GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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

 

 

January 24, 2012

Secrecy & More Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

The Local Government Act stipulates that councils, or CEOs, MAY declare items as confidential and that they be discussed in camera. This is NOT a requirement – merely a safeguard for personal or highly sensitive financial contracts. That seems fair enough, but as we’ve commented almost ad nauseum, Glen Eira appears to take this clause as applying to practically everything! We’ve highlighted the Grill’d affair and also the continual reappointment of the external audit committee members and asked each time – why have these items been declared confidential and why was no announcement made post discussion?

These are not the only items that give cause for concern. We’ve gone through all the 2011 council meeting minutes and listed below items which were declared confidential, discussed in camera and the results of which were not announced in the public minutes. Many of the items appear pretty straight forward. That is contracts. So again we ask: why is it that some contracts are made public and others have ‘top secret’ stamped on them? What is the criteria – especially when we’re looking at such possibly innocuous items as redesigning the Glen Eira News, collection of green waste, etc. Is it simply a great way to cover up ‘expenses’ – especially in relation to GESAC, since it then becomes extremely hard to really know how much this facility is costing?

These contracts undoubtedly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The community has a right to know what is being paid and to whom. Glen Eira Council operates on different principles all together. We believe it is time that explanations were offered for the contradictions inherent in this list and that Newton’s exclusive powers to declare items as ‘confidential’ came under full scrutiny by councillors.

Please note: we have excluded all those items which refer to ‘legal advice’ and those which pertain to ‘personnel’ – apart from the audit committee one. The list reads:

  • 12.1 under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates property in Oakleigh Road, Carnegie
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates Council approved contracts
  • 12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Audit Committee Membership
  • under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to Centre Road, Bentleigh
  • under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to possible measures to protect trees
  • 12.2 under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to possible interim controls over some areas within Glen Eira
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the Yarra Yarra Golf Club
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the green waste disposal.
  • under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a supplier for the leasing of photocopier services to Council and for the provision of ‘pay by copy’ services.
  • under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a panel of providers for the provision of IT Products & Services under the categories of IT Hardware, Infrastructure and Services
  • under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a vendor for the provision of Microsoft software products and associated services such as training, documentation and ongoing support.
  • under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to land formerly owned by the Melbourne Racing Club becoming Crown Land.
  • under s 89(2) (d) “contractual” which relates to the construction of GESAC
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to works by South-East Water.
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to appoint a panel of suppliers for the procurement and disposal of vehicles
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to Council approved contracts
  • under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to kindergarten facilities
  • under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to child care
  • under s 89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to Bent Street, Bentleigh
  • under s 89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to the Clayton South landfill
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates GESAC electricity supply
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for Tender 2012.023 Design Services for Glen Eira News
  • under s89 (2)(d) which relates to the awarding of the GESAC cleaning contract.
  • under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie
  • under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to works in Allnutt Park, Halley Park and Bentleigh Hodgson Reserve as part of the South East Water Elster Sewer Safe Upgrade Program.
 

January 23, 2012

Lipshutz’s ‘Annus Horribilis’

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

Cr. Lipshutz currently heads or sits on the following important Council committees –

  • Chairman of GESAC
  • Chairman Caulfield Racecourse Special Committee
  • Member, Audit committee
  • Member Consultation Committee
  • And we mustn’t forget his tireless support of the CEO and officers!

Given these multiple areas of responsibility and the subsequent outcomes, 2011 has really become Lipshutz’s ‘annus horribilus’. We focus on just some of the ‘underachievements’ –

  • The Seaview/Hawthorn Rd Heritage fiasco where under Lipshutz’s guidance and his newly acquired heritage expertise, the views of 6 professional heritage advisors were ignored and rejected. Result? Needless costs of lawyers, panels, independent ‘advice’ to council – all for nothing. Next time Lipshutz announces ‘I don’t agree’ then perhaps residents should ask for him to display his credentials in the specific area!
  • Chairman of GESAC. Another shambolic performance that has been far from open and beyond reproach. Gesac, arguably the ugliest building to be erected in Glen Eira, has risen, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of the old scout and guide halls in Bailey Reserve. Lipshutz as chairman of the steering committee should answer how on earth it got passed by council given that there is no direct transport and we suspect no viable business plan. As late as September Lipshutz was still insisting that the facility would be open in December. April Fools’ day now appears more likely!

Lipshutz has never denied that GESAC will lose money when it is finally up and running. It will not even contribute to the interest payments, yet he continues to maintain that there is no problem – except for the builder. Council has continued to hire and presumably pay staff to accommodate the many thousands of angry ‘members’ who thought their membership would give them a swim this summer. We’ve probably got fitness advisors, swim instructors, and countless others just sitting around, collecting their wages and doing bugger all. More importantly, whilst the costs continue to escalate the Pools steering committee chairman can only say ‘council has used every means at its disposal to have the builder comply with building time lines” and “council has been levying liquidated damages as a consequence of each milestone missed and they are now approximately $1million”. And we’re expected to believe that a huge company such as Hansen Yuncken will sit idly by and cough up the million without a fight in the courts. Get ready we say for more hefty legal fees. Then there’s the fact that since it is a loss-making project making damages stick will be a problem. But, while bullying is fashionable in Glen Eira in 2011, fiscal responsibility takes the back seat.

The auditor general has classified Glen Eira as ‘high risk’. Council is borrowing $25 to construct GESAC – and who knows if this is enough? We presume that council has taken out a fixed interest loan in an economy where interest rates have dropped by 0.5% and look likely to drop even further this coming year. So much for the essential controls over income and expenditure by council’s well paid officers and the audit committee – also part of Lipshutz’s responsibilities. Poor, poor, long-suffering ratepayers, since it is not only us, but the next generation which will be paying off the loan.

  • Racecourse/C60. Lipshutz has been a major player here. In a move that went against his own ‘no surprises’ policy, Lipshutz and Hyams moved a sneaky little amendment that gave the gang and Newton control over ‘negotiations’ with the MRC. This was after their initial attempt to include Newton was defeated. But all’s fair in love and war and politics it seems. You tell others to play by the rules and then break the rules when needed, convenient, or expedient. These ‘negotiations’ have been a dismal failure delivering nothing to the community.
  • Audit Committee. Probity and accepted best practice appear to mean nothing here. Lipshutz has been a continual member of the Audit committee and for two years sat concurrently on both the Audit committee and the finance committee – surely a conflict of interest and a definite no-no in all responsible organisations. Given his legal background we should expect that Lipshutz would have known better. But even worse, the reappointments of Gibbs & McLean must break all world records. Further their reappointments have all been deemed ‘confidential’, held in secret with no public announcement. We’re still waiting for the 2011 annual report to make an appearance.
  • The final lowlight must be the manoeuvrings to design, implement and delegate the ceo appointment process to the special committee – minus Penhalluriack. Even here we’ve witnessed stuff ups – the creation of the committee only to have its delegatory powers rescinded in the space of 3 weeks and new terms drawn up.  Again, everything’s been behind closed doors, even the final voting – although one doesn’t have to be too smart to figure out that Newton has retained his job thanks to the gang and Lobo.

There’s plenty more of course – in voting for various developments that sacrifice public amenity; in doing Newton’s bidding with the last minute gesac car parking extension; with the failure of the audit committee to act responsibly for months and months on the mulch affair, and now for the utter shambles which constitutes the workings of the Pools Steering Committee. All in all a dismal year of failure for Lipshutz and consequently for the residents of Glen Eira.

 

January 21, 2012

Has Lipshutz Mislead Council?

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

The minutes of December 14th, 2010 record the following comments by Cr Lipshutz in response to a public question–

“The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group. 

All answers to your questions have been dealt with honestly and in a responsive manner. ….Perhaps you could identify which if any Frisbee Group you are referring to and further provide some empirical evidence of any of my sons regularly playing Frisbee in such a group. You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

COMMENT – these statements sound very much like a categorical denial of any official affiliation of Michael Lipshutz’s son (Josh) with any specific Frisbee group. There is the admission that Josh does play Frisbee, but that it is in a purely casual capacity. We beg to differ!

We urge all readers to carefully examine the following cached image of CP Frizza on Fridays. Readers will note that on the left hand side there are two categories – ‘Admins’ AND “Officers’. Each category has a hypertext link in the name of ‘Josh”. Clicking on this reveals that the ‘admin’ person and the ‘officer’ is none other than Josh Lipshutz – Cr. Lipshutz’s son!

Before anyone suggests that this affiliation may have occurred AFTER Cr. Lipshutz made his strident and insulting denial, we have seen cached versions of this and other pages which precede December 14th. One very early page in particular identifies Josh Lipshutz as a ‘member’ of this specific Frisbee group, despite Cr. Lipshutz’s categorical denials. Further, on the image provided above, one of the statements attributed to Josh Lipshutz clearly suggests his role is far greater than a mere occasional ‘social player’ of this regular Frisbee game.

If we are correct, then the only possible and logical conclusion would be that Lipshutz has mislead Council and has breached both the Local Government Act and the Councillor Code of Conduct.

PS: The current Frisbee page has made several changes – deleting the category of ‘Officers’ – but the link to Josh Lipshutz under ‘Admins’ still remains. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37156836057#!/group.php?gid=37156836057&v=wall

 

 

January 20, 2012

At Last, Some Action…..Perhaps!

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

The following post on Council’s secrecy has appeared on Cr. Pilling’s blog  under the heading of “Council meeting items and the issue of confidentiality”.

“The seemingly burgeoning amount of in-camera (confidential) agenda items not only here in Glen Eira but also in other municipalities including the City of Melbourne where a recent meeting had less than twenty mins of public discussion has been highlighted recently. I acknowledge the concerns raised on this issue by the local website Glen Eira debates.

Yesterday I raised the following points with other Crs and the CEO.
-“One of the issues for Glen Eira in 2012 is how to address the seemingly increasing amount of confidential items that are held in the in-camera section of the meeting agenda- increasingly so over the past few years.

Our aim as a Council should be to reduce this to the essential minimum so as to allow for as maximum public discussion as possible on agenda items.

Whilst I acknowledge that there are instances such as business tenders and OH @ S issues that require confidentiality I feel that there needs to be far greater efforts in keeping other items in the public agenda. Other councils such as Port Phillip if necessary spilt the item in two to allow for public discussion.

At each of the pre-meeting assemblies there should be an improved discussion and questioning as to the why and of the need for any proposed confidential agenda item,”

COMMENT: We acknowledge that this is a step forward in meeting community concerns and congratulate Cr. Pilling on his initiative and making his email public. However, we see a real paradox in the suggested ‘solution’.  Discussions will again be held behind closed doors; excuses and (spurious?) explanations as to why something should remain ‘confidential’ will be provided and that will be the end of the story. The solution must be open, frank, and full discussion on this issue in ordinary council meetings. The Grill’d episode is the perfect example of why there needs to be public explanation as to why Newton deemed this item as confidential. Councillors have it in their power to remove ‘confidential’ status via a vote and resolution. Even if this vote is defeated, it will serve the interests of transparency – let the community know how each councillor votes and the reasoning  behind such voting. Secondly, if councillors are really concerned about how this council operates, then they should focus their attention on the Local Law and the meeting procedures. This draconian and anti-democratic document needs to be rescinded and then rewritten. Posturing behind closed doors does not serve the public interest!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »