another minor little hiccup in legalities, if not democratic process, is the fact that council announced the exhibition of C87 on January 31st. It was not gazetted until February 2nd! Obviously the legal requirement of one month’s notice to the public occasioned this oversight. We must therefore conclude that there is an almighty rush to push this Amendment through! Why the hurry we ask? After 18 months surely a proper discussion paper, outlining the objectives and the rationale, together with the pitfalls, could have been produced and distributed to all those interested?

The community should be outraged at the money that is spent on such spurious ‘consultations’. Either we employ consultants who are given free reign to explore an issue fully and comprehensively or councillors should put a stop to such flagrant misuse of public funds. It’s definitely time that councillors took control and demanded answers to the following basic questions:

  • How much has each external consultancy cost ratepayers?
  • What was the precise brief given to each of these consultants? What private conversations ensued? Where are these documented as part of the public record?
  • Were draft reports ever ‘ordered’ to be altered? If so, did councillors know of these ‘alterations’?
  • Were councillors privy to the briefs? If not, why not?
  • How do councillors justify the spending of this money without any genuine involvement from the community?

We will in the weeks ahead, also be commenting on the other current consultant’s report on the Community Plan – which as council freely admits is really the Council Plan! At least this latter nomenclature is spot on!

 

February 3, 2012

Agenda Items: More Secrecy & Sham

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[11] Comments 

A new year has begun, but nothing seems to have changed in terms of accountability and transparency when it comes to Glen Eira City Council. We note the TOTAL SILENCE on the following crucial issues:

  • No Pools Steering Committee report on GESAC. Given the absolute schemozzle, public outcries, and the fact that we are now into February, residents have every right to expect an up-to-date report on the progress of the pool. And by some miracle, an announcement of opening date.
  • No Audit Committee Annual Report! Regardless of whether this has been presented in secret at an assembly meeting, it should still be published and disclosed to residents.
  • No Records of Assembly. The last published record dates back to 22nd November. That means that all of December and January meetings remain undisclosed. We cannot believe that it takes two months to prepare a set of skeletal and non-informative records!

Other major lowlights are:

  • The ceding of public land via a section 173 agreement. In return, Council will gain a public toilet – but will still have to pay for maintenance, water and electricity. In the meantime, the developer gains 4 storey multi-units.
  • More secret ‘legal advice’ – this time about VCAT

What really caught our eye was the proposed development in Balaclava Rd – 4 storey, offices, retail and 14 units. It seems that the original application for 2 units lapsed and this is now a second bite at the cherry – with the increased residential component. We’ve had a good laugh at the following statements from the Officer’s Report (Ms Snell) and urge readers to carefully note the double speak of the following:

“There will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties due to the orientation of the site.”

“A relatively high level of natural light will be provided to each dwelling through the use of suitably located windows. In addition all bedrooms have direct access to natural light and allow for adequate natural ventilation with the exception of four dwellings.”

”It is also recommended that the disabled car space be converted to a visitor car space”. (Please note: the recommendation is that 22 onsite car parking spots are sufficient for 14 units, offices and retail shops).

‘No on-site loading facilities are proposed. This is considered to be appropriate given service vehicles can use Stanley Parade”.

Once again this Council fails to adhere to its own planning scheme and regulations.

 

February 1, 2012

GESAC & McKinnon Basketball

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

The MBA Executive have put out the following statement:

Dear Members,

GESAC Update from Council Meeting 14-Dec-2011

We are very keen for the MBA to have a presence in GESAC as we see ourselves as clearly the most logical occupant. Consequently we will work with Council and the Warriors to see whether there is a way in which the proposal as outlined below can be made to work.

However, what the motion does not contemplate is the fact that the court space we currently occupy is not ours to allocate to others as we see fit. As such we will need to work with our relevant schools to determine whether they would be agreeable to such an arrangement. This process has already commenced. It is important to stress this point as some recent media reports suggest that we have already agreed to the proposal as outlined in the motion, we have only made such commitments subject to agreement from our existing landlords.

On December 14, 2011 a motion was put before Glen Eira City Council by Councillors Hyams and Lipshitz, the motion read as follows:

That Council

  1. Note that:
    1. As the result of a fair and proper Expression of Interest (EoI) process, the use of the GESAC indoor courts for basketball was allocated to the Warriors;
    2. In the interests of maximising the use of the GESAC indoor courts by the community, Council’s preferred position is that the basketball allocation be shared between the Warriors and the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA); and
    3. Notwithstanding the allocation referred to in (a), the Warriors have indicated a willingness to share that allocation with the MBA.
  2. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Fridays from 6pm to 11pm and Sundays from 9am to 11pm.
  3. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the MBA on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm subject to the MBA agreeing by January 15 2012 to provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors from 8am to 7pm on Saturdays to the reasonable satisfaction of the Warriors, or, if such agreement is not reached, or observed, allocate the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Saturdays from 8am to 7pm.
  4. In all other respects, apply the terms and conditions of the allocation referred to in 1(a) to the use of the courts by the Warriors and, if applicable, to the MBA.
  5. Authorise officers to give effect to this resolution.
  6. Incorporate this resolution and this report in the public Minutes of this Meeting apart from Council’s legal advice at section 3.4 of this report and in the attachments.

DIVISION Cr Magee called for a Division on voting of the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION FOR: Cr Tang, Cr Hyams, Cr Lipshutz, Cr Forge AGAINST: Cr Magee, Cr Penhalluriack, Cr Pilling, Cr Esakoff

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED on the casting Vote of the Chairperson (Mayor Cr. Hyams)

Finally, it is worth noting that this allocation is for 12 months and that it is our understanding that should the Warriors be unable to fully utilize the space they have committed to for their own use, any surplus capacity will be reallocated by Council and must first be offered to McKinnon.

Kind regards

MBA Executive Committee

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »