GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 8, 2011

Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments

Secretive council urged to open up

Miki Perkins

November 8, 2011

MELBOURNE City Council needs top-level government advice on whether its meetings have become too secretive, a councillor says.

At a council meeting tonight, Jackie Watts will call on her fellow councillors to ask the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell or the Auditor-General for advice on how the council is interpreting the guidelines around confidentiality.

The council has been under fire for the high percentage of items deemed ”confidential” on its agenda, which closes the meeting to the public.

A council meeting in September was public for just 12 minutes.

Cr Watts said she wanted to get clarification on how the Local Government Act determined which items should be confidential, because she believed the council’s ”default position” should be one of disclosure.

”How can people make a decision about performance of council without knowing what’s going on?” Cr Watt said.

”My reading of the act is that the default position is disclosure, and the option is confidentiality, [but] this notion hasn’t been developed as much as it might.”

The debate hinges on a section of the Local Government Act that says a council ”may” deem items confidential – including personnel, industrial and proposed development matters – but doesn’t compel councils to do this.

Cr Watt said the council did deal with matters that should be made confidential, but some of these could be partially disclosed so that the public knew what was being discussed.

Also before what is likely to be a highly charged meeting, are two motions relating to the removal of protesters at City Square.

Greens councillor Cathy Oke wants the council to support the protesters’ call for an independent inquiry into the eviction and produce a report detailing the chronology of its actions leading up to the eviction. Cr Brian Shanahan will put forward a proposal to consider attendance – rather than postal – voting at the next election in 2012, which, he says, will be less open to fraud.

”I have no evidence of fraud, but anecdotally people tell me it’s easier to have looser arrangements with a postal vote, so that needs to be tightened up,” Cr Shanahan said.

And Cr Watts wants her fellow councillors to replace paper Christmas cards with electronic greetings, saying cards were a waste of ratepayers’ money, and ban the use of personal photographs on any Christmas greetings.

”The inclusion of individuals’ photographs on Christmas greetings constitutes self-promotion,” the motion before council says.

”It is an election year but, leaving that aside, any kind of personal promotion is inappropriate,” Cr Watts said yesterday. ”It’s a small matter, but it signals a larger issue.”

The council will also consider if it will support a controversial Woolworths planning proposal for a residential and supermarket proposal in North Melbourne.

November 7, 2011

More Farce?

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

We have to again query the interpretations of Council’s meeting procedures as evidenced in last Wednesday’s Council Meeting. Before we begin, this extract from the Port Phillip Local Law is very pertinent:

Where a situation has not been provided for in this Local Law, the Council or special committee may decide the matter by resolution.

In Glen Eira the exact reverse happens time and time again. The argument invariably goes that if something is NOT INCLUDED in the Local Law Meeting Procedures, then it is NOT PERMITTED. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The failure to include any mention of rescission, dissent, and numerous other democratic protocols in our rules and regulations does not mean that they are illegal or are incapable of being exercised during a council meeting. Last council meeting saw how such omissions were used to rule against an attempt to dissent from the chair by Penhalluriack. During his ‘right of reply’ (which we’ve posted earlier) Penhalluriack was ruled out of order by Esakoff on the grounds that his statements were irrelevant. The sequence of events went like this:

ESAKOFF: Following Hyams interjection about relevance Esakoff stated “I uphold that point of order”. She asked Penhalluriack to take his seat.

PENHALLURIACK:”I ask you to test your resolution by a vote of council”

ESAKOFF: “I’m sorry”? (Said in a very quizzical tone of voice)”No that’s my ruling”….

PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the ruling be ‘tested’ by council

ESAKOFF: Stated that Penhalluriack had already ‘corrected the record’ and ‘I think that’s been done sufficiently”

PENHALLURIACK: Said that all organisations have the ability to challenge rulings of chairpersons. “I am now challenging the chair”

ESAKOFF: “That is my ruling”

We note:

Esakoff’s ruling is totally distinct from the right of a councillor to challenge such a ruling
The failure to include such provision in the local law DOES NOT MEAN that the ability to dissent from the chair is not available. Absence of something is not denial.
Penhalluriack admittedly needed to present a formal motion. However his intent was clear, legal, and should have been acted upon by Esakoff.

By way of contrast we include below the relevant sections from both the Kingston and Bayside Meeting Procedures.

Dissent From Chair’s Ruling

(1) A Councillor may move that the meeting disagree with the Chair’s ruling on a point of order, by moving:

“That the Chair’s ruling [setting out that ruling or part of that ruling] be dissented from”.

(2) When a motion in accordance with this clause is moved and seconded:

(a) the Chair must leave the chair and any Deputy Mayor must chair the meeting; or if there is no Deputy Mayor

(b) the Chair must leave the chair after the meeting has elected a temporary Chair.

(3) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must invite the mover to state the reasons for his or her dissent and the Chair may
then reply.

(4) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must put the motion in the following form:

“That the Chair’s ruling be dissented from.”

(5) If the vote is in the negative, the Chair resumes the chair and the meeting proceeds.

(6) If the vote is in the affirmative, the Chair must then resume the chair, reverse or vary (as the case may be) his or her
previous ruling and proceed.

(7) The defeat of the Chair’s ruling is in no way a motion of censure or nonconfidence in the Chair, and should not be so regarded by the meeting.

KINGSTON

Dissenting from the Chairperson’s Ruling

36. (1) When the Chairperson makes a ruling during a meeting a member may move a motion to the effect that the meeting dissent from the Chairperson’s ruling.

(2) When a motion of dissent is moved and is seconded the following procedures must be followed:

(a) the Chairperson asks the mover, then the seconder, to speak to their motion and the matter is then further debated as required. The matter is put to the vote and the Chairperson announces the result; and

(b) the Chairperson is bound by the result of the motion of dissent – if it is passed then his or her previous ruling is changed so that it conforms to the motion of dissent, if it is defeated then his or her previous ruling stands.

(3) The defeat of the Chairperson’s ruling is not a vote of no-confidence in the Chairperson and must not be so regarded by the meeting.

Finally, mention should also be made of the fact that Esakoff again declared that she has ‘Urgent Business’ that needs to go in camera. The relevant sections of the Act were cited, BUT NO MOTION PUT OR PASSED. Hyams only at the close of the meeting corrected this little error and a motion was belatedly put and passed.

November 5, 2011

Where Has The Old Cr. Lobo Gone?

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

Oscar Lobo came into council all guns blazing. We’ve reported on:

his demand for cost benefit analysis;
his support of decent answers to public questions;
his attempt to get a ‘request for a report’ on ‘unauthorised sporting groups’;
his battle cry of ‘4 plus 1’ indicating, we presume, his displeasure at the ruling clique of second and third term councillors.

There have also been several clashes with Lipshutz where ‘niceties’ were hurled across the chamber. We’ve also learnt that Lipshutz was definitely not on Cr. Lobo’s list of bosom buddies. So what’s happened? Why the sudden reversal that makes one suspect that Lobo is now nothing more than Lipshutz’s pawn. Ill health might explain some of this reversal. But certainly not all. From the gregarious, outgoing, impulsive, energetic councillor determined to listen to his community, Oscar Lobo has literally turned into a shadow of his former self. He is silent on all issues. All he does is put his hand up. And, most significantly, at last ouncil meeting after what appeared to be some urgent mutterings in his ear from Lipshutz his vote suddenly changed. What this says about conviction and decisiveness in voting we will leave to the reader’s imagination. But it may say plenty about the relationship between these two men.

We’ve learnt the following:

An email from Lipshutz to Lobo asked in part whether any of the Middle Eastern banks he had worked for were involved in channelling funds to terrorist organisations.

Lobo’s response was outrage and hence his attempt at one council meeting to force discussion on ‘racism’. This of course was blocked by the four. Our comments at the time (December 14^th, 2010) were: “Lobo gagged AGAIN. Seems like Oscar Lobo attempted to reveal something about an email written to him by Lipshutz in response to the former’s email to Esakoff. Hyams piped up that private emails are private and since councillors have right of reply only when the PUBLIC may draw some inference from comments/press/statements, Lobo couldn’t raise the issue. We strongly suspect that it has something to do with his earlier call of ‘racism’ that he has attempted on several occasions to put before council.”

Apparently, there is also a recording of a conversation involving Lobo that ended up in the hands of Steven Tang.

We are certainly not suggesting anything untoward but, could the sudden change in Cr. Lobo and these events be connected in any way? We simply have to ponder:

Is there anything in this alleged tape recording which is now being used to advantage by certain individuals?
Can any of these events help explain the public perception that Cr. Lobo is now tied by a umbilical cord to Lipshutz?
Has Lipshutz played any role here? What of Tang?

Ah, questions, questions, questions! We invite Cr. Lobo to come forth and explain any of these coincidences and most importantly, to account for the amazing metamorphosis into a Lipshutz disciple over the past 10 or 11 months. The gallery misses the energy, enthusiasm and contributions of the old Cr. Lobo. We believe that residents deserve an explanation for this amazing conversion. Residents also need to understand the rationale behind Cr. Lobo’s voting patterns given his silence in council. After all, ratepayers pay his expenses and we deserve to know why he votes as he does.

November 5, 2011

GESAC: Is There A Major Problem?

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

For months and months we’ve been hearing the same repetitive spin – GESAC is on time and under budget. We’ve also consistently bemoaned the fact that the Pools Steering Committee has not exactly been forthcoming with information. Secrecy has dominated all facets of this project and the committee. Finally, the utopian vision that Lipshutz has been peddling is starting to show some major cracks. Suddenly the picture is not all that rosy for the much vaunted December opening. We also suspect that money is leaking like a sieve from this project – why else the need to enter into higher purchase contracts? ‘Unforseen’ costs such as lawyers, car parks, and heaven knows what else, must surely have blown the budget to smithereens? If so ‘successful’ then why the need for the continued extensive full page advertising in 4 local papers? Yet, we have been hearing the same old story again and again. It is definitely wearing thin.

So now, at the 11th hour it looks like residents will finally get an (edited) version of at least some of what has been going on. Lipshutz is finally admitting that there ARE PROBLEMS, and that the opening date is still unclear. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the pool doesn’t open until January next year. If council is right in its projected attendance figures of hundreds of thousands, then one month’s delay in the summer period, could impact massively on income. Longer and it could be disastrous. It really is about time that residents were provided with the full picture of what is, and has, been going on.

A good start would be for councillors to demand and receive a full, itemised account on all expenditure, where every single penny is accounted for – and income. And if there are issues and problems, then who is to be held accountable? Is it really all the weather’s fault? the builders’ fault? The Steering Committee’s fault? The possible questionable quality of a business plan? And the most vital question – how much more money is this going to cost ratepayers that hasn’t been budgeted for?

Here’s what was said at Wednesday night’s Council Meeting:

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that committee meets monthly and discusses progress. ‘One of the biggest problems ….is the builder and the difficulties (for completion on time). Said that at NEXT council meeting there would be a ‘full report as to that issue’ (and) ‘the various activities at GESAC’. Concerns ‘that all members of the community have is the completion date’. Lipshutz expected ‘that would be discussed at next meeting’ and ‘once we know how the builder is going’ (building and plumbing issues, then they’ll be able to give some definite date as to when the pool will open)’.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he had attended some meetings and that there was another one on tomorrow (Thursday) ‘ I’m concerned that this council has too much in confidence material (these minutes lack) ‘detail’….I endorse what Cr. Lipshutz said. It was a full and frank discussion about the progress….and I think they should be recorded in the minutes…..there are one set of minutes for assemblies…this is a steering committee and I believe we either have this in camera …..or alternatively we have full and frank minutes published”.

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

At Wednesday night’s Council Meeting, Penhalluriack attempted to deliver a ‘Right of Reply’. He was gagged repeatedly through his statements by Hyams and co. who numerous times leapt up to protest the relevance of what Penhalluriack was saying. We’ve since received an email from Cr. Penhalluriack which contains much of the statement he attempted to make. We publish this in the public interest.

At stake here is the ability of councillors to express a viewpoint, albeit unpopular, without hindrance, without procedural rules that are used to effectively silence individuals regardless of the merits of their position, and the deliberate and obstructionist manner in which these rules are interpreted and applied. In a council where there is no Notice of Motion, and all proposed motions, amendments, rights of reply, councillor questions and requests for reports are to be announced with 24 hours notice, then it is extremely easy to undermine and even sabotage efforts to get something into the public arena. Such practices do nothing to enhance the public’s perception of a truly democratic organisation and its governance practices.

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2^nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

Glen Eira Debates has an anonymous contribution posted earlier today that says that I am a bully, but goes on to point out that I am also shut out of the debate concerning council’s CEO. There is clearly a lot of confusion within the community, and there is a large amount of material which has been declared “confidential” and therefore can’t be included in this reply. However I do make the following points in my own defence.

The mulch storage facility has been in the news consistently. The Age, the Leader, the Bayside Melbourne Weekly and the local blog, Glen Eira Debates, have repeatedly featured stories and comments about this facility. I want to once and for all set the record straight and present the facts:

My concern over the mulch storage facility is the result of residents writing to me. “I often take my granddaughter to play in the adjacent playground and I am worried about the traffic and the dust generated by the council’s equipment” As well I have concerns for our employees, one of whom has written, concerning the mulch getting wet, “that may increase the risk of composting and subsequently the risk of Legionella.” An employee also wrote “The hazards associated with mulch are well known”. Yet they continued to work there without protective gear until at least the 5^th April 2011.
I followed up on such concerns as is my duty as early as June 2010
For months nothing was happening despite my frequent requests. On the 28^th October an officer wrote “No further action proposed at this time.”
My recourse to the Audit committee is my right as a councillor, and that committee deliberated on the issue, and found no conflict of interest in my presentation.
The Arnold investigation was only instigated because of the audit committee.
The report seemingly went through many versions. What has appeared in public is only the latest one of these versions.
I have been refused details of these changes, including why they were made.
I supplied various other scientific studies to all councillors and council officers
The decision to close the facility was on the vote of 7 to 2, yet the focus of criticism and innuendo has been specifically directed towards me.

In order to counter the continual and misleading media coverage of these events, I have applied under FOI and common law for documents relating to this entire episode. This is what has happened:

I have not received all the documents I requested
The processes have been most unusual in that I was given incorrect information by officers which delayed the release of documents; the released documents were not presented in accordance with legal requirements; and my request for a
review by VCAT was also delayed by incorrect advice from council’s officers.
As a councillor I have a common law right to documents which are part of council business. The mulch storage facility is absolutely council business.
Section 17 of the FOI Act obliges council to assist in sourcing and releasing the documents yet they have briefed Maddocks, a large firm of city solicitors, to resist my claim.
Documents not released to me are currently the basis of my request for a review by VCAT
What is the cost of preventing me from seeing these documents, what is council trying to hide, and is the timing of all of this a mere coincidence?

At that point the Mayor declared that what I was saying was not relevant and refused me permission to continue.

Frank.

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:

The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton

If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions. Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’ and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’

ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.

PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’

HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’

HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’

ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.

HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’

NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion

LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.

PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.

NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.

MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….

TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’

ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)

PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’

ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.

TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.

PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.

TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)

ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’

BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO. Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.

TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..

LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive meetings

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.

TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

November 1, 2011

News Flash: A Lesson in How To Bury Important Notices

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

Once again this council excels in its adherence to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. Hidden away under ‘Public Notices” there is the following announcement:

“Glen Eira City Council Special Committee Meeting

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee to be held at 8pm on Tuesday 8 November 2011 in the Council Chamber, Glen Eira Town Hall.

The meeting is expected to be closed to the public.”

This notice fulfils the legal requirements of 7 days notice and that’s about it. Timing is immaculate – ie. a public holiday. No link from the home page; no media release; no advertisement in the Caulfield Leader, no nothing, except the paltry and hidden 4 liner. We congratulate this administration for its consistency and councillors for allowing such actions to occur in their name.

PS: The Age advertisement appeared yesterday – 31st October.

October 31, 2011

Bullying: Yet Another Opinion

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

Tactics Of A Workplace Serial Bully Boss

By ABC

Some bully bosses have no shame and make no effort to hide their bullying behaviors. These are the screamers, ranters and ravers. They may have tantrums, throw things, pound on desks and fire subordinates on a whim. Often they remain in their position because there is no one in a higher position in which to take them down. These are the CEOs of both small and large companies or owners of small businesses. A frequent example is a physician’s or a dentist’s practice in which the doctor bullies his receptionists, nurses, billing clerks, and even the cleaning crew. Most people would agree that people who behave this way are “bullies”.

Then there is another type of bully boss which most people would not even perceive as a bully. The “closet” bully boss is actually much more prevalent and more dangerous than the ranter or raver described above. This type of bully boss is very clever in their ability to hide their bullying behaviors and to manipulate the perception of bystanders against the “target”. Most bullies possess excellent emotional intelligence. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that true “psycho bullies” are motivated in ways that normal people do not understand. Bullies use their emotional intelligence to cause conflict intentionally. They are not interested in building positive relationships, only ones they can manipulate. Much of their bullying behavior is premeditated. They do not possess empathy.

Closet bully bosses are often also “serial bullies” who choose one target at a time. One study showed that after successfully eliminating a target, they chose another target within two weeks. These bully bosses are capable of behaving normally towards all other subordinates and will even behave normally towards the target, whenever there are witnesses. This method serves the bully boss well, making it difficult for others to believe a target. Often, only the bully boss and the target know the true nature of the bully.

Simply stated, “targets” are good at their jobs and therefore cannot be taken down based on poor job performance. Therefore bullies rely on character assassination, twisted, half or outright lies, rumors and innuendo to subjugate or eliminate their target. Read my article “proud to be a target” to understand how bullies choose their targets.

At the beginning of a bullying campaign the target may actually feel favored by the bully boss. The bully boss often befriends their target at first. The target begins to trust the bully boss and may share information about their weaknesses that the bully boss then uses against the target. After the bully boss gains useful information about the target, the bully may try a few “pass-by nibbles” (read the article about pass-by nibbles, on this blog) to test the targets reaction. Then a full blown bullying campaign begins.

In my first emotional assault, my bully called me into a meeting with her and a Human Resource Rep to “discuss my needs”, only to reprimand me for “intimidation of subordinates”, a grossly twisted, half truth. My bully boss knows how strongly I feel about treating everyone, especially subordinates, respectfully. Knowing this about me, she knew it would be especially hurtful to accuse me of just that. It upset me horribly and I couldn’t stop crying at my desk for most of that day.

This reprimand happened behind closed doors. I was warned not to discuss it with coworkers. My coworkers didn’t hear my boss’s lies or hear her calling me a liar. They didn’t see her disrespect me as she rolled her eyes and clicked her tongue at my responses. They only knew I was reprimanded so severely I cried all day. Bullies delight in observing the pain and chaos they have caused and marvel at their ability to get away with it. Next comes the “mental health card”.

After the Bully boss’s first emotional assault the target reacts emotionally as I did. The bully boss then manipulates the target’s coworkers into feeling privileged to be in her confidence. The bully then feigning concern for the target tells of half or twisted truths, placing the targets mental health, competence and/or loyalty into question. It is often what the bully doesn’t say that causes the most damage. For example: The bully boss brings coworkers into her privileged confidence. The bully then cites a half or twisted truths about the target or will imply that the target caused the bully some kind of deep hurt. The bully then mimicking deep hurt or confidentiality concerns, refuses to share details, leaving everything to the imagination. It must be remembered that they are “masters of deception” and can easily convince others of the target’s negative attributes and how the target has caused them personal concern or injury of some kind. They can be so convincing, some convince themselves into believing the lies that they themselves have fabricated.

Coworkers feeling privileged to be of assistance to their deeply hurt boss will do anything the bully boss asks. This is called “mobbing”.

A full blown bullying and mobbing campaign could be a very critical period for the target who has no understanding of the “bullying and mobbing phenomenon”. Targets who are typically good performers and well liked by coworkers are stunned by the first emotional assault, which is often the first reprimand in their careers. They become obsessed trying to understand why first their boss, then their coworkers turned against them, when there is no valid reason at all!

Suddenly the target’s world is a different place, for reasons they don’t understand. Most targets have enjoyed decades of appreciated successes on their jobs, only to be left in isolated despair. Most targets are forced out of their positions within two years of a bullying and mobbing campaign. Forced out by being fired, resigning, becoming ill, committing suicide or going postal!

All of this could be avoided if every working person had a knowledge of “workplace bullying and mobbing”. If this is the first time you have heard of it, learn more about it today. Who knows, you might be the serial bullys’ next target. Hopefully, someday, every working person will learn to Recognize it, Name it and End workplace bullying and mobbing together! ABC”.

SOURCE: http://antibullyingcrusador.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/tactics-of-a-workplace-serial-bully-boss/

October 30, 2011

Another “Clerical Error”!

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

Poor old Glen Eira! They’re really having such a bad trot at the moment with ‘clerical error’ after ‘clerical error’. First there was the failure to accurately account for all bookings at Allnutt Park. Next, another ‘error’ with the report on public questions. Now, the most sacrosanct document of all – the much touted and award winning Annual Report – has also succumbed to the disease of ‘clerical error’! It’s an epidemic!

Page 54 of the 2010/11 Annual Report claims that council cleaned 30km of drains in 2008/9 and last year – 2009/10. This year the total has literally leapt into the stratosphere with the mind boggling 32km. However, we invite all residents to go back to last year’s Annual Report and there they will find in black and white (on page 32) that ONLY 25KM were stated as the total number of drains cleaned.

Now this may all sound trivial, inconsequential, nit picking, etc. However, when thousands and thousands of dollars are spent in producing this opus, one should expect 100% accuracy and reliability. Or is it that by stating a consistent 30km of drains cleaned, the record looks better than a drop of 5 k in 2009/10? This then leads on to the more serious questions of:

how many other ‘clerical errors’ are in this report and elsewhere?
how much faith should residents put in any figures that are published?

We’re still digesting the spin and waffle. More to come!

October 28, 2011

Agenda: Advice Or “Obstructionism”?

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

Once again Officer reports to Councillors’ requests take on the aura of naysaying to all attempted ‘improvements’ to the municipality. We urge a careful reading of the Public Toilet report and the Queen’s Avenue pathway. The usual tactics of ‘it will cost too much” (ie $250,000 for ONE public toilet; conflicts with agreement with MRC, public safety, etc. etc. etc) dominate.

On committee reports, nothing much changes except that the Pools Steering Committee ‘minutes’ now include the staggering number of 4 items instead of the usual 2. The most important item simply states: “Project Update Report”!!!! So much for communication’, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ for a project costing mega bucks.

It also appears that ‘clerical errors’ are becoming the achilles heel of this administration. They just can’t seem to get it right. In the report on Public Questions, we’re told that there were 22 questions asked and answered in the space of 3 months and that NONE were taken on notice. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We totally disagree with the figures provided and as proof, here’s a statement taken directly from council’s minutes – “A Public Question taken on notice at the 19 July 2011 Council Meeting was tabled for inclusion in the Minutes of this Meeting”.

In camera items are again fascinating. Amazingly we’re told that there is a tender going for “information systems support services”. The value of this contract? Only a paltry $4,250,000. Given that the financial reports and budgets state that just under $1m is for IT, we can only wonder what on earth ‘support services’ actually means and why it would cost this astronomical amount?

Then there’s another half a million or so for the upgrade of another sporting oval; a cleaning contract for GESAC with no sum attached, and numerous (ongoing) legal issues that are sure to keep accruing further costs – ie. ‘compliance’ with Local Government Act; GESAC contracts; and a strange “OH &S request for information”.

PS: NO RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY INCLUDED, especially the really important one of 20th September, post council meeting where the Special Committee was set up.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates