GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 13, 2011

Time Stands Still in Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

We thought it would be instructive to see how Glen Eira may have changed over the years – to discover whether processes, services, and governance practices have actually improved in the past 6 years. Our guide has been public and councillor questions dating mainly from 2004. We conclude that basically residents have the same concerns today as they did six years ago – childcare, aged care, openness and transparency, effective communication/consultation and planning issues. Reading these questions it is obvious that nothing much has changed in Glen Eira – except that public questions are no longer taken on notice. The quality of current answers however is another issue!! These questions provide a sad commentary on how little has actually been achieved.

“As Council has made a profit from selling of aged care facilities within the City and not actually increased places in the City, I ask what is being done with the profit and further what is being done to seek government funding in order to increase aged care facilities in the City?” (26th May, 2003)

“What are Council’s public policy objectives for child care and how do they achieve them?”(3rd May, 2004)

“The treatment of Childcare under the State Government’s new competitive neutrality policy requires the implementation of a public interest test prior to the application of CN pricing because of the inherent public policy issues associated with childcare.Can Council please explain why it has failed to undertake a public interest test prior to applying CN pricing policies to childcare services?” (3rd May, 2004) 

Cr Sapir referred to a public interest test and asked if one had been carried out and if so to what degree. She further asked; “what consultation process did Council take to advise parents that there was a proposed fee increase”? (24th May, 2004) 

“Why Minutes of Council Meetings are not available for distribution on request at the Caulfield Library? Should not that be part of standard policy of engagement of the community? Ready availability of such documents should add to the proper governance of the Council?” (24th May, 2004) 

“Can you please advise why did the Council cut down several 25 to 30 metre high trees on the corner of Jasmine and Birch without consultation with the near byresidents?” (9th Feb, 2004) 

“Since the Glen Eira Council has decided to stop subsidizing childcare centres with ratepayer income in the next financial year, will Glen Eira ratepayers see a reduction in rates as a result?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“Re Council Statement of Financial Performance to 29 February. Can you please reveal the source or sources of the above budget revenue of $954,000 from ‘other’sources in above budget? Have our drillers struck oil?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“How does Council justify that public questions that were asked in March 2003 have received a response on 6 April 2004 advising that the questions do not conform with Council’s public question time procedure. Please provide appropriate and specific explanations as this does not comply with acceptable time frames to me as by now I have given up on getting adequate answers from Council.” (13th April, 2004) 

“Why won’t Council undertake a ‘Public Interest Test” on childcare to assess community response?” (15th June, 2004) 

“The Community Plan that was passed this evening is supposed to provide a plan for the community to use as a means of measuring Council’s performance up to 2010. The indicators for 2010 however need further clarification. Which 3 park masterplans are intended for development? What does Council mean by consulting with the University? What are the character amendments that are to be adopted?Which community centre is to be built? What about the 3rd community centre? What are the implications of keeping rates to at least 10% below our 7 Benchmark Councils? These are but a few questions that need to be answered in a Community Plan that purports to be a vision for the future?” (15th June, 2004) 

“We would be most grateful if a meeting could be arranged with relevant councillors and staff (prior to the release of second round offers scheduled for 27th August), in order to discuss the Council’s enrolment policy which fails to give priority to the children currently attending ‘3 year old kinder’ and who wish to continue on with their pre-school education at the same kinder the following year?” (16th August, 2004) 

“As Cr Erlich has observed the report to tonight’s meeting is interesting but unless a measure of input is used together with output, it is largely meaningless from the point of view of effectiveness. Will Council consider reporting the appropriate ‘INPUT’ as well as ‘output’ in future service reports?” (6th September, 2004) 

 “Will the Council apply its generous concessions given to tennis clubs to childcare centres and if not could it please explain why the council’s policy that services used by a minority of the community should be cost neutral and not subsidized by ratepayers, applies to childcare centres but not tennis clubs?” (27th September, 2004) 

“The Agenda papers for Council Meeetings have for some time included public questions and answers. I note that the Agenda papers have, for the last 2-3 meetings, not included Public Questions and Answers. Can Council explain why this is so? Is there anything preventing Council from continuing with this practice?”(8th November, 2004) 

“Of all C type Amendments proceeded with a statutory process:1. How many have used the full statutory process of 6 steps? 2. How many use only 2 steps? 3. How many used broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process? and 4. How many used a public discussion paper as part of broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process?” (29th November, 2004) 

“Will Council put the proceeds from sale of Council land toward purchase of alternative open space in Glen Eira, & that purpose only.” (29th November, 2004) 

“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?” (29th November, 2004)

 

January 11, 2011

VEAC, Racecourse & Council

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

Submissions to the VEAC inquiry into public open space in metropolitan Melbourne have now closed. We look forward to reading the many submissions that individuals and councils have submitted. What should be particularly fascinating is the response from Glen Eira Council. Given that this item only came up at the final council meeting of the year (and the call went out in October), we can only speculate as to the kind of submission that will go in. Of greater interest to residents are the processes that went into any final submissions. Given that the Christmas break has occurred, as well as the holiday period, and the fact that there are no council meetings scheduled until February, we wonder if:

  • Councillors had any say in the writing of the submission?
  • Were they ‘consulted’ in any shape or form?
  • Did they get to see the final version prior to its being submitted?
  • Did they care – or simply abrogated their responsibilities to the administration?

If all of the above questions are answered in the negative, then it once again demonstrates how councillors (either willingly or unwillingly) are excluded from partaking in any truly democratic and representative process. The voices of our councillors will once more have been neatly silenced and side-stepped, even though we assume that the actual submission will have been drafted in their name – ie. Glen Eira City Council!

 

January 10, 2011

Accountability, Transparency and Rule by Nobody

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Any organisation worth a cracker will ensure that each disseminated document carries the author’s name as well as the executive in charge of authorising the document. In this way, transparency and accountability become an integral part of bureaucratic process and we, the residents, know exactly where to sheet home the blame for fudged figures, inaccuracies, or simple omissions of fact. It all boils down to good governance. The alternative is ‘rule by nobody’. Glen Eira often works in this latter fashion. Far too often we’ve found that important reports tabled at council lack any identification as to who is responsible and accountable. The recent ‘notification’ for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development is a case in point. Even stranger is that in all cases where a name is provided, the report simply states ‘ENQUIRIES’!!! Not good enough. The service desk is for ‘enquiries’. Are they therefore also responsible for Planning Schemes?  What a wonderful non committal term ‘enquiries’ is! What a multitude of sins it is able to hide!

By way of contrast we direct readers to the manner in which Kingston and Port Phillip table reports. For example, the last Kingston council meeting minutes contain numerous officer reports. On each occasion readers are informed in the following manner: “Approved by: Tony Rijs-General Manager, Environmental Sustainability. Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning”. The same goes for Port Phillip. 

Even worse is that over the past year several crucial reports were tabled in Glen Eira without any accompanying information as to author or responsible executive/manager. These included: 

  • 17th May, 2010. A report on Aquatic Facilities 
  • 8th June, 2010 – A report on the National General Assembly of Local Government seeking authorisation for councillors to attend
  • 29th June 2010 – A report seeking approval to facilitate forums on Public Transport
  • 21st September, 2010 – the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees vacancy.
  • 12th October, 2010 – Childcare in Elsternwick
  • 3rd November, 2010 – A report on meetings with the Melbourne Racing Club & Trustees 

Are we really meant to believe that no-one is responsible for such important issues as the Racecourse, and Childcare and the $42,000,000 GESAC? Why is there not one single name attached to any of these reports? 

One must also wonder at the consistency of some reports. For instance, Newton’s name was on a 23rd February 2010 document on Special and Advisory Committees and delegate appointments. Our layman’s understanding of delegations is that a CEO must remain aloof from any committee nomination. Does this explain why on the 21st September the report seeking replacements for Whiteside on various committees is ‘anonymous’? Further, Paul Burke had previously reported on arrangements for VEC held elections but on the 10th August, 2010 we find that reporting on the VEC role in filling Whiteside’s position has now fallen to the corporate counsel. Mr. Burke is also put down for ‘enquiries’ on such issues as Packer Park under the guise of reporting back on community consultation. His report is far more than a  summary though – it becomes the argument for dismissing community feedback and endorsing the petanque, bocce and bowling green option! 

And what do our good councillors do about all of this? Nothing!!! Reports are allowed to be tabled anonymously and again, not a whimper! It would seem that accountability and responsibility is low down on the list of priorities. We come back again and again to our perennial question – why is it that in so many areas involving governance, accountability and transparency, Glen Eira is always the odd man out?

 

December 18, 2010

Tang and More Weasel Words

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

At the last council meeting, a public question was directed to Paul Burke ‘and Councillors if he cannot answer it’. Tang’s response was:

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Public Questions are to Council. Clause 232 (2) (b) of the Local Law allows an individual Councillor to respond to a Public Question if the Chairperson redirects the question to them. There is no such provision that allows a Public Question to be redirected to an individual Officer other than if an appropriate Officer is called upon by the Chairperson to respond to a Public Question to Council.

Additionally, I remind you that Clause 232 (1) (b) of the Local Law requires questions to be less than 150 words. However, despite your question exceeding 150 words Council can advise that Council has nothing to add to the responses previously provided to you.”

The actual Clause 232 (1) (b) states:

The Chairperson may decide to either:

(i) personally answer the question; or

(ii) refer the question to the appropriate Councillor; or

(iii) refer the question to the appropriate officer; or

(iv) advise that the question is taken on notice and that a written response will be sent. 

Tang does have the power to ensure that Burke answers the questions. Various officers have responded to public questions in the past. Tang’s gagging of Burke is deliberate, given that the question could be viewed as embarrassing given Burke’s previous cited remarks ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL.  The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that once again Tang has performed the bidding of his masters! The victim remains accountable government.

 

December 17, 2010

Lipshutz: A History Lesson

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

The minutes of December 14, 2010 record the following statement at the conclusion to Public Questions. 

Cr Penhalluriack said; “I’m unhappy with all of the answers to Mr Varvodic with the exception of the one relating to Cr Esakoff. I don’t know what to do about it but I think that they are unnecessarily aggressive and I am just not happy about it”. 

THE HISTORY 

August 14th, 2007 (in regard to Friends of Caulfield Park) 

The advertisement and flyer are not only misleading and deceptive but they are out and out intellectually dishonest……I also want to take issue with the comment; ‘Have Councillors been misled yet again’. If this is not a below the belt attack on the very hard working Officers of this Council, I don’t know what it is. That question has about as much credibility as asking; when did you last beat your wife. …We are however not prepared to be dictated to by self interest groups especially when those groups adopt cynical and dishonest tactics to deceive the public the very same public that we were elected to represent. 

September 22nd, 2009 (in response to Mary Walsh) 

“The very manner in which this question is asked is akin to asking when did you last beat your wife? The question could have been framed in a non-confrontational manner such as; Do you object to residents asking public questions?….Where however it is the same people Council meeting after Council meeting asking the same type of question and in the same tone as this one, then frankly their credibility must be diminished. I would recommend that you read Dale Carnegie’s book How to win friends and influence people….You have taken it upon yourself to constantly snipe at whatever decision Council makes as if you are always right and Council always wrong. More so the very tone of these questions and most if not all of your questions are belligerent and self serving….That question besides being not only convoluted and turgid was based on ignorance of accounting and process and as with this question had an in built bias that Council had got it wrong. Clearly, if you did not understand accounting concepts or process then you are entitled to query however your question did not in any way suggest lack of understanding, rather it was predicated on the very arrogant basis that you were right and Council was clearly wrong. Had you been less interested in finding fodder for your blog by demonstrating your credentials as an interrogator and that Council had got it so wrong and more interested in genuinely obtaining an understanding of the matters the subject of your question then your question would have been framed in a non belligerent and dispassionate manner without gratuitous comments….The very tone of your question was not only arrogant and puffed up with self importance but was I believe, and I stand to be corrected, posted on your blog…I do not however have regard for any group that is not representative and which lies, distorts the truth and has no regard or indeed respect that the people have spoken by electing Councillors to office despite the strongly held views of those groups to the contrary…I and my fellow Councillors were elected by the people in a fair and contested election. It is we who represent the residents and not the community groups to which you refer. 

December 14th, 2010 (in response to Nick Varvodic) 

“you have embarked on a ridiculous and ultimately a narcissistic campaign to discredit Council and specific Councillors for what I perceive is for no better reason than you enjoy having your name read out at Council meetings. Mr Varvodic, by your actions you have lost all credibility and your incessant questions are frankly no more than a joke.…. The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group... I can only suggest that if you are serious about the issue of Local Law 326 and clearly by your questions you are not, or indeed if you are concerned about any other issue affecting residents and ratepayers of the City of Glen Eira, of which you are not one, you first purchase a copy of Dale Carnergie’s book, How to win friends and influence people. You have to date not won any friends and you certainly have not influenced anyone.… Mr Varvodic, as long as questions are being asked, May I also enquire as to when you last bashed your wife? That question has as much intellectual honesty as your questions to date in that there are inbuilt assumptions which are patently false... You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’.

 

 

December 14, 2010

Council Meeting: Lipshutz in Full (Arrogant) Flight!

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

Just a very brief rundown on tonight’s marathon council meeting. A more comprehensive version will follow tomorrow.

  1. Packer Park will have a bowling and bocce green to replace the old bowling green. Petanque is out! Kindergartens are out! Green open space is out – although a couple of barbecues (that council can charge for bookings) will be put in. Great consultation over this – offer option 1 (sell the bowling green); when this is defeated, use answers to this as basis for another concept (bocce, bowls,pentanqe) and again when people give you their views, just state that kindergartens are inappropriate there. The question that has NEVER been asked of residents is ‘WHAT DO YOU WANT’?
  2. 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.
  3. Lipshutz was at his absolute arrogant best in a 5 minute tirade against Nick Varvodic and his public questions relating to Lipshutz and the Frisbee Group. All the old cliches and shibboleths were trotted out on cue – Mr. Varvodic should read Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People; that Varvodic was guilty of narcism; that he was ignorant; that he was defamatory (ironic?) and that his questions were like asking someone if they had killed their wife!!!!! Gosh Cr. Lipshutz, we think that it’s about time you got some new lines. These are becoming a real drag – especially when you’ve used them time and time again (see council minutes relating to previous tirade against Mary Walsh).  Repetition is boring and displays a total lack of imagination!
  4. Penhalluriack, to his credit, objected to the tone of the answers.
  5. Arguably the most interesting decision of the night, was the unanimous passing of the Station St. planning application. Officers relied almost exclusively on the assumed acceptance of the c60 amendment in their argument. There’s no c60 as yet, but the application was passed!
 

December 7, 2010

The Handiwork of Burke?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

Is Council ‘barking up the wrong tree’ – again?   It appears that Paul Burke has entered the fray once more, in an obvious attempt to derail or undermine what is supposed to be an independent and objective consultation process.

Today’s Caulfield Leader has a page 3 article with the screaming headline ‘Rise in Glen Eira Dog Attacks – Latest figures prompt council to urge for more vigilance and safety in parks’.

More spin from Burke, this time an invented ‘dog crisis’. As ‘director of community relations’ and hence, media releases, this is probably another beat-up from his department.

Nothing would be wrong with the story if the facts were objective, and fully explained. It sure would make a difference if the public had been told that Glen Eira has close to 20,000 dogs, so that 65 ‘attacks’ given this population is 0.003% ; that the incidence of ‘attacks’ is lower than any surrounding municipality, especially when compared with Bayside which has approximately the same number of dogs. It also would have been ethical to inform readers that two years ago council claimed that it had 70 attacks. And the most honest approach would have been to fess up to their own report that many so called dog ‘attacks’ were in fact nothing more than ‘scuffles’ between two dogs. Now if they were really forthcoming with information we would have been told: how many of these 65 incidents resulted in fines? How many resulted in prosecutions? How many resulted in dogs being declared ‘menacing’ or dangerous’? how many of these reported ‘attacks’ were in fact even substantiated?

Most important however, is the TIMING of this article. We doubt very much that coincidence has any role in its appearance. Strange, that such a story should appear at precisely the same time that Harlock & Jackson are conducting a review of ‘off leash areas’. Coincidence? Serendipity? No way!!! Deploying typical Glen Eira tactics, the objective is to foment fear, dissent, to divide and conquer, in short, to polarise the community. When all else fails, pull out the ‘fear tactic’. Forget that even according to council’s own Recreation Needs Study, dog owners constitute the largest group of park users. Forget that the objective according to council’s own MSS is for ‘equitable’ sharing of open space. Forget that a ‘discussion paper’ has been disseminated that highlights only the negatives and is devoid of all supporting statistics and data. Forget that the very tone of this paper is more in the style of Burke, than previous papers written by Harlock and Jackson. In short forget that dog owners make up over 50% of the Glen Eira population. And totally forget to mention that the consultant has spoken with ‘sporting groups’, but has denied the same rights to a local dog owners lobby group – after it seems there had been agreement to such a meeting 24 hours previously.

From what we’ve been told, one could even go back in history to the Princes Park ’dog poo’ incidents, where agreement between sporting clubs and dog owners were reached only to have the sporting groups renege on a 14 point signed and sealed ‘treaty’ within 38 hours. Strange how all these things just seem to happen isn’t it? But stranger still is the fact that not ONE dog owner was fined last year for failing to pick up after his/her dog!!

We of course can only deal in speculation. We have to ask ourselves, who else would be in contact with the Leader? Who else would supply such slanted figures? Who else could possibly have the power to lean on sporting associations in order to sabotage any inconvenient community agreement? Who else is the doyen of ‘public relations’?

Councillors need to wake up and realise what is being done in their name! They need to question the fundamental issue of governance and whether Burke is usurping their role. They need to question how an unelected official is capable of undermining council decisions and processes. At the heart of all this is again the role of the administration and the need for its correct and proper governance practices. And of course, like any good little lap dog, there is Tang in the Leader article, echoing his master’s voice! He too, needs to be kept on a tight leash or definitely ‘retrained’ as per the Municipal Inspector’s recommendations!

 

December 7, 2010

Another ‘Swifty’: The Mayor?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[8] Comments 

Public Notice in today’s Glen Eira Leader:

Special Council Meeting: Wednesday, 15th December 2010

In accordance with Section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 notice is given that a Special Council Meeting of the Glen Eira City Council will be held on Wednesday 15th December 2010 in the council chamber, corner of Glen Eira and Hawthorn Roads, Caulfield, commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be to elect a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor.

This will now make it 3 meetings in 3 days – the C60 and centre of racecourse on Monday; Tuesday normal council meeting and now Wednesday the selection of Mayor. The questions that immediately spring to mind are:

  • Is this scheduling deliberate? It is asking a lot of both councillors, and public, to attend three nights in succession. Is the hope that the gallery will be practically empty on this last night, or on any of the other nights, if people must ration their time?
  • Glen Eira has always elected its mayor at an ordinary council meeting. Why is the administration now calling for a special meeting? Why can’t it be done on Tuesday night?
  • Were counsellors consulted, informed of this new meeting? Were they even offered a choice?
 

November 29, 2010

Good Governance and Magee

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
1 Comment 

Several posts ago we brought up the issue of the ‘exchange of land’ involving the Coatesville Tennis Club. We cited what Magee had said in council meeting – namely that the intention was merely to develop the area to accommodate disabled players PLUS: “to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

We also questioned when, how, and by whom the decision for the above had taken place. Nothing has occurred in an open council meeting! Nothing has been voted on as far as we can tell in an open council meeting! Nothing has been itemised for ‘in camera’ discussions –  as far as we can tell.

What we do know however, is that on September 1st, 2009 the following Request for a Report was made –

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of relocating the two tennis courts on Mackie Reserve in East Bentleigh to 31 Orange Street in East Bentleigh. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

NO SUCH REPORT HAS BEEN TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETING! It appears that once again decisions are far from transparent and public. That requests for a report are meaningless exercises since they are never tabled, and perhaps never see the light of day. We again offer our pages to Jim Magee and/or Jamie Hyams, in order to explain what appear to be extraordinary circumstances that leave us befuddled, bemused, and suspicious!!!!!

Because nothing is out in the open, we are left to merely conjecture, to try and piece one and two together. Our conclusions are depressingly always the same: decisions keep being made behind closed doors against the spirit of Section 3C of the Local Government Act which, we remind readers, was the favourite lament of the Muncipal Inspector!

 

November 28, 2010

Inspector’s Report: Accuracy of Minutes

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

Item 9.15 of last week’s meeting contains council’s response to the Municipal Inspector’s recommendations. Many of the points made relate to ‘accuracy of minutes’. It is thus astounding that the minutes which were published on Friday contain two glaring errors –

  • There is no mention of Cr. Penhalluriack’s dissent. He unequivocally stated that he wished this to be recorded in the minutes
  • The failure to include part of a question to Cr. Lipshutz which asked him whether he was the author of the email

 The failure to include both of these events in the minutes is the result of either incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to keep the wider community ill informed of what happens at council meetings. Since these minutes thereby become the ‘public record’ held for posterity, it represents a complete rewriting of history and is nothing short of a major ‘cover up’ if allowed to stand.

If these omissions are the result of incompetence, then the individual responsible should be called to account. We find it difficult to accept this notion however, since we believe that prior to material being disseminated it would have been checked by fairly ‘high level’ individuals.

Once again, we can only conclude that the inspector’s report, and council’s response to these recommendations remain shallow words, rather than real commitment to openness and transparency. Finally, we also point out that council is spending further money to hire a so-called ‘independent note-taker’!!! We now have ratepayers funds being used for ‘note-taking’ and ‘retraining’. How much is this costing councillors?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »