GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

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

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

 

March 17, 2012

There’s Glen Eira & Then There Are Others

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 
Audit Committee – Expressions of interest  
Kingston City Council is seeking an independent, suitably qualified member of its Audit Committee for a 3 year term. The Audit Committee meets on a quarterly basis and is an independent advisory committee to Council operating in accordance with an adopted Audit Committee Charter.
Council welcomes expressions of interest from individuals with finance and accounting skills, legal compliance and risk management backgrounds. Additionally, applicants must be able to demonstrate a well developed ability to apply appropriate analytical and strategic management skills.
Further details on the requirements and a copy of the Audit Committee Charter can be downloaded here. Written expressions of interest close at 5pm on Friday, 13 April 2012 and should be forwarded to Sharon Banks, Kingston City Council, PO Box 1000, Mentone 3194 or emailed to sharon.banks@kingston.vic.gov.au.
Links
Download Files Information Package – Member Audit Committee 2012
 

March 16, 2012

Agenda Items

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

If any further evidence was required as to the machinations of this administration then readers need to look no further than the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. We will highlight just a few examples.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The incamera section of the agenda contains this item: “12.3 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee membership”. We assume that this refers to the reappointment (again, and again, and again) of either Mr Gibbs, or Mr McLean. We highlight the secrecy once more and the questionable probity of the potential presence of these men for a consistent and extended period of time on the most important committee in a council.

We also note the recommendations in the Officer’s Report (no name attached to this report – Again!) to reappoint Cr. Lipshutz and Magee to this advisory committee. We have previously stated our concerns about the unbroken presence of Cr. Lipshutz on this committee. If Council is really concerned about potential perceptions of good governance, and adhering to national and state standards, then there must be regular rotation of committee members. We have also stated that we believe the best candidates for this most important position are Crs Lobo and Penhalluriack.  Given their business and banking acumen and their long years of experience in worrying about bottom line figures and fiduciary responsibilities, they are both in our view, ideal councillor representatives on such a committee.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There are at least 2 highly contentious planning applications before council – the Morrice St, 2 storey 120 place child care centre, and the 3 story Mahvo St., development with 10 apartments. We have again noted how this planning department fails to adequately inform residents; how the number of notifications sent out appear to be directly correlated to the number of anticipated objections. For example: the erection of lighting in Caulfield Park, literally hundreds of metres away from the nearest house, occasioned over 500 notices. C60 which will have a direct and devastating impact on humdreds of homes, also had about 500-600 notices. Now we have these two applications, both of which were recommended for planning permit approval –

Morrice St – 20 properties notified; 23 notices; 76 objections & 1 letter of support.

Mahvo St. – 10 properties notified; 11 notices; 47 objections

In contrast we find the Lillimir application (which is already inundated with 3 storey developments and major multi units) received  86 notices sent and garnered 10 objections. This is not to decry the importance of this area. We are simply tired of the continual failure of the planning department to inform residents and to ensure that notices in all areas are distributed equitably and fairly. If people don’t know what’s going on, then how can they object? Could this in fact be the hidden agenda?

We are also taken aback at the sheer nonsense and gobbledygood that features in these officers reports. The reports lack substance, detail, statistics, and most importantly, they repeatedly fail to adequately address residents’ concerns. Here are just a few examples of this nonsense. We urge readers to note the vacuous/evasive language often used –

“Whilst there would be an appreciable increase in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon periods, these additional vehicle movements would not have an unreasonable effect on the current level of amenity of Morrice Street which would remain quiet throughout most of the day and at weekends.”

“Applying the State Government tests set out in Rescode, there will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties. There will be some overshadowing impacts to the habitable windows at 34 Mavho Street….The recommended increased setbacks at the first and second storeys will also assist in improving the degree of overshadowing.”

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

There are countless tit-bits of information in these ‘records’ that lead on to countless questions of planning, especially for GESAC. Here are a few –

7th February 2012 – GESAC indoor courts – update. Mayor to contact Bentleigh Secondary College

14th February – GESAC an update on the situation in relation to the allocation of time for basketball.

We’re also told that meeting resumed only in the presence of councillors. If so, then where is the ‘independent minute taker’? Was he/she present? If so, then why not listed? If not, then why not given the last Municipal Inspector’s recommendation and councillors promise to accept these recommendations?

Cr Hyams – informed the meeting that he had received a telephone call from the Municipal Inspectorate in relation to complaints and investigations.

Make of the above what you will!!!!!

 

March 14, 2012

Money, Mulch & Bloody Mindedness

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

VCAT LAW LIST FOR 15TH MARCH

Room 1.3 – Senior Member J. Smithers
11:00 AM G657/2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack v Glen Eira CC

Tomorrow will feature Cr Penhalluriack’s FOI application to VCAT for documents related to the closure of the mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. From previous articles in the Leader we understand that the basis of this FOI application is to gain access to some incredibly important materials related to the scientific consultant’s report – such as, the very first version of their report that went to Senior Officers, rather than councillors. Readers will remember that the final public document was not the first version of the report, but subsequent ones.

This entire saga has done nothing except cost ratepayers money and will continue to do so. We ask:

  • Why is this administration denying a councillor documents which are integral to councillors’ decision making
  • Why is council willing to spend mega-bucks on barristers/lawyers to fight this application?
  • Why is council running the risk of having all costs awarded against them?
  • By not producing these documents is there possibly a major cover up?
  • If released would such documents reveal ‘interference’ by administrators?
  • Is it mere coincidence that the Leader has just this week run another story on the mulch facility?
  • By not dismantling the mulch shed immediately following the 7 to 2 council resolution how much has the hire of steel fencing for nearly one year cost residents?

We conclude that this issue is far broader than a mere mulch heap. It again goes to the heart of good governance. Councillors are elected to make decisions based on the information provided to them. If this information is skewed, incomplete, ‘doctored’, or simply withheld, then the decisions must inevitably also be flawed. Administrators should be nothing more than a conduit for such information. We also maintain that councillors have every right to ask for documents that pertain to issues that they are required to decide upon. It is extraordinary that an elected councillor has to go through an FOI process in an attempt to secure the complete information. The refusal by administrators to accede to this request, and to fight it at ratepayers’ expense is simply beyond belief. If there’s absolutely nothing to hide then why take up the cudgels as this administration has so obviously done? In the public interest it is essential that all versions of this report, as well as other documents, are available for close scrutiny.

 

March 12, 2012

Same Horse, Different Jockey!

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

Since becoming Mayor, Jamie Hyams has not exactly covered himself with glory in his chairing of meetings. This is most surprising given his legal background and obvious penchant for a little pedantry.  With these credentials, one could be forgiven for hoping that the general running of such meetings would have proven to be far more in line with good governance. However, old habits and ties obviously die hard as evidenced at the last council meeting.

Hyams did not disallow what we strongly suspect were several requests for reports that did not adhere to the ‘no surprises’ policy of Council. In other words, there was no requisite written notice.

He declared a matter as Urgent business without putting it to the vote in the first place, and secondly, the ‘urgent business’ referred to was the VCAT decision regarding the Penhalluriack Code of Conduct matter which occurred weeks earlier and hence could not have been deemed as urgent business according to council’s local law – ie. the event/circumstance/situation did not eventuate between the printing of the agenda and the night of the council meeting.

It thus looks like residents are in for more of the same – sham governance; sham accountability, and no transparency. For the winner of a ‘two-up’ competition (versus being ‘elected’), this is not an auspicious start to his mayoralty!

 

March 12, 2012

Council Investigations

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Ombudsman to  monitor councils

March 12, 2012

The minister responsible for the establishment of the anti-corruption  commission, Andrew McIntosh, says the Ombudsman will be given more powers to  monitor councils.

THE Baillieu government will abolish Victoria’s local government watchdog and  hand its powers to the Ombudsman in a bid to bolster and streamline the  oversight of councillors and senior council staff.

Positions held by the chief municipal inspector, David Wolf, and his 14 staff  will be dissolved under the move, part of the reform of Victoria’s integrity bodies before the government’s introduction of an Independent Broad-based  Anti-corruption Commission later this year.

Andrew McIntosh, the minister responsible for the establishment of the  anti-corruption commission, said the Ombudsman will be given expanded jurisdiction to monitor the state’s 79 councils.

The Ombudsman will have powers to launch its own investigations into staff  and elected officials, without having to rely on a referral from Parliament or a  whistleblower complaint, which is currently the case.

The Brumby government’s 2010 Proust review of Victoria’s integrity framework noted problems with the  inspectorate’s arrangements, arrangements that are still in effect, and recommended that it be independent from executive  government.

Of 96 investigations by the inspectorate in 2010, 10 were referred to the  Victorian government solicitor for prosecution. Last financial year, the  inspectorate undertook 27 audits of local councils.

The Ombudsman, like the inspectorate, will investigate councillors and senior staff for breaches against the Local Government Act. But a government spokesman  said the Ombudsman will not prosecute cases – this will be done by Victoria Police or the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ombudsman-to-monitor-councils-20120311-1usos.html#ixzz1orCrKXTF

 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »