Glen Eira Debates

The problem with Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang, as we see it, is that they continually forget that they are first and foremost meant to represent their constituents (us) and not pretend they are in a courtroom mouthing weasel words after weasel words. For ‘legal’ issues we as ratepayers fork out over $300,000 per year for a Corporate Counsel and her department! That is not the job of councillors!

Nothing brings this home more clearly than the continuing fiasco over public questions by Mr. Varvodic and the answers supplied by Lipshutz and Hyams. Readers will remember that the last set of minutes from the Recreation and Advisory Committee was in reality nothing more than a list of topics discussed. These were not minutes as per normal from this committee. To prove our point readers should look up the Council minutes of 8^th June, 2010. There we have two sets which are expansive, and give a clear indication of what individuals actually said. So why are these latest minutes so bereft of detail?

Mr. Varvodic has sent us his public question which accuses Hyams, as chair of that committee, in censoring the minutes. Technically, this is legal – minutes must be approved by committee members. But is it ethical? Is this good governance? And more to the point, what is he hiding? How come previous minutes are so different in style, tone, and content?

Even more hypocritical is the fact that since Mr. Varvodic’s name was undoubtedly included as a topic of conversation, (ie. Topics were public questions, local law, Frisbee group) then he has every (ethical) right to full disclosure as to what may have been said about him. Hyams’ response to Mr. Varvodic is outrageous in its misrepresentations and deliberate obfuscation. Hyams has stated that:

‘The real and full minutes of the meeting were published at the last Council Meeting…The minutes of Council’s Advisory Committee Meetings record discussion points, motions, outcomes and resolutions. The Inspectorate accepted this approach in responding to Complaint 14”.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The actual minutes of that committee give no inkling as to ‘discussion points’. They are in fact pseudo ‘record of assembly’ minutes. It does Hyams no credit to indulge in semantics and legalese. It does Esakoff no credit to sign whatever nonsense is placed under her nose, and it does this Council as a whole no credit to be continually perceived as abrogating their duty to ensure that legal loopholes do not over-ride basic principles of sound and open government.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT!  We have always been fascinated by the fact that ‘governance’ features as one of the objectives within the Council Plan. No other council that we know of includes such an item in their Community or Council Plan. The fact that Glen Eira does is extraodinary. It simple does not belong there. It is a ‘given’ – legally and by all principles of good government. Readers should carefully examine what this council includes under its categories of ‘governance’ in the Annual Report (Page 80) to see what a mockery the whole exercise becomes. Under the heading ‘Governance’ we find mumbo jumbo about health and safety and the ‘awards’ the council received. Then of course, there are the mandatory statistics about how many calls were answered by the service desk.

The Victorian Ombudsman tabled a report in Parliament yesterday concerning the conduct of a Hume City councillor. It was alleged that this councillor ‘influenced’ a planning permit on behalf of a business ‘associate’. Our interest in the ombudsman’s findings relate to the perceived conflict of interest of both Tang and Lipshutz and their involvement in the ongoing saga of the Frisbee affair. Readers may remember a response from Tang on this blog, where he stated: “The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.  I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status.  I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.

The ombudsman interprets such ‘relationships’ differently. On page 9 of the report, relating to Cr. Atmaca of Hume City Council,  he states:

“In response to my concerns, Councillor Atmaca said:

There can be no conflict or perceived conflict by treating a friend or acquaintance in an identical fashion to all other people.

I consider that Councillor Atmaca has misunderstood the concept of conflict of interest. A person has a conflict of interest when they have a personal or private interest which could affect their role as a public officer; a conflict of interest can exist even if no improper act results from it.”

The ombudsman also goes on to make this statement (page 13) – “To protect the integrity of the local government system, a councillor is expected to exercise a high standard of conduct and must act positively to promote public trust in the tier of government said to be closest to the people. Without the public’s trust, local government becomes ineffective and superfluous.”

The recent truncation (censorship?) of the Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes, where the issue of unauthorised sporting groups was again (and again) discussed, does nothing to engender the public’s trust in the processes of this council and its mandate to be open, transparent, and accountable. Nor does the consistent refusal to directly answer public questions in any meaningful way engender ‘public trust’ in Glen Eira City elected members.

The lack of transparency and accountability in the way that Advisory Committees are set up and run by this Council remains an issue of great concern. By exempting Advisory Committees from the strictures imposed on Council Meetings, and Special Committee Meetings as a result of the ‘meeting procedures’ of the Local Law, there is the resultant decision making behind closed doors syndrome, as well as, the failure to be transparent about the bases for such decision making.

Let’s elaborate! The Local Government Act, under Section 93:6(d) states: “in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process”.  When Advisory Committee notes are tabled in Council, there is the inevitable motion to accept the ‘recommendations’ made by these committees. Only on the rarest occasions has there been any documentation that accompanies such ‘minutes’. Hence the community has no real knowledge,  or understanding, of WHY certain recommendations have been made. Nor are they in possession of the necessary facts and figures which might account for such decision making.

Also at issue is the question of how well the entire group of councillors participates and understands why such recommendations have been made. Each advisory committee (although open to all councillors) usually consists of two to three councillors and an equal if not greater number of officers. Our questions are:

• do all 9 councillors get to see, much less read, the reports tabled by officers at these various Advisory Committee meetings?
• If they don’t then does this make a mockery of the rubber stamping which goes on a full council meetings?
• With no public disclosure of officers’ reports, are the very principles of transparency and good governance rendered null and void?

Readers also need to be aware that these Advisory Committee meetings are in reality ‘secret’ – that is, they do not disclose agendas, do not allow public attendance, and as with the Environment  and Consultation Committees, can take up to 7 months for ‘minutes’ to be finally tabled at council meetings – when often the recommendations for certain actions have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!!!

The ongoing justification is that councillors need to ‘firm up’ a view via discussion. Fine, but their recommendations are generally made on the bases of officers’ reports. These are either firm positions, or the officers proffer various options. This information should be available to the public. Officers and councillors must be accountable. With the current set up they are not!

Finally, one needs to consider again why other councils deem it appropriate to include community reps on advisory committees; why other councils publish agendas of these committee meetings; why other councils allow full public attandance at these meetings. Why is it that Glen Eira’s formats do not come within a bull’s roar of such procedures? We suggest that the answers to these questions all go to the heart of governance issues at Glen Eira.

Streuth has posted a comment which we repeat as a separate post:

Streuth, reading ‘gleneira’ makes me sick in the stomach as so much wrong is happening in our Council compared to other Councils. Concerned Resident, you are right to suggest Councillors should delegate their authority to staff within limits. Since Andrew Newton came to Glen Eira, first as a Chief Financial Officer, then Director of Corporate Development, and finally as a CEO, he has usurped year by year the authority, power and full control over Council affairs. The result of that is now very clear. Newton has sold out Glen Eira in every possible way: population wise, land wise, service ways.

All this has happened under the watch of elected Councillors: Grossbard, Erlich, Martens, Kennedy, Neve, Longmuir, Marwick, Sapir, Goudge, Esakoff, Hyams, Bloom, Walsh, Bury, Lipshutz, Staikos, Whiteside, Robilliard, Spaulding, Feldman, and Ashmor. Newton ‘the Wizard of Oz’, once uncovered, is simply a manipulator, scaremonger and autocrat. And none of the Councillors mentioned could or can do anything about it as Newton intimidates, and in all probability threatens legal action if need be. He does not shirk from strong arm tactics, calling the police if necessary, and sacking staff he does not like or are not in line with his politics. It is not an accident that there were 3 investigations in Glen Eira since 1998. He has never been a passive participant in any of those investigations.

The new Councillors are ‘babes in the woods’ and signs are already there that they are going the same way as the previous lot. They cannot manage Andrew Newton, manage properly controlled and limited delegations, setting performance criteria for him, and assessing appropriately his performance. Barring a Royal Commission to find out the truth, or a Revolution to get rid of all the old Councillors and Newton – the long suffering Public will just have to cop it sweet.

Concerned Resident, (I’m assuming you’re the same individual who used to post to Mary Walsh’s old blog) you might know all that as you seem to have been there and you may still communicate with the top brass through the master ‘spin doctor’ Paul Burke, manipulator extraordinaire, who knows how to divide and rule. You should be concerned Concerned Resident, but your concern should be directed towards poor residents, poor ordinary staff, and poor Councillors, who are subjected to this regime of undemocratic, autocratic, and unethical behaviour.