Below are two extracts from the Auditor General’s Report that are critical of Whittlesea and Hepburn. It’s curious that: 

• Whittleseas’ acquatic centre comes in for special mention, yet there is not one single word about GESAC in the entire report. Readers will remember the original cost estimates for GESAC and what we’re now saddled with. Further, there is no mention of the additional $450,000 for a car park nor any investigation as to why this wasn’t included in the original ‘business plan’ or design.
• One would reasonably expect that when a municipality binds itself to a $40 million plus infrastructure project that it would at least deserve one sentence in any report. The fact that there is total silence, makes us scratch our heads and wonder what on earth is going on?
•  Hepburn also comes in for criticism about its site selection and the additional funding that was required. We should keep in mind the Caulfield Park relocation of ovals as a result of the pavilion construction. Again, not a word from the Auditor General on this little ‘alteration’ after the fact.

Figure 3A

Redevelopment of Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre – Whittlesea

Whittlesea’s redevelopment of the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre was adversely affected because a robust business case reflecting the project’s final design was not sufficiently developed.

A feasibility study was completed in January 2007 that identified the project’s need, various delivery options and an initial budget estimate of $17 million. However, the design of the preferred option was not sufficiently developed at the time construction started in mid-November 2008. The decision to start the project in the absence of a robust business case was not consistent with good business practice.

The design was changed substantially prior to, and during, the construction phase following consultation with various stakeholders. The ongoing design changes meant that the initial feasibility study was no longer relevant as it did not examine the impact of these changes.

The design changes led to the project’s budget being revised to $24.6 million, and to a dispute and negotiated financial settlement with the contractor who was paid a further $570 300 in additional costs incurred as a result of the incomplete design at the start of construction.

The project is presently around $12.9 million (75 per cent) over the initial budget and $5.3 million (21 per cent) over the revised budget.

Figure 3B

Construction of elderly persons units – Hepburn

Hepburn’s decision to invest in the construction of three elderly persons units without a business case resulted in it committing $591 000 in its 2010–11 capital budget to a project that it later discovered was not feasible on the selected site.

The risks and costs associated with the project were not sufficiently considered in identifying the preferred option, resulting in the need for an additional $150 000 for unforeseen remedial works on the chosen site rendering the project impractical.

The initial proposal was not soundly based, and to date Hepburn has spent $15 000, including staff time, on the original plans.

Hepburn has since decided to carry forward the project’s budget into 2011–12 and to explore alternative sites. A comprehensive business case developed at the outset could have averted this situation.

The question of whether Andrew Newton will have his contract renewed, or whether the position will be advertised, will be answered shortly. If the position is to be advertised, then Councillors must decide in October.

Newton has presided over a traumatic period in Glen Eira’s history. He has been the common denominator in 3 Municipal Investigations, (and we learn that there is another one in progress). Numerous incidents have also revealed how this council remains divided and how little trust or goodwill, exists between administration and councillors. When we look over the history of Newton’s reign, these have been the defining characteristics with each group of different councillors. He is obviously an individual who incites either loyalty or condemnation. In our view, this history does not augur well for a municipality that requires strong leadership and commitment from all.

The past year has seen countless ‘stuff ups’ in a whole variety of areas. GESAC allocations, and then the fiasco of having to increase car parking space; next there’s the whole issue of the C60 and centre of the racecourse; various ‘clerical errors’ have even been admitted and to top it off claims of harassment and bullying against Penhalluriack. None of these events show an administration functioning well and on top of its game. Nor does it reveal an administration that is working in unison with its entire group of councillors.

In our view, to reappoint Newton is to short change the Glen Eira community. Surely it is no coincidence that since his arrival this council has been embroiled in continual governance issues including one sacking. How much more does the community have to endure? It is time that new blood and an entirely new vision was brought in to manage Glen Eira. It’s also time that a new culture that acknowledges the importance of accountability, transparency and openness was created and fully implemented. These principles have been the casualties in the past decade.

Pilling has already gone on record that the position should be advertised. We can only hope that other councillors follow suit. The slate must be wiped clean and a new administration brought in that embraces diversity of views, accepts challenges, and accords the community the respect it deserves.