GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 4, 2011

How Long Is Too Long?

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

Change management and succession planning are some of the buzz words found in the corporate world. Those at the top generally recognise that they have time limits on their tenure and for the company to flourish and advance new blood must be continually groomed, sought and introduced. This is also true of local government. In order to attract all the new bright things, people with talent and ambition and who thrive on challenges, the old must make way for the new. With no chance of advancement anyone worth a cracker from within the organisation will seek positions elsewhere whilst attracting outside talent is a forlorn task – especially if they perceive there is no room for advancement.

In Glen Eira, as opposed to numerous other councils, we seem to be stuck with the old. There just isn’t any space at the top. Some might argue this means “stability”. Others may see this as stagnation and a detriment to the organisation. It all depends on results and point of view. Bayside obviously welcomes new blood – in droves. According to their website, the most senior officers have ALL been at the council for less than 3 years – that is, not just in their current positions, but newly arrived at Bayside. They are listed as:

Heather Johnson – Director community services – arrived 2008

Shiran Wickramasinghe – Director City Strategy –  arrived 2010

Guy Wilson-Browne – Director Infrastructure Services –  arrived 2008

Sharon Pearsons – Director Corporate Services – arrived  2008 –

Andrew Robb CEO – 2008

Glen Eira’s story stands in stark contrast. Note that the following years DO NOT NECESSARILY SIGNIFY WHEN THESE INDIVIDUALS FIRST ARRIVED AT COUNCIL – ONLY WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THEIR CURRENT ROLES.

Paul Burke –2001

Peter Jones – 2003

Peter Waite –2006

Jeff Akehurst – 1996

Peter Swabey –2004

Andrew Newton – 2000

Gibbs & McLean (Audit Committee) – at least since 1998!

So we can only ask: How long is too long? – especially when it is the CEO alone who has control over his lieutenants!

 

December 3, 2011

Councillor Courses

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

On 28th November 2011 a public question at Bayside City Council asked for information on each councillor’s academic qualifications and the courses each had undertaken since becoming a councillor. Information was also requested on the cost of these courses to Council. We’ve copied the responses and provide them in the public interest. We note specifically the number of councillors who have undertaken Director courses and wonder how many, if any, of our councillors have completed similar courses.

Academic Qualifications

Del Porto – B.A. (Hons) M.A Melb; Post Grad Sec. ACU

Hayes – Adv. Dip App. Sci. (Farm Management)

Long – B.A. (Multidiscipline)

Norris – M.A, M. Sc (Econ)

Frederico – B. Bus. (Mktg) Certificate of Business (Tourism)

Cooper-Shaw – B. Comm, B-Ed. Grad Dip Criminology; M.A. (applied Psych) M. Ed.

Russell – Nil

Councillor Course Year Cost Course Completed Certificate Issued
Del Porto Australian   Institute of Company Directors 2011 $5,900 Completed Yes
Hayes Media   Training

Presentation   Training

Australian   Institute of Company Directors

 2009

 

2009

 

2011

 $1,350

 

$800

 

$5,900

 Completed

 

Completed

 

Completed

 Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes
Long Media   Training

Presentation   Training

 2009

 

2009

 $1,350

 

$800

 Completed

 

Completed

 Yes

 

Yes
Norris Media   Training

Presentation   Training

 2009

 

2009

 $1,350

 

$800

 Completed

 

Completed

 Yes

 

Yes
Frederico Media   Training

Presentation   Training

Australian   Institute of Company Directors

 2009

 

2009

 

2011

 $1,350

 

$800

 

$5,900

 Completed

 

Completed

 

Not   Completed

 Yes

 

Yes

 

No
Cooper-Shaw Australian

Institute of

Company

Directors

 2011 $5,900 Not   Completed No
Russell Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

 

 

 

December 2, 2011

A New ‘King Maker’ In Town?

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

Things are hotting up and becoming really interesting. With the mayoral election just around the corner we can lay bets that the phones have been running hot and little clandestine meetings going on all over the place, with lobbying at its most intensive. Promises are being made left right and centre; favours called in, and all kinds of pressures brought to bear. The way we read the situation, is that the race is well and truly on between Hyams and Magee. Speculating a little further, we believe that the gang will of course vote for Hyams (ie. Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff and Hyams himself) whilst Magee will possibly have the votes of Forge, Pilling, Penhalluriack and himself. That leaves dear Oscar – the new ‘king maker’.

What a turn around from last year when Lobo nominated himself and got no support. His continual cry of ‘4 plus 1’ fell on deaf ears. Well, this year things are vastly different. Lobo is that pivotal ‘1’! The question of course is: will he succumb to the wiles of Hyams et al or the wiles of Magee et al? How will he vote? Will past animosity against ‘the gang’ suddenly be fresh in his memory, or will his current (inexplicable) embrace of the group remain firm? From last year’s ‘nowhere man’, Lobo is suddenly thrust into the limelight – the real ‘kingmaker’.

 

November 30, 2011

‘Please Explain!’

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

From the flood of comments we’ve received on the Newton reappointment and upcoming Mayoral election there is clearly keen interest out there in the community. We’ve basically summarised the range of comments and present them below as a series of questions – many of which need to be answered by councillors themselves since the Councillor Code of Conduct tells us that the public has a right to hear the reasons and logic behind each councillor’s vote! We therefore welcome their responses and also ask readers to provide their ‘answers’ to the following:

  • Why didn’t the majority of councillors choose to advertise?
  • Why after 12 stormy years with Newton at the helm did the gang choose to reappoint?
  • What really went on behind the closed doors of the Special Committee?
  • Should the public really believe that these councillors are so enamoured with Newton’s performance that the decision to reappoint was inevitable – keeping in mind GESAC; more bullying allegations; more Municipal Inspector investigations; more ombudsman’s investigations; more rate rises; more service charges; more planning objections; more lawyers than you can count; more secrecy and lack of transparency; general discontent in the community, etc. etc. etc.
  • Were any (undue) pressures brought to bear as in 2005?
  • What will be the legacy of another two years of Newton?
  • Will Hyams, if elected Mayor, enhance governance or continue along the same slippery path as Esakoff?
  • Why has Lobo so dramatically aligned himself with the gang?
  • Do any of these 9 councillors deserve re-election if they stand?
  • Will  Liberal party backers/supporters of certain councillors be dismayed at the current turn of events?
  • Will the presumed ongoing Municipal Inspector’s and Ombudsman’s reports be another whitewash?
  • Has this Council reached its lowest point in the eyes of the community?

 

 

November 29, 2011

The Leader: ‘Newton’s Green Light’

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

Glen Eira CEO keeps job and pledges to complete sustainable lighting project

Newly reappointed Glen Eira chief Andrew Newton is hoping cost savings will appease residents who wanted him out.

The 54-year-old father of two said he was looking forward to finishing projects he had started, such as creating sustainable street lighting that would save the council $250,000 a year.

A special committee, at a meeting closed to the public, resolved to extend Mr Newton’s contract until April 2014.

Mr. Newton, who has held the top job since 2000, will be paid $271,000pa plus super and has the use of a hybrid Camry.

Residents behind the Glen Eira Debates blog created an online petition in a push for the council to advertise the job and encourage fresh applicants.

But Mr Newton said people criticising his reappointment should understand it was common practice. “Numerous councils have reappointed their CEO,” he said. “The (Local Government) Act gives councils the choice whether to reappoint their CEO or advertise the job.”

Mr Newton said he was looking forward to converting 5000 street lights to new-technology globes. “The project will cut council’s total green house emission by 15 per cent,” he said. “Glen Eira already has the lowest emissions per capita of any metro council and this will cut running costs by $250,000 per annum.”

He said the council had “important work to address in our ageing population, government reforms to kindergarten, increasing public open space, providing extra housing while protecting neighbourhood character.”

Louise Clifton-Evans

 

November 28, 2011

The Mayoral Stoush

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

Candidates are lining up for the annual Mayoral Stoush. In the blue corner we have Hyams, whilst in the red corner there are two likely candidates – Pilling and Magee. It’s the traditional end of year derby that takes place behind the closed doors of assembly meetings and, you can bet your bottom dollar, countless private phone calls, secret meetings and emails, away from the prying eyes of the public and Newton. Favours are called in, promises made, hand on heart commitments to the ‘public good’, favourable time off from work, agreeable wives and husbands. The prize isn’t half bad either – just under $90,000 per annum; fame and glory; your mug shot on the hallowed walls and of course the opportunity to ram your (and Newton’s) agenda through with support from your allies. Sitting up on high you can squash debate so easily; you can rule anybody at any time out of order; you can prevent residents from addressing council; you can dismiss public questions as harassment; you can speak to the press and promulgate more spin; you can have your picture in the Glen Eira news innumerable times; you can, in short, rule the roost.

Or you have the real opportunity to return Glen Eira to what it should be – a place of respect for individuals, especially the public, and to oversee the change in corporate culture. We do not hold out much hope for this option if the blue corner maintains its current position.

Gazing into our crystal ball, the numbers are probably evenly split. We doubt that Pilling will stand if Magee does, and vice versa – this would only dilute their already limited power base. Lobo is the lynch pin. His vote is vital in breaking the Mexican stand off. Will he again stand with the gang and vote for Hyams? Will he resort to his former self and break with his new found friends? We do feel sincere sympathy for him – the pressure must be enormous. In a very real sense the future of good governance rests with him.

 

November 27, 2011

A Rose Is A Rose Is A….. Or Is It?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

This post is arguably high falutin’  –  some might say esoteric and hence not for everyone. However, we believe that it touches on the crucial issues which surround governance at Glen Eira. ‘Governance’ is a much bandied about word. It lends itself to all sorts of restrictions as well as opportunities – depending on what the user wishes to emphasise. We highlight below extracts from a recent publication into the various forms of governance at the local council level and ask readers to contemplate the ostensibly narrow nature of ‘governance’ as practised in our council. The discussion paper identifies 3 distinct forms of governance – corporate, democratic and community. We suggest that the latter two incarnations are conspicuous by their absence in Glen Eira!

Source: (http://www.acelg.org.au/upload/program1/1300681762_Local_Government_and_Community_Governance_-_A_Literature_Review.pdf) 

5.2 Governance as democratic governance 

Building on the decision making elements of the definition of governance outlined above, the term democratic governance is used to refer to deepening democratic engagement through the participation of citizens in the processes of governance with the state. The Victorian Good Governance Guide acknowledges the link between governance and democracy:  

Relevant legislation is important in recognising and understanding the legal framework within which local government operates. However it is only one part of the guiding principles and issues that support good governance. Good governance must also have an ethical base. Democracy depends on generating and maintaining a strong foundation of trust between the community and those who govern. The need for transparency in governing processes underlies this trust, as does the honesty and integrity of the elected representatives and the administration (Exiter, R and the Good Governance Advisory Group, 2004: p 40).

The Victorian council, Surf Coast Shire, exemplifies this broader understanding of governance in their governance manual: “The Surf Shire Council is committed to promoting the wellbeing of the Shire’s residents and views good governance as the key to democracy at work. Good governance…also includes the way that local governments engage with their communities’ (Surf Coast Shire, 2009: 3).

Public discourse about democratic governance and its importance was heightened in Victoria following the period of local government amalgamations in the 1990’s and legislative requirements for compulsive competitive tendering of council services. Brian Galligan (University of Melbourne) explores democratic governance in the context of these reforms which were undertaken for efficiency purposes:

Even if we understand local government as enabler rather than provider of services, the distinction between local government as a system for ensuring efficient service provision and local government as a system of democratic governance remains a crucial one. That is because local government as enabler still has to determine the range and standards of services that its community requires (Galligan,1998:204).

The ‘Just Communities’ action research conducted with councils across Australia between 2006 and 2008, examined the practice of democratic governance by councils (Just Communities, 2010). The research report concluded that local government needs to find the right blend of community engagement, governance and decision-making processes, and management frameworks, to strengthen local democracy and advance community wellbeing. This project sought to define those interdependencies in what became the ‘GEM’ relationship model:

G – Democratic governance: Where leadership and decision-making by elected Councillors is based on a sound appreciation of community issues and needs and a commitment to effective community engagement in the political process.

E – Civic engagement: Where councils employ effective techniques to enable active citizens to influence the formulation and implementation of public policies that affect their daily lives.

M – Organisation management: Where public value management policies and practices are embedded in the workplace culture, acknowledge citizen participation rights and ensure that the outcomes of community engagement inform decision-making.

 

November 26, 2011

Value for Money: How Do We Know?

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

Below are some extracts from the last Auditor General’s report. We highlight these as particularly relevant to Glen Eira and the manner in which service performance is assessed and reported. It is not enough to have a performance measure as simply ‘investigation’ and a satisfactory outcome listed as ‘investigation completed’ as was the case with the ‘investigation’ regarding the location of another site for the Caulfield Park Depot. There are countless similar measures in the Community Plan, and dare we say it, probably in the CEO performance appraisal KPIs.

The Auditor General’s findings are not new, and admittedly, Glen Eira is not the sole culprit. Residents however need to insist that every consultation and policy includes thorough evaluation techniques so that we can have greater confidence as to whether or not we are getting value for money.

“Councils have yet to fully embrace performance reporting and the non-financialindicators of many are of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents. Councilscontinue to adopt a compliance approach to performance reporting. As a result, the performance reporting framework has yet to deliver relevant and appropriate information to the community on the quality of services delivered and achievement of outcomes by local councils.

Our review of a selection of performance statements identified that a large number of indicators related to key strategy areas are activity-based, focusing on whether an activity is completed rather than the impact of the activity. Councils continued to adopt a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to performance information and used the minimum legislative requirement when preparing performance statements as the maximum disclosure standard.

Councils have yet to fully implement previous audit recommendations and to produce performance reports which drive council outcomes and accountability by being relevant and appropriate to stakeholder needs.

  • • KSAs were activity-based with the sole measure being whether the activity was completed. Any effectiveness cannot be determined when it is not possible to determine the extent of progress toward, or achievement of, the councils strategic objectives.
  • • Effectiveness measures are being inconsistently applied by councils. Some measures will be time-based while other measures such as quality, cost and quantity are often not being used thus not providing a balanced approach to the basis of measurement.
  • • When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing whether the targets were realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch’ target.

The measures used by the selected councils to determine effectiveness were often time-based. Other measures such as quality, cost and quantity were not always considered. Councils had not provided a balanced approach to the basis of measurement. When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing if the target set was realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch target

Other areas of weakness identified include:

  • • continued reliance on community satisfaction surveys as the sole basis of measuring activities of the council
  • • use of short-hand descriptors for performance measures, that do not provide users with necessary context and meaning, this means the reporting provides little insight into what is being measured.
 

November 24, 2011

More Chicanery

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

From the minutes of 22nd November under ‘Urgent Business’

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR 

Cr Esakoff: “On behalf of Council I wish to correct the record in relation to assertions made by Cr Frank Penhalluriack at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 November 2011 in his request for a report.  

It was stated by Cr Penhalluriack that Officers had failed to table reports at Council Meetings.  

This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologies (sic) to the CEO and Officers for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence.  

It is noted that reports listed were either tabled at Council Meetings or provided to Councillors. It is further noted that there is no requirement unless specified that a report once prepared must go to a Council Meeting as opposed to Councillors or an Assembly of Councillors.” 

We have previously commented that Andrew Newton’s statement  that reports are “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting” implies that ALL requests for reports are tabled at ordinary COUNCIL MEETINGS – as signified by the use of Upper Case. The Esakoff statement is thus not only incorrect but again totally illogical. She in fact admits that Penhalluriack had made ‘assertions’ that Officers ‘failed to table reports at Council Meetings’ – yet in the final paragraph there is the admission that the reports Penhalluriack referred to were “EITHER TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETINGS OR PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS”. This in fact CONFIRMS everything that Penhalluriack said.

There are many other points we could quibble with – such as; what does ‘provided’ mean? What ‘evidence’ is required when Penhalluriack is talking about the ABSENCE of tabled reports in full Council Meetings. The ‘evidence’ is to be found in the minutes of all these meetings and the fact that NONE of the reports he read out appear in them.  And surely the onus to provide proof to the contrary rests with Esakoff here and not Penhalluriack?

We can only ask why, with supposedly 8 intelligent people sitting as councillors, and 3 lawyers to boot, how no-one could see the inherent contradictions throughout this statement. It in fact makes a laughing stock of Esakoff and the rest. In their haste to do Newton’s bidding, logic, clear thinking, and respect for governance has been well and truly scuttled. This statement only cements the growing perception among residents of the incompetence of these councillors, the manipulation by officers for their own ends, and the abandonment of all principles of what constitutes good governance. It is utterly shameful and should be condemned by all residents concerned with what is happening to this Council.

 

November 24, 2011

Governance: From Bad To Abysmal

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

The minutes for the November 22nd Council Meeting have made a very, very speedy appearance on Council’s website. We are however, continually amazed at the lack of logic that is contained in council’s reports and in the motions that are tabled. These minutes exemplify in spades the division and blatant ‘control mechanisms’ that we believe are being instigated by ‘the gang’ and Newton.

The in camera agenda items listed the following: “12.5 under s89(2)(f)” legal advice” which relates to right of reply”. More ratepayers funds are thus being wasted on ‘legal advice’ . Next, the minutes feature the outcome of this discussion item –

“Crs Lipshutz/Tang

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council:

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 COMMENTS:

  • Penhalluriack is expressing a personal reaction to what has been in the public domain. He is entitled to respond to such items. Furthermore, he is stating that he is embarrassed. Since when is it a ‘crime’ and the cause for ‘legal advice’ when someone admits their embarrassment?
  • He ‘presumes’ that the CEO is equally embarrassed by such media reports. Again, a logical assumption and not a hanging offence.
  • Nowhere in this motion DOES COUNCIL DENY THE TRUTH OF PENHALLURIACK’S STATEMENT.
  • Nowhere in this motion does Penhalluriack BULLY, HARRASS, OR VILIFY THE CEO, so what on earth is there for Council to disassociate itself from?
  • Why after three months does this only now appear in the public domain?
  • What is the motivation behind such an ill thought out resolution except to tarnish and attempt to discredit one councillor?

But it gets even better. The minutes then record the following: Item 12.6(b). We note the following and again question the transparency of what goes on behind the closed doors of in camera meetings and assembly meetings. THERE IS NO ITEM 12.6 (b) LISTED IN THE AGENDA OR IN THE MINUTES – only Item 12.6(a). In other words, the Agenda & Minutes do not reflect in any shape or form what is discussed in secret. If this was a late item – then it should have been included as 12.6(b) in the minutes. Thus discussions go on without the necessary disclosure as required by the Local Government Act. However, we have full confidence that at the next Council Meeting Hyams will leap up with another ‘correction’ to the minutes which will annul this ‘clerical error’ or oversight!

The minutes then go on to report –  

Item 12.6 (b)

2. In the interest of considered decision-making, Council strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.

3. That Council strongly encourages all councillors not to support any motion initiated by any councillor unless the motion has been submitted in writing to councillors prior to the Council meeting except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances. 

COMMENTS

  • ‘strongly encourages’ is meaningless – legally, morally, ethically. It is nothing but an attempt to gag councillors and circumvent open, spontaneous, and genuine debate within the council chamber. It has no authority of law backing it – that’s why the phrase ‘strongly encourages’ is used. It is not worth the paper it is written on we suggest!
  • We also find it obscene in its attempt to direct how councillors should or shouldn’t vote on any matter raised by another councillor.

The extraordinary thing about all this, is that councillors continue to bow their heads, and abdicate their responsibilities to their constituents. When we thought that the low point has been reached in the governance practices of this council, we always seem to find another benchmark which is even lower!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »