GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 9, 2011

Tang, Lipshutz and Conflict of Interest

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

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.

 

January 26, 2011

Planning Delegations

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

A previous post commented on the upcoming delegations to officers, paying particular attention to the ‘Conditions and Limitations’ under the Planning and Environment Act. We noted the fact that in Glen Eira the Planning Committee is NOT a special committee; that there is no official ‘councillor call in’, nor does the Planning Committee consist of councillors as community reps. In our municipality power is wielded by unelected officers as outlined in this council description of what the Delegated Planning Committee is. As a further means of comparison, we’ve uploaded the current Stonnington ‘Planning Delegation Guidelines’ .  Apart from the differences in composition, and the limitations on the powers of the committee, the fact that this document is freely available online, again stands in stark contrast to the practices of Glen Eira.

Stonnington is not alone in providing its residents with policy manuals and information as to the protocols under which a variety of services operate. Kingston, for example, has  a complete listing of all its protocols and guidelines online. We challenge readers to locate any similar documents on the Glen Eira website – assuming of course, that they even exist!

 

January 22, 2011

Good Governance? – Advisory Committees

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


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.

 

January 19, 2011

Streuth on Newton

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

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.

 

January 15, 2011

Open Space: Where’s the Money Gone?

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

MEDIA RELEASE FROM THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING – Wednesday May 28, 2003

Funds for public open space in the City of Glen Eira will grow according to the number  of residents who move into new subdivisions, the Minister for Planning, Mary Delahunty said today. Announcing approval of a scheme that will link developer contributions to the density of the subdivision, Ms Delahunty said approval of Amendment C20 to the Glen Eira planning scheme would introduce a formula to help developers determine their open space contribution.

“Although the City of Glen Eira has terrific parkland, it is a relatively meagre supply overall – running a poor second for the least amount across all metropolitan councils per head of population,” she said. “Part of what the Bracks Government is striving for under Melbourne 2030 is more open space where it is limited and where demand is growing as well as a more certain planning process, where the likelihood of dispute is reduced.”

Ms Delahunty said the amendment reflects the same open space principles that have been in place in Glen Eira, but makes the outcome more certain by fixing the contribution rate payable by developers.

The member for Bentleigh, Rob Hudson, said lack of public open space is a concern for residents and council has also struggled to bargain with developers for appropriate contributions to open space – often ending up in the hands of the appeals tribunal. He said the council had sought the reform. The changes include:

  • Developers of subdivision in suburbs relatively well-served by public open space will pay less, whereas the charges for subdivisions in suburbs less well-served will increase;
  • Developers of subdivisions close to parks will pay less;
  • Developers who provide less than 40m2 of open space for most dwellings will pay more; and
  • Subdivisions of six units or more that provide useable communal open space will pay less.

“For example, if you are building a 4-lot subdivision in Bentleigh, are within 300 metres of a park and are providing an average of 40m2 of private open space per unit, you will need to contribute 2.5 per cent of the value of that land to public open space,” he said. “These changes will make the system for creating public open space in the City of Glen Eira more certain without placing an undue burden on developers,” Mr Hudson said. “Local parks are a vital part of our urban fabric, which we must support and maintain for the long-term – so we have liveable places for current and future generations,” he said.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Glen Eira Council Annual Reports for the periods ending June 30th, 2002/3 to 2009/10 reveal the following income from open space levies –

2003      –             $1,249,000

2004      –             $1,453,000

2005      –             $1, 049,000

2006      –             $1,253,000

2007      –             $1,151,000

2008      –             $821,000

2009      –             $1,518,000

2010      –             $1,664,000

QUESTIONS

1.     Land prices have skyrocketed, development has skyrocketed in Glen Eira, yet from 2003 to 2010, the increase in revenue was less than half a million. Why?

2.     Monies are meant to be spent on ‘public open space’ and ‘improvements’. To the best of our knowledge only 1 property (Packer Park) has been added to the open space of Glen Eira via these monies. Why?

3.     $10,158,000 has been declared as open space levies. Where has all this money gone? Why hasn’t it been used for the primary intended purpose, especially since Glen Eira repeatedly claims to have a lack of public open space?

4.     Has council collected all the monies it is entitled to, or have various developments escaped these costs over the years? If so, how many, and why?

This is your job councillors! Insist on the answers to these questions!

 

January 13, 2011

Back to the Future – Again!

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

Here are some ‘highlights’ from councillor and public questions from 2005. Readers should remember that recent council meetings also contained public questions on: mayoral elections and qualifications; councillor conduct; planning and ‘confidentiality’. And of course the Municipal Inspector’s report on the Newton reappointment process. The more things change the more they stay the same in Glen Eira! 

“Considering that the land for the Rosanna Street Nursing Home was re-zoned from Public Park & Recreation Zone to Residential 1 Zone, what Open Space Contribution is to be levied on this development and to what purpose will this levy be applied.” (12th December, 2005) 

“Can Cr Feldman assure us that there were no meetings by six Councillors to decide on the Mayor and why did many residents know who was going to be mayor before the vote took place?” (12th December, 2005) 

“The Whelan report concludes that the responses given to the Inspector in relation to the reason why some former Councillors changed their mind re the appointment of the CEO were not credible (page 86). On the 15th May 2005 the former Mayor, Margaret Esakoff, in response to a request from the community to explain Council’s behaviour in relation to this issue was not as open as possible about the Council’s decision in that she was unable to give reasons why Council delayed the reappointment of the CEO, nor was she able to explain why it would not have been in the public interest to do so, and I quote: ‘I do not believe there is any value to be gained delving into the minutiae of who did what, when and to whom and nor do I think it is appropriate. What is important is that the matter is resolved and we can now move on.’ Under the draft Code of Conduct and/or the provisions of the Local Government Act it is expected that Councillors are open and accountable for their decisions. What recourse does the community have should its elected representatives flaunt the Code or the Act?” (10th October, 2005) 

…. At present with its corporate structure and culture community representatives are advising only the Committees of Friendly Cities (10), Finance (3), and Arts & Culture (1), 14 in all. All other Advisory Committees have no Community Representatives. Officers and self-appointed Councillors that change each year run those Advisory Committees. Given that the State Government requires Councils to consult extensively with its communities on strategic directions using Melbourne 2030 Framework, and as part of the Sustainability Accord: 1. What steps has the Council Administration taken to involve broadly and in depth the Glen Eira community in its continuous planning processes? 2. Has the Council administration considered emulating the Consultation processes of Glen Eira creators? (10th October, 2005) 

“Will Council provide an explanation as to why Cr Goudge singled out certain members of the public gallery on 13th December 2004 and made disparaging remarks about them by saying, and I quote from the official minutes of that meeting, “they are prone to have a bit too much to drink”? Is this acceptable and approved behaviour by an elected representative of the community? (23rd May, 2005) 

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “I’m interested to receive advice on what types of documents that senior Council Officers including yourself are privy to that are off limits to elected Councillors?” 

The CEO responded suggesting that it would be better if he provided written advice. He added; “documents that are involved in the transaction of Council business are generally available to Councillors. Documents which are covered by, for example the privacy act where the purpose for Council having the document or having the information is not related to matters that are before the Council would not be generally available.”

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “Just so that I understand, there are some documents that are available to senior Council Officers but not available to Councillors even under request of FOI?”

The CEO responded saying; “There would be lots of those, yes, for example, personnel files.” (2nd May, 2005) 

“In Council minutes of 7/2/05, CEO Newton reported that there were only 4 ‘outstanding reports’. On this basis: 1. Will Council acknowledge the minute’s inaccuracy since Cr Esakoff on 1/12/03 requested a report on Elster Creek Trail? 2. Will Council account for the reasons for this inaccuracy? 3. Will Council inform the community as to why this report is still outstanding after 16 months?4. Will Council inform the community as to its official protocols and time limits in dealing with petitions? 5. Will Council explain why the Elster Creek ‘petition’ was refused tabling in light of the fact that its website refers simply to instructions as a ‘guide to wording’?” (11th april, 2005) 

“Why has Glen Huntly been allowed to degenerate/deteriorate into a run-down shopping strip, in marked contrast to Carnegie, Bentleigh & Elsternwick?” (21st March, 2005) 

“That a report be prepared on the potential to amend the Local Law in respect of the election of a Mayor to allow an opportunity for nominees and/or candidates to speak for up to five minutes prior to any vote to elect a Mayor.” The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (7th February, 2005) 

“It would appear that most items of interest to the Community are classed as confidential” 

“It was reported in the “Leader” that Cr Esakoff would work towards bringing harmony within the Council Chambers. Would Cr Esakoff be prepared to share with the ratepayers of Glen Eira: 1. Her plan to achieve this goal 2. the time line in which she proposes to achieve her goal 3. the cost to the Glen Eira Ratepayers to achieve this goal and 4. how will the Glen Eira Ratepayers be able to measure her success or failure to achieve this goal?” 

“Would Council assure ratepayers that open Government will be restored in Glen Eira forthwith. How can the events of this evening be justified in what is meant to be a democratic and accountable Council?” 

“The Statutory Planning report claims (14.1) “Decisions made for this quarter are higher than applications received” yet total of active applications is higher in Nov & Dec – 04. Why? Also would it not be better to show an index of Decisions Made/Applications received and by Council, Office, Manager & DPC for number of appeals which also are reported to show about a 20% increase over previous years. Why is this? (28th Feb, 2005)

 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »