GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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 16^th 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?

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 (9^th 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 (6^th and 13^th 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.