GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 17, 2011

Let’s Talk Standards!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[12] Comments 

Let’s talk standards and how these are mangled one by one if circumstances so dictate! Today there was the Panel hearing for the c83 amendment. To refresh readers minds it involved the 466 Hawthorn Rd property – the one where councillors voted against 6 Heritage Advisors recommendations to retain heritage listing on the 3 unit, Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property. The arguments put up were: heritage listing ‘restricts’ development; it’s a Housing Diversity Area near public transport; the property is not maintained, etc. etc.

What is remarkable about this case (apart from the fact that the Esakoffs are involved) is that Heritage listing was applied in 2003. Yet the proposals for Housing Diversity Areas were cooked up years previously and based on a report dating back to 1999. Thus, in 2003 numerous properties were designated as ‘heritage listed’ and worthy of protection, regardless of their location. We now have the absurd arguments that because a Heritage Listed property is in a Housing Diversity Area it no longer deserves protection and will ‘restrict’ medium to high density development. Council cannot have it both ways! Either properties are worthy of protection wherever they are, or there is no property that should have protection if they are in an area designated as Housing Diversity.

To top it off, we’ve learnt that council’s Heritage Advisor refused to be a witness at today’s Panel Hearing – declaring a potential conflict of interest. It seems that the Chair of the Panel was none too pleased at this point since attendance was mandatory!

And we mustn’t forget the most cogent fact that it is ratepayers who will be bearing the costs for this Panel hearing. It is ratepayers who forked out for an extra 4 Heritage advisors recommendations – whose ‘reports’ by the way were NOT INCLUDED in the documentation presented to council and which councillors never clapped eyes on! Perhaps if they had, then the above expenses might never have occurred? So, whose fault is all this? Councillors who don’t demand full information in order to make informed decisions? Or an administration that drip feeds councillors only the information it wants them to have? And the most important question: how can councillors vote to go to a Panel in the face of 6 recommendations and the Department’s reluctance to endorse the amendment straight off? And are ratepayers really expected to believe that any ordinary citizen would be accorded the same
treatment and course of action that has been bestowed on 466 Hawthorn Rd?

 

August 15, 2011

From Bayside Weekly

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

Site proof of residents’ angst

GLEN Eira’s own Wikileaks-style website has generated more than 100,000 hits in its first year, many from residents slamming the council’s planning decisions and governance.

But acting mayor Jamie Hyams said it was hard to take a website seriously when contributors did not put their names to it.

Two full-time moderators and two occasional helpers have managed the gleneira.wordpress. com site anonymously since it was founded in June 2010. Some contributors use their real names, others use a pseudonym.

The site publishes council meeting outcomes, petitions, reports and letters to and from councillors which residents analyse and discuss. Recent issues on the site include Glen Eira Swimming and Aquatic Centre’s construction and the Caulfield Racecourse development.

A moderator said several councillors had posted comments on the site and mentioned Glen Eira debates in council meetings, which showed the site was making councillors aware of the community’s discontent. ‘‘We don’t want to merely be hitting a nerve, we want dramatic change in the way this council has operated for over a decade now.’’

– Rebecca Thistleton

 

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman   Street, not far from here.  I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities.  I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people.  And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira.  In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

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 our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace.  It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members.  Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre.  Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch.  I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute.  It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

 

August 8, 2011

Bayside Weekly: Questions No Go

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

BY REBECCA THISTLETON rebecca.thistleton@fairfaxmedia.com.au

 

GLEN Eira Council has come under fire from residents over its refusal to answer questions about a legal stoush between one of its councillors and its chief executive. Residents say the council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that Councillor Frank Penhalluriack bullied council chief executive Andrew Newton.

Rosetta Manaszewicz of McKinnon has asked the council to provide a total figure for legal costs in relation to Cr Penhalluriack. But the council has rejected the request, and refused to reveal whether it has consulted lawyers.

Acting mayor Jamie Hyams said public questions have gone unanswered because they were inappropriate or would breach privacy laws outlined in the Local Government Act. He said he could not acknowledge there was an investigation into bullying and harassment claims, as Ms Manaszewicz had implied in her question. Nor could he comment on whether the council had
incurred any legal costs.

Cr Penhalluriack said although he supported transparency in council dealings, he was unable to comment. “My hands are tied,” he said.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was also waiting for answers to questions about council expenditure on consultants and legal advice for the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. Council officers were still compiling a response to her questions last week. The council had 10 working days to provide an answer. The deadline expired on August 2.

The latest controversy follows an investigation by the local government watchdog last year which found the council needed to improve its transparency. The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate launched the investigation after receiving 43 complaints against the council. It recommended in September last year that councillors receive training in council practices and note takers attend all councillor meetings.

Cr Hyams said the council had worked to meet the recommendations.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said a lack of transparency had plagued the council for the past 15 years. ‘‘I blame the administration, not the councillors.” He said the community had little faith in the council’s openness about how ratepayers’ money was spent.

 

August 7, 2011

More On Agenda Items

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

There is definitely something rather strange going on in those secret Councillor Assemblies. We were really taken with the 12 July so called ‘minutes’. Once again all administrators except Burke left the room and the item for discussion was listed as “Request from an Integrity Agency”!!!! We would welcome any input from anyone who knows what an ‘integrity agency’ is! Council really has the language of gobbledygook and obfuscation down pat.

Also worthy of mention is the apparent ‘doctoring’ of minutes once again with these little gems –

“5 July 2011 – Cr Hyams at (iii) (h) amend by substituting one word for another Cr. Magee, at (ii) (a) amend by deleting words. Level of detail included in the Records of Assembly”

What’s wrong councillors? Is too much being let out of the bag?

We should also mention that the 26th July meeting began at 6.46. Tang arrived at 9.15pm. Two more items caught our eye here – ‘Compliance with Local Government Act’ and “Occupational Health and Safety’. The latter we guess relates to Newton’s bullying charges against Penhalluriack since the latter declared a conflict of interest at this point. Magically, Newton and all except Jones had disappeared from the Assembly by this point. Again, we assume that this is to prevent Newton from declaring his own Conflict of Interest if the item concerned his bullying allegations.

Honestly, the machinations of this council would provide spy/thriller writers with enough material to last the next hundred years! Only problem is, that it is ratepayers who keep coughing up their hard earned money for all these shenanigans!

 

August 5, 2011

Manipulation Extraordinaire!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments 

The agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting represent the absolute rock bottom in the history of this dysfunctional Council. The onus is now very clearly on councillors to stand up and question, and ultimately reject the appalling manipulation that is evidenced by these items. We’ll go through the most important ones:

  1. Local Laws Advisory Committee (Lipshutz, Tang, Pilling)

When the Local Law came up for consideration in 2009, the argument that several residents put forward was that the Councillor Questions Policy (ie. the ‘no surprises’ gag) should not be included in the Local Law. This was of course rejected! Now, funnily enough, we have the committee recommending:

“that the public questions process be removed from the Local Law and replaced with a right to ask questions in accordance with guidelines in force from time to time. The guidelines would need to be approved by Council.

Cr Tang requested a report as to the time taken up in answering public questions”.

When literally every other council in the state includes Public Questions as part of its Meeting Procedures within the Local Law, why is Lipshutz (aka Newton) and his gang determined to be different? What are the ramifications of such a change? And what little cute Dorothy Dixer is Tang playing at? We are also concerned as to the LEGALITY of such an attempt to abort democratic process given that the Local Government Act, 1989 states: “A Council must make local laws governing the conduct of meetings of the Council and special committees”. Public questions are part of council meetings and as such must be included in a local law!

2. Community Consultation Committee

Again in stark contrast to previous practice the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has now been left in the hands of Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz! The 12 submissions that were received are not published, no names are given, and it is this committee which is to make recommendations to council. All well and good, except that Council does not appear to have had any privacy concerns when it published in full, submissions to the Toilet strategy, and other minor ‘consultations’.
We can only marvel at the ‘selectiveness’ of this mob and how transparency and by implication accountability is sabotaged time and time again!

If there is nothing to hide and if the officers’ report is a true reflection of the comments made by residents, then why not publish the full submissions? Why not go to full council? We can only wonder whether ALL COUNCILLORS HAVE EVEN READ THE SUBMISSIONS. For something as important as engagement/consultation, what we have here is again a sham and an insult to those individuals who submitted and to residents everywhere.

3. In Camera Items

This is where things get really interesting. One item concerns the MRC and Crown Land. We thus ask: why is council considering it (and in camera) if this concerns the land swap between the MRC and govt? What of the subdivision? Why is the community again being kept in the dark?

Then there’s the GESAC legal bills over allocations, and ‘contractual’ items over GESAC. If everything is going so well (ie on time and on budget) then what’s there to mull over ‘contracts’ at this point in time? Or is the public again being sold a furphy on progress of GESAC?

Another interesting item from this section relates to ‘personnel’ and compliance with the Local Government Act! Gosh, another potential breach of the act by someone? Another Municipal Investigation perhaps? or more work for the Ombudsman?

There’s plenty more in these items that require careful reading. The ball is now in councillors’ court. Will they once again acquiesce without a whimper? Will anyone have the guts to open their mouths and demand answers to fundamental questions of process, transparency and good governance? Or will silence and complicity reign supreme?

 

August 4, 2011

Victorian Auditor General

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

From the VAGO website:

Business Planning for Major Capital Works and Recurrent Services in Local Government

 

Under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), all councils are required to implement principles of sound financial management; including managing financial risks prudently having regard to economic circumstances; ensuring that decisions and actions have regard to financial effects on future generations; and to ensuring full, accurate and timely disclosure of financial information relating to the council.

The 2006 Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters further commits councils to demonstrating sound public governance through good fiscal management; to consider available resources and competing priorities when making service-delivery decisions; and to improve their strategic planning and development of appropriate pricing regimes.

It has been six years since the Act was amended to shift away from annual planning to longer-term four year Council Plans and Strategic Resource Plans. It is timely therefore to determine whether this has strengthened business planning and budgeting.

The audit will review the business planning and budgeting practices for selected capital works and recurrent services in a sample of metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.

The report is expected to be tabled by end of September 2011.

 

August 2, 2011

Municipal Inspector Investigates: #4

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

From The Leader, Jenny Ling – Page 3

COUNCILLOR PROBE IS CONFIRMED

The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating “a matter related to councillor (Frank) Penhalluriak”.

The Camden Ward councillor riased health concerns about Glen Eira Council’s free mulch service and the possible risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease, which led to the removal of the service in April (“Mulch to fume about” Leader April 26).

Councillors voted 7-2 in favour of removing the service at Glen Huntly reserve, leaving the $160,000 mulch storage shed – built in 2009 – empty.

In May the inspectorate said it was reviewing conflict of interest allegations made against Cr Penhalluriak who owns a hardware store in Caulfield that sells mulch. “Upon receiving a complaint, the inspectorate reviews the information…in order to determine if it is within jurisdiction and contains suitable evidence to investigate,” spokeswoman Angela Smith said at the time.

Ms Smith confirmed last week the inspectorate was now investigating, but would not make further comment. “Each investigation is unique and it is therefore not appropriate to anticipate a specific time frame for the resolution of any case,” Ms Smith said.

Cr Penhalluriak said he was not aware of the investigation. “If I did it would be confidential so I can’t make any comment,” he said.

 

July 22, 2011

Governance: Residents Should Know How Their Money Is Squandered!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

At last council meeting there was the (eventual) tabling of questions previously taken on notice. The time lag was 2 months! More significantly, two questions concerned the costs to ratepayers over legal proceedings and the machinations over the reappointment of Newton.

We report that the first question printed below was declared ‘inadmissable’ under Local Law 232 and the provisions of the Local Government Act –   it was regarded as ‘confidential information’. Part 3 of another question received similar treatment. The rest of the question was taken on notice. In the public interest, since this information will not appear in the minutes, we publish in full both questions.

The ‘inappropriate’ question was:

“What is the current cost to council for:

1.    Ms O’Neill in her brief to investigate allegations of bullying/harassment against Cr. Penhalluriack?

2.   Have other lawyers also been engaged by council in this matter? If so, what is the total cost of their engagement to date?”

The second question was:

“What is the total cost to date for each of the following:

1.    Engagement of an independent note taker

2.   Engagement of a governance advisor to provide instruction as per the recommendations of the Municipal Inspector?

3.     Any third party consultant’s fees in the performance appraisal of the current CEO? (ruled inappropriate)

4.   The total legal costs pertaining to the reappointment of the CEO in 2008?

5.    The additional advice sought from 4 independent heritage advisors on the 466 Hawthorn Rd property?

6.    What is the anticipated or actual cost for the external legal advice involved in the GESAC allocations to either the McKinnon
Basketball Association, or the Oakleigh Warriors?

7.     Will any of the above items be expected to accrue more costs? If so, which ones, and what is the range of this expectation?”

COMMENTS: The barred first question did not seek any information regarding outcomes of Newton’s bullying claims. Nor did it seek information as to who else might have been engaged in this matter. The question was purely monetary. As ratepayers footing the bills for such exercises, we believe that residents certainly have a right to know how much such behaviour is costing us!

The second question is similar in that it simply requests financial data – not information on actual appraisals. Hence, residents have a right to know how their money is spent on an issue that has been a festering sore in this municipality for nigh on a decade. Three Municipal Investigations are proof of that!

 

July 21, 2011

Council Meeting: Audit Committee Charter

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

Motion to Accept: Lipshutz/Magee

LIPSHUTZ:  ‘One of the issues (looked at) is risk management….made very clear in the preamble that all councillors can attend meetings and not just members of the committee….risk management…..has taken up a great deal of time at committee level ….because that’s something that’s very important. (If a disaster happened then it’s important that) this council could be up and running very quickly (and Audit Committee looks at this and makes sure it happens)….Fraud prevention (is also important because council is big business) and deals with many millions of dollars and so many people on staff. Given that there is always the possibility of fraud …..happily this council hasn’t had that….(due to prevention)….and honesty of our employees….but you only need one to make it big….(the Audit committee thus provides) oversight….(Other changes to the charter)…. enhance the role of the Audit Committee and make it clearer (as to what the committee does)….’

Magee declined to speak. Motion passed unanimously. Readers will of course note that many of the issues we’ve highlighted in the past (such as the ‘permanent’ membership of Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean) did not get a mention. Reading this morning’s Age, one article by Barry Jones struck us as spot on in relation to the level of debate/discussion in this council. The last section of the article is included below:

“Despite the exponential increases in public education and access to information in the past century, the quality of political debate appears to have become increasingly unsophisticated, appealing to the lowest common denominator of understanding.

In 1860, in New York Abraham Lincoln began his campaign for the presidency with a very complex speech about slavery at the Cooper Union, 7500 words long, complex and nuanced. All four New York newspapers published the full text, which was sent by telegraph across the nation, widely read and discussed. In 1860 the technology was primitive but the ideas were profound and sophisticated. In 2011 technology is sophisticated but the ideas uttered by presidential aspirants are embarrassing in their banality, ignorance and naivety.

It is instructive to compare the debate in the Victorian Parliament in 1872 on the Education Act and the debate in 2006 for the Education and Training Reform Act, a consolidation of legislation passed in the previous 134 years. Which debate was of higher quality? In 1872 MPs were discussing ideas – especially ”free, secular and compulsory” education, while in 2006 all the speeches were about management and training as a factor in job creation. In 2006 I suggested that it might be time to actually define ”Education”, something omitted in the draft bill, and to explore its role in personal and community life, but this was rejected as too ambitious.

In 1872 the minister, J. Wilberforce Stephen, quoted the poet and educational reformer Matthew Arnold eight times in his speech and expressed the hope that the legislation would ”set an example to our progenitors in England”. There was no comparable ambition in 2006. No ideas on education were mentioned and it is doubtful how many MPs in 2006 would have recognised Arnold’s name, even as the author of Dover Beach.”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »