GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 26, 2011

Can We Trust Them?

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

Trust is imperative in any relationship and in any organisation.  It is especially imperative in a ‘business’ such as a council which has responsibility for tens of millions of ratepayers’ monies. There simply has to be trust in the CEO and his staff; trust between the Mayor and the CEO, and trust between the Council as a whole, and the CEO. Residents must also have trust and belief that their municipality is well governed and accountable. History, as well as recent issues, tell us that trust is a scarce commodity in Glen Eira.

When questions are asked of council, ratepayers have every right to demand that responses are accurate and truthful. When they are not, then suspicions arise as to the competence and accuracy of administrative record keeping systems. Questions also need to be asked about the level of trust that is granted by Mayors who sign off on such documents. By placing her signature on responses to public questions for instance, is Esakoff complicit in any errors? Is she fulfilling her legal and fiduciary duty in overseeing the administration? When councillors accept facts and figures that are questionable are they liable as well? Or is she (and Council) merely the victims of blind trust?

These are not idle questions. At the last Council meeting a public question asked for the number of open space and casual bookings at Allnutt Park over the past 2 financial years. Information was also requested on the number of commercial bookings and how many of these bookings originated from businesses outside of Glen Eira. The answer, provided we assume by Officers, and signed by Esakoff, reads:

“The information is as follows. From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 there were a total of sixty one bookings. These included ten bookings from not for profit organisations, three from commercial organisations and forty eight general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $6,893. From 1 July 2010 to 15 May 2011 there were a total of twenty bookings. These included five from not for profit organisations, five from commercial organisations and ten general bookings. The fee income is estimated at $2,260.

In relation to part three of your question, Council does not collect data in that form.”

For those readers unaware of the circumstances, Council Officers place a booking sheet alongside each rotunda/barbecue whenever there is an official booking. The sheet contains the following information: name, date, time, number of people, alcohol ‘permit’, and the actual booking permit number. The photo below shows one such notice which has not changed over the years.

Over the past few years several residents have collected and maintained a daily register of all such bookings. Their records differ markedly from that provided by Council. As to the last financial year, we are told that only 20 bookings took place. This is incorrect (see below). We are also told that only $2,260 was collected. Again incorrect. We estimate that the income should be at least double this given the actual number of bookings! We are also told that council does not collect ‘data in that form’. Again incorrect, since the notice included the individual’s name and the application form requires the filling out of name and address of person making the booking.

So we come back to trust once more. Can we trust Newton, who is ultimately responsible for his officers? Can we trust Esakoff in her affirmation of the information? Can we trust a COUNCIL who appears to rubber stamp so many policies and documents. There are also many other important questions that need to be asked –

  • Where is the additional $2,000+? Where has it gone?
  • What does this reveal about the record keeping practices of this administration? Can we trust these systems?
  • Can we as a community have any faith in the answers to our questions?
  • What else is inaccurate? Gone missing? The victim of poor record keeping?
  • How well are councillors fulfilling their role in overseeing that administrators provide data which is correct, truthful, and unbiased.

The evidence that contradicts Council’s is below –

 

NUMBER

DATE

TIME

PEOPLE

NAME

ALC.
1 20287 17th
october		 1 – 5pm

30

 Hall

yes
2 20438 24th
October		 9 – 3pm

40

 Perdriau

YES
3 6332 24TH
October		 10 – 5pm

20

 Doherty

No
4 20493 31st
October		 10 – 6pm

40

 Persi

No
5 19466 31st
October		 10 – 5pm

25

 Counsel

No
6 16293 7th
November		 10 – 6pm

20

 Nazaretian

No
7 NO NOTICE 17th
Nov		 6pm – ?

40

 Puppy
school

?
8 20485 22nd
Nov		 12 – 4pm

30

 Nire

Yes
9 20316 28th
Nov		 10 – 5pm

25

 Burnside

No
10 20489 5th
Dec		 11 – 5pm

50

 Pollock

Yes
11 11508 5th
Dec		 11- 5pm

100`

 Aust. Pacific Trading

Yes
12 20549 11th
Dec		 10 – 1pm

30

 Kakafous

No
13 20567 11th
Dec		 10 – 6pm

25

 Gilliland

No
14 19425 12th
Dec		 10 – 6pm

30

 Clarke

No
15 15502 15th
Dec		 5 – 8pm

50

 Comm. Bank

Yes
16 20510 18th
Dec		 12 – 5pm

40

 Renown Bus. Solutions

No
17 50308 18th
Dec		 1 – 8pm

70

 Blomberry

Yes
18 20145 19th
Dec		 3 – 7pm

30

 Willison

Yes
19 20553 19th
Dec		 11 – 4pm

40

 Power

Yes
20 20658 25th
Dec		 9 – 9pm

35

 Fivy
Taweel

Yes
21 16918 26th
Dec		 11 – 7pm

50

 Knowles

Yes
22 16918 16th
Jan		 12 – 5pm

25

 Jones

No
23 20717 26th Jan 10 – 3pm

100

 Millingen

No
24 20052 26th Jan 10 – 6pm

100

 Vic.Lebanese community

No
25 20824 29th
jan		 1 – 7pm

30

 Cannizzo

no
26 20215 29th
jan		 9 – 4pm

30

 Nousis

no
27 20792 30th
jan		 10 – 1pm

30

 Gorov

no
28 20846 5th
Feb		 1 – 9pm

30

 Verbene

No
29 20859 13th
Feb		 12.-6pm

30

 Callaghan

No
30 15502 24th
Feb		 5 – 8pm

50

Comm. Bank

Yes
31 11477 25th
Feb		 5 – 9pm

60

Hurlingham
Preschool

No
32 18603 27th
Feb

120

 Hamptom Comm. Kinda

No
33 20896* 5th
March		 3 – 7pm

30

 Blue eyes Ski-Op
34 20896* 6th
March		 10 – 5pm

30

 Nguyen

No
35 20953 6th
March		 12 -5pm

30

 Dudson

No
36 20880 20th
March		 10 -5pm

30

 Frances

No
37 21078 26th
Mar		 1 – 5pm

30

 Macgowan

No
38 21012 27th
March		 11 – 5pm

30

 Kubes

No
39 16931 2nd
April		 12 – 6pm

30

 Main

No
40 21119 2nd
April		 11 – 2pm

25

 Banks

No
41 21085 9th
April		 10 -4pm

40

 Aquilina

YES
42 21009 10th
April		 11 – 2pm 40 Rousso No
43 20887 23rd
April		 10- 3pm 30 Lillywhite No
44 No notice 30th April ? 45 Jump castle set up/balloons for kid’s
party		 ?
             
  • This is not an error: the identical numbers appeared on both these booking sheets!
 

May 20, 2011

More Weasel Words?

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

The following comments are taken directly from the minutes of the last council meeting and refer to Magee’s statement (cited in an earlier post) about the farce that occurred when Penhalluriack attempted to request a report. Both Tang and Hyams responded to Magee’s comments.

11.2 Right of reply

Cr Tang: “I’d like to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by Cr Magee at this meeting at Item 11.1 Requests for Reports. Cr Magee has suggested that once Cr Penhalluriack opens his mouth he is expected to go through a rigmarole. I believe by direct implication the rigmarole he was referring to was the application of the Local Laws. I believe the direct implication is that other Councillors are not subject to the same application of the Local Laws. I distinctly recall being put through the same rigmarole last week when I tried to move an amendment to the budget as advertised. And at other times when we have tried to settle a motion where not all Councillors were in the same position of agreement nor was it clear that there was a majority of Councillors in agreement that would support any particular motion and in doing that it’s a bit messy but Councillors have to be able to move amendments because they should be able to amend something that is on the floor. Otherwise motions will come that no majority of Councillors are in support of. Motions will come where there are two Councillors on one side two Councillors on another side two Councillors in the middle and two Councillor who don’t know what is going on and one Councillor who is not there. Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency. You’ll have the Chair dictating which motion they’ll accept and you’ll have no objective assessment as to whether the Chair was being fair in that application. So I think the implication that Cr Magee clearly made was against each and every one of us Councillors in trying to apply the Local Law to Cr Penhalluriack but not applying it to any other Councillor.”

Cr Hyams: “I would also like to exercise a right of reply if I may. To the same comments that were made by Cr Magee. I agree with Cr Tang that the import of Cr Magee’s comments were that somehow the Local Law is being applied unfairly to some Councillors whereas not others whereas I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t. And I think that if Councillors look back on the way things have worked around here, each Councillor has at times been pulled up for going outside the Local Law. And I also think that when Councillors are finding their ways frustrated other Councillors who have actually tried to assist those Councillors in finding a way to do what they want to within the Local Law.”

 

May 18, 2011

“Intellectual Dishonesty”?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

Several comments have made us go back to the original submissions on the Local Law (decided in November, 2009) and to have a closer look at Council’s Official Response (uploaded here). Apparently this ‘letter’ was sent out to all submitters, but it remains unsigned by the Mayor, or anyone. More significantly, we note that the important stuff dealing with Meeting Procedures does not make an appearance until Issue 6. Here we have the response to why Council will not change its then Local Law and introduce a Notice of Motion clause. We quote:

“No changes have been made to the Local Law. Council’s ‘no surprises’ policy is in place to ensure that Councillors have an opportunity to properly respond to issues. It is considered that a notice of motion process does not add anything to councillors’ existing ability to have matters brought before Council. In particular a matter not on the agenda can be dealt with at an ordinary meeting if council resolves to deal with it as urgent business.”

COMMENT: What the above does not indicate, and which Penhalluriack referred to at last night’s meeting, is that according to the Local Law ‘urgent business’ is exactly that – URGENT, and has to have occurred during the time the Agenda was printed and the actual council meeting. Everything else is excluded! We also remind readers that councillors are only given a few days to read and digest the agenda. The public version is only available after 12 on the Friday prior to the council meeting.

Submissions to the Local Law also condemned the fact that Glen Eira was the only council to explicitly hand control of the agenda over to the CEO – in contrast to other councils that stipulate the agenda be set in consultation with the Mayor and/or other councillors. Again, Glen Eira’s official response is woeful. We quote:

“A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

COMMENT: Again, the distortion, dissembling, and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is obvious! In the first place councillors are not ‘responsible’ for the agenda, nor did submitters request this. The point was that items appearing in agenda papers should not be the unilateral decision of one unelected individual. The role of a CEO is to advise, and presumably consult with his Council – in this case through the Mayor as the councillors’ representative. Leaving it all up to the CEO, without any avenue for official councillor input, is as we’ve said time and time again, undemocratic and places barriers in front of residents who may have matters that they wish discussed in open council – last night was a perfect example of this. If only the CEO determines the agenda, then the notion that a councillor is the conduit between the community and council is bankrupt!

Another issue brought up by submitters related to advisory committees – their composition, and reporting standards. The official response stated:

“No change has been made to the Local Law. Council agreed that a process in relation to Advisory Committee reporting should be implemented. This should be done by council determining procedures or policies, not in the Local Law.”

COMMENT: Where is the policy or procedure? In two years nothing has come up for discussion! There was no objection to including the ‘no surprises’ into the Local Law, as opposed to its previously being only a ‘policy’, so why the difference? Further, when you have ‘policy’ such as ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ (and which no one has clapped eyes on!) why change things? The ultimate insult would be if the Local Law actually mandated the form, content, and regularity of advisory committee meeting minutes. That would really have thrown a spanner into Hyams’ recent manoeuvrings with the minutes from the Sport and Rec Committee Meeting!

We certainly urge all residents to consider these fundamental issues and how they restrict the practice of genuine democracy in Glen Eira!

 

May 13, 2011

Yes Minister!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[17] Comments 

Item 9.8 for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is in response to Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings held between the CEO and MRC, and/or trustees, in the past two years. Penhalluriack’s request was for a ‘detailed report’ on any meetings that might have taken place. Most reasonable people would presume that this means: who attended, dates, and topics of discussion.

The tabled report is again ‘anonymous’ with no names attached as to author, or responsible officer. We presume that this report was written, or at least authorised by the CEO. We note the following:

Penhalluriack’s request for ‘detail’ has not been addressed. The report is not only scant on detail, time, and dates (apart from one meeting), but we have such disclaimers as:

“Other meetings have taken place with Ministers, Ministerial staff,  MPs or  others concerning the Racecourse Reserve where Councillors were not notified beforehand and no records of the meetings were provided afterwards. Council officers are not in a position to provide any notes of those meetings as no officer attended”.

What an extraodinary paragraph!!!!! No ‘officer’ may have attended, but we can only presume that the CEO did. As part of his
fiduciary and legal duties we ask:

  • Did he make notes during, or after the meeting(s). If so, where are they? If not, why not?
  • Was the Mayor subsequently informed of these meetings? Were other councillors informed of these meetings? Was anyone informed of the content of these meetings? If so, how was this information transmitted? Where is the record of this sharing of information?
  • Further, are we really meant to believe that when officers are beavering away on the section 173 agreement, and other sundry issues, that Newton would not communicate with his officers regarding the outcomes of any of these
    discussions? Again, if so, where is the evidentiary trail of this feedback, orders, reporting?

It absolutely beggars belief that Newton attended meetings (and we don’t know who ‘others’ refers to, or how many meetings there were) and that councillors did not know that these were about to happen and that no official record exists about anything!

The real test will come on Tuesday night when Councillors vote whether or not to accept this ‘report’!!!

 

May 11, 2011

The Budget: More Games Being Played?

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

Last night’s Special Council meeting was historic in that Councillors actually amended the proposed draft budget. Instead of 6.95% rate increase it is now 6.5% and the number of sports grounds to be ‘redeveloped’ has been halved from 4 to 2. All this sounds terrific. Councillors actually taking charge and assessing what is in front of them. However, does this reading account for the whole story? In an extraordinary statement that fronts the budget papers we have this paragraph –

“Councillors have held a number of meetings on the 2011-12 Budget (including the Strategy Weekend on 26 February, 27 February), the 29 March and 12 April 2011.

The attached Budget has been prepared in accordance with s127 of the Act and the Regulations and represents the views of the Councillors or a majority of Councillors on every matter discussed.”

As far as we know, no such statement has ever appeared before. What is its purpose? To bluff councillors into acquiescence? To silence councillors? More importantly, if there has actually been this level of discussion and ‘consensus’ as claimed, then what happened last night? Is this a sign of ‘independence’ by councillors – a refusal to accept what is put before them? Or is it pure manoeuvring? For example: Tang has already spoken out against the 6.95% interest hike and others are undoubtedly uncomfortable with this apparent broken promise of keeping to 6.5%. Thus, is this merely politics and a means of ‘neutralising’ those who might entertain the impossible idea of actually voting against the budget when it comes to decision time? Readers should note that Pilling for one is quite happy with the 6.95% rate increase!

There are still many areas of this proposed budget which we believe should be unacceptable to residents and which remain untouched. It will be fascinating to now see what further charges are imposed on residents in order to cover the loss of this 0.45%. We will comment on these once the amended version of the budget proposals are published. Questions that remain are:

  1. Why was the draft published when we now find that not everyone, or even the majority were ‘happy’ with its recommendations? Surely the time to nut out problems, seek solutions, and devise workable options are in those ‘workshops’ and discussions that Swabey claims were fully endorsed by at least a majority of councillors?
  2. Does last night’s action give a lie to such claims of ‘consensus’?
  3. Was last night simply ‘opportunism’ since several councillors were absent?
  4. If some councillors simply changed their minds, then again this does not augur well for sound financial management and governance.

Whatever the reasons and the games being played it again shows a council that is divided – councillor against councillor, and between councillors and administrators. Not a good prospect at all! Just watch this space for more fun and games!

 

May 8, 2011

A Conflict of Interest? – The Lipshutz Email

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

Our apologies – but we inadvertently left out a couple of pages from the ‘Frisbee Report’ upload in the previous post. Included in this report was the following email (admitted to) by Lipshutz. It reads:

“My son has reported that he and his friends were approached by a council officer on Friday and warned off playing Frisbee in Caulfield Park (the lacrosse oval). I am advised that there is a regular Friday afternoon Frisbee game which is not organised and basically anyone can turn up. I consider it a bit rich to prevent a bunch of kids playing Frisbee. My son says that they play on that oval as all the other ovals are being used for cricket. Could you please look into this for me. were the matter to be reported in The Leader I think we would look a little ridiculous.”

The same report went on to state: “The Frisbee group is a highly organised group who are regularly using Council facilities without a Council allocation and without proper authorisation…….. If members of the Frisbee group continue their unauthorised use of Council facilities then Council should issue warnings and Infringements if required.”

 

May 7, 2011

Decision Making Behind Closed Doors

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

The only decision making that is lawful must occur at full council meetings, special committee meetings, or under delegated authority. The role of Assembly of Councillors is to consider ‘matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision” (Local Government Act, 1989). Further, the VLGA states that ‘Briefings are a means by which councillors can ensure that they have all the information and advice required to debate and decide matters.” (Submission to discussion paper on ‘conflict of interest’, February, 2010).              

In theory, this works fine. Yes, councillors need to be briefed on important upcoming issues. Yes, they need to be in possession of all the facts and figures prior to informed decision making taking place. This is the theory – but in reality we find that in Glen Eira the so called ‘Assembly of Councillors’ is a defacto decision making forum. Debate obviously occurs, but there is also the unofficial ‘straw vote’ that in the end equates to behind the scenes decision making.

How do we know all this? We’ve received two sets of documents obtained under FOI. The first (uploaded here) is the infamous ‘Frisbee Report’, obviously tabled some time in late November, 2010 at a councillors’ briefing session. The document basically details a number of breaches of the local law by various ‘unauthorised sporting groups’, and its stated purpose is for councillors to ‘consider and approve ‘one of the options set out in the report”. The actual options are:

  • “Council can monitor the situation
  • Council can uphold reasonable laws reasonably enforced. Council can take the following action for unauthorised groups: issue a warning in the first instance; issue a formal warning in the second instance; issue a penalty infringement notice if the group continues to play,
  • Council can do nothing”.

The second document is Version 1 of the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting of 22nd November, 2010. (uploaded here). This document underwent at least three revisions, so that from 735 words, it was reduced to a mere 97 words. What’s important about this document is that the note-taker, whom we assume to be Linda Smith, recorded the following:

“Cr Tang advised that council had made the decision not to take any action with the Frisbee group back in November”.

In the first place, no Council meeting has ever made such a decision and secondly, we do not believe that Ms. Smith misheard or misquoted, or misunderstood the gist of the conversation at this point. If so, then the above November Assembly of Councillors to all intents and purposes did make a binding decision. Such incriminating ‘evidence’ therefore had to be expunged, and that’s the reason we suspect, behind Hyams’ emails and determination to ‘censor’ these minutes.

Readers may also recall that Lipshutz’s son was ‘associated’ with the Frisbee group, as well as some of Tang’s acquaintances. Then there was the instance of Lipshutz’s email to Burke requesting that he ‘look into the matter’, and now Hyams’ request to Burke that the minutes be changed – not once, but time and time again!

Whilst it is true that the Municipal Inspector found no ‘official breach of the act’, in regards to conflict of interest by both Lipshutz and Tang, this is small comfort to residents. The ‘decision’ not to prosecute, or even act, were not made in council meetings – hence there was no ‘official’ vote. But these documents suggest that consensus and de facto decisions are occurring time and time again – but behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. Even more concerning is the manner in which official documents are pared away so that all context and substance is removed. Yes, this may be ‘legal’, but it certainly is not ethical, or in the best interests of good governance. When there is no transparency, there is no accountability. All that we are left with is a rotten taste in our mouths and the further disrepute that has for a decade dogged this Council. 

We urge everyone to  read these documents carefully and to ask themselves:

  • Do Tang, Lipshutz and Hyams have a case to answer?
  • Do these documents promote confidence in the transparency and good governance of this council?
 

April 30, 2011

The Facts & Nothing But The Facts!

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

We have received a copy of the $5,000 consultant’s report into the now closed mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. In recent days there has been much publicity and reaction to this closure with allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ against Cr. Penhalluriack. It really seems that the response has in large part been an orchestrated attempt to either discredit Penhalluriack, or create a neat diversionary tactic from what is a far bigger issue for the residents of Glen Eira – the C60 and the complete acquiescence of this council to the will of the MRC. It also just happens to be Cr Penhalluriack who has been the chief opponent of the MRC (and council) in this whole ‘negotiation’.  So we ask: is the current furore mere coincidence or deliberate? If the latter, then by whom? Who has most to gain by discrediting Penhalluriack is the question that needs answering!

We’ve also written previously about the whole saga and the important sequence of events (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/how-good-is-newtons-alibi-part-2/.  To reiterate:

  1. Newton is responsible for ensuring the complete health and safety of his work force and residents
  2. Newton had the consultant’s first draft on his desk for at least 12 days before it was handed over to the audit committee. The Audit Committee (comprising Lipshutz (6 years straight) and the ‘evergreen’ Gibbs and McLean (12/13 years straight) basically did nothing.
  3. Why the need for several versions of this report? Was anything altered between version 1 and version 2? If so, why?
  4. Why did councillors have to ‘request’ a copy of the report instead of it being distributed to all immediately – especially since the report did recommend that Council take specific actions to ameliorate the potential risks?
  5. Who was responsible for the placement of the mulch heap at Glen Huntly park in the first place? Why didn’t Council’s Health Section recognise the potential dangers and veto such placement? Why did it take Penhalluriack’s persistence to finally initiate a scientific consultant’s report only after two months of his badgering the Audit Committee? Surely risk management needs to be acted upon immediately?
  6. Why has Newton not provided councillors with a copy (if it exists) of the Adcock (Dept of Health) advice? Was this in fact a real ‘report’ or ‘advice’, or simply a phone conversation? Again, we remind readers that this very same Department of health has on its website the following statement: Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….”
  7. Why were graphic photographs ‘accidentally’ omitted from Newton’s response to Penhalluriack. This is not the first time that ‘selective editing’ has occurred!
  8. How ‘intellectually dishonest’ is the sign that was subsequently placed over the now defunct mulch facility? The intent was obviously to blame councillors.
  9. Why is Penhalluriack copping all the flack, since the vote was 7 to 2 – that means that at least another 6 councillors were persuaded by his arguments and evidence!
  10. Why should the Leader suddenly feature this story on its front page, when as we’ve stated previously, there has been a heap of much more important news happening in Glen Eira. Who also put 3AW onto the story today – all primed with the Darren Cooksley’s of this world to ‘have a go’ at Penhalluriack. Serendipity, or an orchestrated campaign?
  11. Residents should be more concerned with the fact that a tin shed, and an ineffective sprinkler system is cited as costing $160,000. Tenderers and other contrctors must be laughing their heads off at the cost/benefit analyses that this administration runs. Seems like it’s money for jam!

Finally, the report itself. For those who can’t be bothered reading the entire report, we’ve highlighted some of the important findings. They are quoted verbatim –

“Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi, despite the favourable air quality testing results.”

“the current warning signage was assessed and is not adequate, hence additional warning signage is required’.

‘Exposure to shredded mulch, potting mix, or compost, including general garden compost and commercially available products can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi (yeast and moulds) and bacteria, including Legionella”.

‘Longbeachae is the strain of legionella most commonly associated with composts, mulch and potting mix” (compare this statement with the supposed ‘advice’ from Adcock as claimed by Newton!)

“Some commercially available mulch products are not considered to present a risk of exposure to Legionella where they have undergone a pasteurisation process. However, mnay commercially available composts and mulch products present a risk of exposing users to fungi and bacteria for eg. Legionella.”

“The material stored at Glen Huntly Park is not pasteurised or treated and therefore has the potential to exposure workers, users and the general public in the surrounding area to elevated levels of bacteria and fungi above background. Potentially most at risk groups are members  of the (public) who collect and use the mulch material for gardening, the compact truck loader driver and other council workers who regularly work with the mulch material’

“Bulk sampling of the mulch stock pile for legionella was not carried out as this is a difficult test to conduct and based on literature and other information sources there is certainly a potential for this to exist, although it may quite likely not show up in sampling. Air sampling for Legionella is not considered an effective method of sampling due to the short time span of the bacterium in air.” (NOTE: THE ACTUAL MULCH HEAP ITSELF WAS NOT TESTED)

So, what does all this mean? We conclude:

  • Correct risk management practices were not carried out in a timely fashion
  • Poor decision making as to location means that attention must be diverted from this central question
  • Penhalluriack has been the target of a deliberate smear campaign
  • The consultant’s report conflicts with the ‘advice’ Newton claims to have received from Adcock
  • Penhalluriack’s coloured photos (conveniently omitted at first) clearly show the dust spray and the dangerous incline that the loader is working at. Both situations should not have been allowed to occur.
  • Why should something as simple as a tin shed cost the earth?
  • The reluctance to disseminate important information to all councillors represents a failure of good governance
  • here’s the missing photo – in glorious technicolour!

 

April 24, 2011

Open Letter of Protest

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

From Supporters of Caulfield Reserve

OPEN LETTER OF PROTEST

TO ALL POLITICIANS

MEMBERS OF LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS 

The proposed C60 Amendment for theCaulfield Villageand the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse redevelopment will change the face of Caulfield forever. As residents of the municipality we protest in the strongest possible terms to:

  • The failure of state, federal and local authorities to  have in place a democratic and transparent process for the development of a holistic plan which involves all stakeholders
  • We decry the current situation where democratically elected councillors are denied the right to represent their constituents as a result of spurious ‘conflict of interest’ claims
  • We denounce the abandonment of the original Phoenix Precinct Plan and the progressing of this MRC proposal in a piecemeal but wilful fashion that deliberately undermines the Public view and wishes
  • We maintain that the MRC proposal fails to adhere to the underlying tenets of the Planning and Environment Act in protecting residents’ amenity
  • We denounce the failure of the current proposals to adequately consider the consequences of high rise and high density residential and commercial development on the immediate surrounding areas and the permanent social, economic and environmental damage this will cause
  • We denounce the secrecy and failure to keep the community informed as to the alleged progress of this development

 If this proposal is accepted the Caulfield and wider Glen Eira community faces the inevitable:

  • Reduction in quality of life and liveability
  • Unacceptable increase in traffic congestion, and destruction of urban amenity.
  • Loss of public open space as agreed to by the Queen Victoria grant and George VI reaffirmation of the grant in 1947
  • Economic downturn of local shopping strips
  • The ceding of Crown Land to private interests
  • Public perceptions that horses have more rights than public citizens 

We Urge All Councillors And All Members Of Parliaments To Immediately Resolve To: 

  1. Ensure the C60 Amendment is abandoned.
  2. Institute a fully representative panel to co-ordinate the development of the  Phoenix Precinct Structure Plan followed by Master Plans, and
  3. Ensure that all stakeholders are represented on this panel: Zagame Corporation,MonashUniversity, VATC (trading as) Melbourne Racing Club, Caulfield Racecourse Trustees, Victorian Government, Federal Government, and those affected by the changes – Ratepayers and/or Residents or their Representative bodies. 

SUPPORTERS OF THE CAULFIELD RESERVE

Informing Glen Eira Community 

http://melbournecommunities.org.au/caulfieldheath.html 

 

April 21, 2011

How Do You Like Them Apples?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[8] Comments 

We’ve received a set of correspondence between a resident and councillors in regard to the meeting scheduled for the 28th April. We also include a letter from Cr. Penhalluriack in response to this resident.

This first letter/email was address to Mr. Torres (planning dept) and cc’d to all councillors –

Dear Mr Torres,

 Thank you for your undated letter received on the 20th April notifying us of the sitting of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee meeting on the 28th.

As you will have discerned from the attendance of over 130 people at the recent meeting at the Caulfield Park Community Centre, there is a very large interest in this matter.  Although there is no provision to address the councillors at the proposed meeting, it may be expected that a large number of those people who attended the previous meeting will want to attend to observe the actual decision process.  Consequently, the decision to schedule it at short notice in a week’s time at this time of year is most unfortunate.

This is the Easter/Passover period, when very many people are away enjoying the Easter break.  For this reason alone, the date is inappropriate.

However, it also coincides with a forum (Phoenix Precinct Rising) regarding the very same topic on which councillors are making their decision.  This forum includes the mayor of Glen Eira as a participant.  This will mean that since the two items are both of crucial interest, and on largely overlapping matters, that even those who are not away will be split in which meeting to attend.  Again, the scheduling is inappropriate.

 Further, one might have thought that given the nature and focus of this forum, with several well-known and distinguished panellists, that the councillors on the committee would have wanted to maximise their knowledge, prior to making such an important decision.  So again, unless they have no interest in gaining more input, the scheduling is inappropriate.

 We are sure that you did not intend it, but to many, it will seem that this hasty scheduling is a attempt to avoid public attendance and observation at this most important meeting.  It is said that justice not only needs to be done, it also needs to be seen to be done.

We suggest that you reschedule this meeting in order to allow all the above matters to be properly addressed, and so that people can be given adequate notice of the meeting so they can arrange to attend and observe.

 Yours sincerely,

Michael and Bridget Cramphorn

Cr. Penhalluriack responded to this missive and cc’d his response to all councillors –

Dear Mr Cramphorn,

I empathize with you. 

Councillors themselves have had only one brief meeting to discuss the C60 development.  I don’t recall seeing any of the “Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee” members attending the C60 Panel Hearings.  If any of them attended it was only briefly.   

You have correctly observed that the C60 decision is being rushed.  So too is the decision on the proposed public (car)-park and the seven-lot subdivision.   

Council posted letters out inviting objectors to a “planning conference” for C60 AND the  proposed public (car)-park – until somebody realized they were actually obliged to have a “public consultation” and not a “planning conference”.  More letters went out correcting their error.  Then the MRC pulled the plug on their “public (car)-park” planning permit application, realizing that they would be better off negotiating with selected Councillors and the CEO behind closed doors than facing an angry public meeting.  The CEO promptly declared the negotiations “confidential”, and that was the end of any pretense that we Councillors care about public opinion. 

The Council Meeting on the 27th April will now decide what happens with the proposed public (car)-park in the centre of the Reserve.  The following night (28th) the Special Committee Meeting (Crs Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling), will meet to railroad through C60 and the seven-lot sub-division.   It is all so rushed that the obligatory advertisement  in the Leader  announcing that meeting was overlooked, and an advertisement had to be placed in the Age instead.  


The team negotiating with the MRC have achieved virtually nothing by way of concessions towards a workable park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.  As already mentioned, the situation is exacerbated because the CEO slapped a gag on public discussion – although from noon today Council’s web-site should contain both agendas.  

I can say, however, that only one of the seven important demands passed by Council at its meeting on the 15th March has been achieved.  You will recall, at the meeting on the  4th April, how some Councillors were extolling the negotiating skills of the family-law lawyer, Cr Lipshutz – and at the same time denigrating Cr. Forge and me as “too emotional”.  (I took that as a compliment.  It means that, unlike some of my fellow Councillors, I care.)   However it now seems those negotiating skills were phantasmal, and the MRC team was able to get just what it wanted.

You may get a better understanding of why this has been so rushed, and why your request to reschedule the meeting will fall on deaf ears, if you ask which Councillor is taking leave of absence from the 1st May. 

Cr Frank Penhalluriack.
 
COMMENT: Mayor Esakoff will now NOT BE MODERATING NOR ATTENDING the community forum. The ‘excuse’ was that there is a Special Committee meeting at Council. We however note, that Esakoff’s attendance was requested for 9pm to moderate a discussion panel. Since we expect the C60 to be rubber stamped within minutes, she would have had plenty of time to drive the 5 minutes to Monash and make an appearance!! We can only assume that she did not receive ‘permission’ to attend from Newton and Lipshutz?
 
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »