GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 2, 2010

Agenda Items 9.2 and 9.3

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

There are a couple of convoluted, confusing and curious items set down for decision tomorrow night. Both involve what is now known as Kimberly Gardens in Inkerman Rd. It appears that the following is about to happen:

  • The loss of further public open space
  • The potential for further private development down the track once this open space is lost
  • The possible absence of ministerial approval for the amendment of a Section 173 agreement
  • Deletion of agreement clauses without showing due cause such as evidence of ‘nuisance’ as stipulated by the agreement
  • A strange ‘in camera’ meeting on 16th March, 2010 which involved this property – a most unusual occurrence!

Questions to councillors:

How does the community benefit from this arrangement?

What reimbursement/contribution will council receive from this deal?

Has the public been told the ‘full story’ and nothing but the ‘full story’?

 

October 30, 2010

Governance: Not Going, But Dead Set Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

This is a tale of intrigue and secrecy. Secrecy by administrators with the result that not only the public, but councillors themselves are not given information which is vital in order for them to govern in the best interests of the community. 

In February this year, Glen Eira City Council faced 88 charges in the Dandenong Magistrates Court. Council employed an SC, and the potential fines were in the vicinity of $2,000,000. The charges were laid by Vic Roads. Council was found ‘not guilty’ of these charges. This is not the point of our tale however. What we wish to highlight is that individuals whose job it is to protect the community and its assets did NOT KNOW OF THIS PROSECUTION! In other words elected representatives were excluded from an issue which had the potential to impact on all aspects of the municipality and its operations. 

What must also be borne in mind is the following –  taken directly from the Whelan Report (page 32) and citing the purported governance practices by the administration. The heading of this page is:  “CEO/Administration and councillors”  

“A Governance Digest is sent to Councillors by courier each Thursday. It includes a diary of all engagements involving the Mayor / Councillors, any key commitments by senior managers (e.g. conferences) and events which affect the community. It sets out information under five chapters laid down by the CEO:-

o “For Councillors to take action / decision” (e.g. extra information about a matter coming before Council; opportunities to attend development courses);

o “Sensitive issues that Councillors should be aware of”. This is the heart of the Digest. It updates Councillors on constituent concerns, media items, etc.

o “Decisions made by management that Councillors should be aware of” (e.g. decisions by the Delegated Planning Committee);

o “Reports on progress” (e.g. implementation of capital works);

o “General information”. Provision of this information is based on an internal policy which states:- “The golden rule is No Surprises. It is our policy to alert our Councillors beforehand of any issue which could reasonably become the subject of public discussion.” 

Seems like this administration does not practice what it preaches – even after three municipal inspectors’ investigations. This court case speaks volumes about the failure of governance, transparency, and accountability. We ask councillors – who runs this council? You, or the ‘faceless men’? 

You may read the full judgement or the Norton Rose synopsis via these links – 

http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/2010/pub28461.aspx?lang=de-de 

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/2b68e500440ad44eb44ef61b048e52c2/Vicroads+v+City+of+Glen+Eira.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

 

October 20, 2010

Good Governance: Sold for $45,000?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Presented below are a sequence of events relating to the sale of land at Nina and Niki Crts., Bentleigh. Once again this episode would appear to raise serious questions as to the governance practices of this council and the role of both administrators and councillors. As always, we invite councillors to present their point of view if they believe that our facts are inaccurate.

In chronological order, this is what transpired:

  • Council minutes of 24th February, 2009 record a request for a report moved by Magee and  seconded by Staikos –

That a report be prepared on the former drainage site between Nina Court and South Road in Bentleigh East. In particular the report should concentrate on the possibilities of this drainage site becoming a pocket park.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

  • On June 9th, 2009 council officers tabled a report with the stated purpose of ““The removal of ‘drainage reserve status’ of the land in preparation for the sale”. The report notes that attempts to sell the land had been ongoing since 2005 and that since “the proposal is facilitating the disposal of land not required by Council, the planning scheme requires a condition to be included on the permit that states that the additional lots must be consolidated with abutting land within 2 years of the date of issue of this permit.”  
  • On June 30th, 2009 officers again tabled a report, ostensibly responding to the Magee/Staikos request for a report. It’s purpose however was titled: “To review whether to proceed with the sale of a former reserve adjacent to Nina Court, Bentleigh East “. For the most part, the report outlines past history, the fact that there is ‘unsociable behaviour’ on this strip of land; that  it is not under ‘good visual surveillance’, etc. etc. but the crunch paragraph is – “In 2005 Council resolved not to proceed with the sale as the offers received were well below market value and did not accord with Council Policy. Council’s resolution also called for officers to pursue further negotiations.” Further justification is given with – “The subject land is smaller than many pocket parks. It is also narrow and poorly located. Accordingly it has very restricted recreational potential resulting in limited benefits for the community that larger parks provide. Due to the site’s size there is little opportunity to provide valuable informal recreation opportunities such as play spaces, areas to play informal ball games, or fly a kite.” The final clincher is ‘There is little merit in establishing this former reserve as a pocket park so close to other parks” AND “The land will be able to be put to better use by adjoining property owners” and council pocketing more dollars! Conclusion? “In officers’ opinion, the land is not suitable for public open space on grounds of safety and the best solution would be for it to be incorporated into surrounding properties with the proceeds used for higher priority open space projects.” 

Magee and Staikos (to their credit) then moved the following motion which was passed unanimously. 

That Council:(i) Not proceed with the sale of the former reserve between Nina Court and South Road, Bentleigh East, (ii) Retain the land for use as open space, and (iii) Notify affected owners and occupiers of Council’s decision. 

  • On February 17th, 2010 the Leader carried council’s advertisements announcing the sale of the land to two residents for the price of $21,500 and 31,500 – a grand total of $54,000 (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
  • On October 12th, 2010 (item 9.9) was presented. The recommendation was: “To seek Council’s consent for the sale of a former drainage reserve abutting 13 Nina Court and 16 Niki Court Bentleigh East.” This was accepted unanimously after being moved by Hyams and Pilling. 

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? 

  1. Council’s resolution of 30th June, 2009 not to proceed with the sale HAS NOT BEEN RESCINDED.
  2. What happened between June 30th and February 17th when the advertisement went into the Leader. Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is nothing presented in council chambers as to the deliberations and rationale for this decision? Or is this simply another example of decision making behind closed doors?
  3. Why in the October 12th report is the price mentioned only $45,000, when in the advertisement we have the grand total of $54,000 (see:http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
  4. How can councillors unaminously vote for sale when in June 2009 they voted against sale – unanimously? A case of amnesia – especially by Magee? Not one word was spoken – not a whimper from anyone. So, we ask, do councillors actually bother to read what is in front of them? Does anyone think that this backflip should not be explained – especially when we are continually assailed with the message that open space in Glen Eira is miniscule?
  5. And why, when one looks at these documents, do the names keep changing all the time? We have Nina Crt, Niki Crt., Nepean Highway, all tossed about. Is this just camouflage?
  6. And finally, as authors of such reports, what role has the administration played in all this? What obfuscation has there been? From our standpoint it seems that the intention to sell the land is longstanding, so regardless of what councillors want, we’ll steam roll through our own agenda.
  7. As per usual, we maintain that governance – in terms of transparency and accountability – are once again the victims in this highly questionable sequence of events. 

As Pauline Hansen used to say – ‘Puhleeese EXPLAIN’!!!!!!! At the very least residents deserve to know how in the space of 7 months a unanimous decision NOT to sell land is mysteriously overturned without explanation, without clear transparency in open council and nobody says boo!! Simply not good enough!

 

October 12, 2010

How Weak are Councillors’ Bladders?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[8] Comments 

The record of assembly of councillors printed in the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a fascinating document. We are left to wonder whether councillors have incredibly weak bladders since this specific meeting was nothing short of a swinging door of councillors leaving the meeting and returning a minute later. Please note the procession taken directly from the record –

7.17pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room

7.18pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room

7.45pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room. Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.02pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Magee left the Briefing Room.

8.04pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

8.04pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.05pm Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.08pm Cr Magee returned to the Briefing Room.

8.44pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.45pm Cr Lipshutz left the Briefing Room.

8.46pm Cr Lipshutz returned to the Briefing Room.

8.47pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room and Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.48pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.54pm Cr Esakoff left the Briefing Room.

8.55pm Cr Esakoff returned to the Briefing Room.

Such comings and goings are unbelievable. Yet the only declared ‘conflict of interest’ comes twice from Tang – one notable instance is when the Municipal Inspector’s Recommendations are discussed!

The Local Government Act requires councillors to declare any conflict of interest even in an assembly of councillors. Why isn’t this noted in the record? Why isn’t the nature of the conflict of interest included? Why are all directors present so that in effect this becomes a defacto council meeting behind closed doors? Is this an example of ‘winky pop’ in action? Or are we, the poor public, simply left to speculate on the state of each councillors’ bladder?

 

October 11, 2010

The Councillor Code of Conduct

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
Comments Off on The Councillor Code of Conduct 

Tomorrow night’s council meeting has a recommendation from its Local Laws review committee regarding the Councillor Code of Conduct. The recommendation reads – “No changes suggested’. Hence, it seems that Lipshutz, Tang and Pilling are satisfied with the current document!

Most of the current crop of Councillor Code of Conduct documents closely follow the stipulations set out in the Local Government Act. The act covers things like conflict of interest, integrity, honesty, community participation, etc. etc. It is relatively straight forward and most councils have policies which refer to, or cite the act –  and that’s it! Straight forward, no semantics, no ambiguity, no ‘directives’. Not Glen Eira however! Glen Eira has produced a weighty tome of 22 pages. In contrast, Port Phillip’s policy is 3 pages; Kingston’s policy is 2 pages and Bayside’s policy is 10 pages.  What on earth can these councils say in a fraction of the space that it takes Glen Eira to articulate?

Why is Glen Eira’s Councillor Code of Conduct so ‘fulsome’? What does it contain that no other council bothers to include? What is the reasoning behind such a detailed document? Below is a selection from this Code of Conduct. We’ve highlighted what we believe to be important sections. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions as to the intended impact of such clauses, the reasons for their existence, and the ramifications for the community. Finally, the central question is: do the following clauses improve governance, or are they intended to gag ‘dissidents’ within the councillor ranks, and to create further divides between council and the community? 

 “Demonstrating commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises;” 

There may be times when a Councillor as an individual disagrees with a majority decision of the Council and wants the community to know that. Although Councillors are entitled to present their own views, in doing so, each Councillor should nevertheless acknowledge that:…an overriding concern ought to be to achieve a balance in the matters that are communicated and to strive to achieve an outcome that presents the Council as effective and cohesive. 

Councillors have a duty to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions, giving reasons for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. 

Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings. In discussions leading up to such decisions, in Assembly of Councillor Meetings not open to the public, Councillors may explore a range of positions and express a range of views. Those views must not be reported outside those meetings. To do so would discourage full discussion of developing issues and the ability for Councillors to firm up their views as questions are answered and information provided.

 

October 8, 2010

More Threats to Democratic Process?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

The agenda for the upcoming council meeting contains several important items.

The local law review committee proposes under the heading ‘Vexatious Questions”:  

“Issue of the same question being asked repeatedly was discussed. Two alternatives were suggested:

1. answering the question at the relevant meeting but not reading it; or

2. disallowing the question and not reading it.

Suggested amendments to be drafted reflecting the alternatives.” 

In the ‘Assembly of councillors’ item there is this statement/question: “Can Councillors be reimbursed for legal costs incurred as a result of the Municipal Inspection?”

Item 9.7, entitled ‘Childcare in Elsternwick’ tables a ‘report’ on the imminent closure of the current facility. The result? No new facility, no new budget allocation, etc. etc.  

Once again the ball is in the councillors’ court. The community will be very, very interested to see how this meeting turns out and whether this signals the start of the further erosion of democratic principles.

 

October 2, 2010

Ask and You Will Receive – Sometimes!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[2] Comments 

On July 20th, 2010 the following ‘Request for a Report” was passed –  

I ask for a report on how many trees were planted last year and how many so far this year. What work is done to ensure that our trees establish themselves well over their first few years and what work is undertaken to ensure the longevity of our mature trees. Finally, have Officers any suggestions or recommendations to improve our tree husbandry. (Penhalluriack/Hyams) 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED. 

The result?

 “To report on Council’s street tree planting and tree maintenance programs”. (Minutes of 21st September, 2010) 

This is not the first time that officers’ reports have come back and: 

  • Altered the frame of reference
  • Failed to respond to vital aspects of the request, and
  • Proffered recommendations that were not envisaged or intended by the original request 

Yet, not one councillor appears to have noticed! Not one councillor stated that the request for a report was for ALL TREES in all parks, not merely STREET TREES!!  In fact PARK TREES only rated a mention twice, but in weird contexts such as: 

“Park trees (which suffer less environmental damage) usually last longer.” 

“Particularly affected have been park trees which Council is no longer able to irrigate with potable water due to water restrictions.” 

Penhalluriack & Hyams asked the specific question ‘how many trees were planted last year’? The answer given is:  “In 2009/10, Council planted 1,417 street trees (639 replacement and 778 additional). From 1 July to 23 July, Council had planted 800 street trees”. So much for direct, transparent answers! 

Again, by way of contrast we would like to draw readers’ attention to the fact that both Kingston and Port Phillip have an ‘URBAN FOREST’ policy which is defined as: “The Urban Forest is the sum total of all trees and associated vegetation growing within an urban area. It includes trees on private and public managed land. The City of Kingston Tree Management Policy, however, pertains solely to trees located on Council managed land” (Kingston) – that is, both STREET AND PARK TREES!! Kingston also includes this promise to its residents  -“ Council will consult and inform the community about all major projects involving tree removal. Council will provide residents seven days notice regarding proposed street tree removal unless a tree poses an unacceptable risk and requires immediate removal. Appeals relating to tree removal must be provided in writing to the Team Leader of Parks. Residents also have the option to obtain an independent arborists repor t.”  As far as we know, nothing like this exists in Glen Eira, and the recent angst over the removal of major trees in Caulfield Park, clearly show the necessity of such a policy. 

Far too often, councillors’ requests for reports are magically transformed into documents which bear no resemblance to the original question and tend to include recommendations that were not included in the parameters of the original request. Or, as in this case, the request for potential ‘improvements’ is completely ignored.  Our questions are thus directed to councillors – 

  • Why are such reports not rejected?
  • Why should the community be satisfied with your silence?
  • Who runs this council? You, or unelected officers?
 

September 26, 2010

Why are Some More Equal than Others Cr. Lipshutz, Mr. Burke?

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

The minutes of the last Council meeting (21st September) record the following ‘Request for Report’ – 

Crs Lobo/Magee: That a report be prepared on how Infringement Notices are issued to unauthorised sporting groups. The MOTION was put and LOST (8 to 1) 

Thus the sole voice (Lobo) advocating some semblance of common sense in the ongoing saga of ‘unauthorised sporting activities’ was effectively muzzled. We highlight this issue because at its heart lie fundamental questions of: 

  • Due process and transparency
  • Governance, and
  • Propriety

 Over the past few months we’ve become increasingly intrigued by the barrage of public questions emanating from one particular group and the failure of Council to provide reasonable and adequate responses. We’ve therefore embarked on a little research. According to both the Local Law of 2000 and the current 2009 version, it is an offence if a sporting ‘activity’ continues without a council permit. This was spelt out under clause 326 entitled ‘Organised Sporting Activities’ in the 2000 version: 

“ Participating in, or allowing, a formal, structured or organised sporting activity, including practice, within a public reserve or on Council land other than in designated locations.Direction: An authorised officer of the Council may require a person participating in or allowing a formal, structured or organised sporting activity within a public reserve or on Council land without a permit to immediately cease the activity and leave the reserve or Council land.”

 The 2009 version is basically the same, except for the addition of the one liner – “This clause should not unreasonably capture smaller informal groups.” Of course, ‘smaller informal groups’ (ie: 4 people, 6, 8, 15?) is never defined and that is the crux of the problem which has a long history. 

BACKGROUND HISTORY 

Some of you may remember the public humiliation that Council experienced following the ‘kids in the park’ and the football ‘shleppers’ incidents of 2007. To refresh people’s memory we offer the following YouTube highlights: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itNQ_Z1nbm8 

http://www.youtube.com/user/shleppers#p/a/u/1/PyvhEs-K0QQ 

Close on the heels of this shleppers debacle, we then had the ‘kids in the park’ fiasco. All the major broadsheets and TV channels had a field day. These are some of the headlines:  

“Watch out for the fun police Council threat to fine kids for playing in a park”

“Premier, stars slam fun police”

 “Two’s company, fees for crowds”

 “Council backs down on threat to fine park users Kids beat fun police”

“No play; festival OK”

“Premier plays bal”

“$5000 fine just for playing football” 

The real significance however lies in the comments made by council representatives, such as Paul Burke. We quote:

“… if there’s a group of people turning up regularly to use the facility, any reasonable person would believe it’s an organised group,” he (Burke) said. (Herald Sun, 27th Nov., 2007)

““Well, if you run in ones and twos, I don’t think there’d be a problem,” he (‘affable official) replied. But what if we wanted to dash about as a pack and support each other’s efforts? “Then you’d need a permit.”  (Herald Sun, 28th Nov., 2007)

“”Every other club, every other group, is abiding by the rules and regulations. This is a group of guys who are saying `We don’t think the regulations apply to us. Up yours’.” (Burke: Herald Sun, 25th May, 2007)

In the end of course, with pressure from Brumby, Ian Thorpe and other Olympians, Council back peddled at supersonic speed.  The ‘kids in the park’ had not only won, but council was ridiculed in taking such a sledge hammer approach to a bunch of cute little kiddies running around an oval. The about face is evidenced by this email from then Mayor, David Feldman – “all enforcement by council officers to be immediately suspended in relation to rules regarding organised sporting groups or any other parks-related policies that require judgements to be made by officers”. (Herald Sun, 30th Nov., 2007) In other words, what was  perfectly ‘clear’ to any ‘reasonable’ person two days earlier, was now vetoed. But by whom? Councillors or the administration? Who has the power to change so called ‘policy’? Besides, the Local Government Act specifically states (Section 76E (2): “A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff- 

   (a)  in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or 

   (b)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act”

So who made the decision? If councillors, then was this legal, since this email from Feldman went out a month before anything even resembling the issue was brought up before a full council meeting (December 18th, 2007)!! Who was pulling the strings here?

THE PRESENT

Having emasculated their own law to a large extent, Council now faces the absurd situation of groups who have paid for permits seeing OTHER GROUPS WHO HAVE NOT PAID FOR PERMITS GETTING OFF SCOT FREE – time after time, after time, after time. This is the cause of the current onslaught of public questions to council. The questions are important: is there one rule for one group and another rule for others? Are some, more ‘equal’ than others? Why pay $1600 when others get the same for nothing? Are some in fact, beyond the reach of the law, which has not been rescinded, and which was endorsed in the updated 2009 Local Law? Why are Council allowing this to continue?  The past is obviously an important factor – but we believe there are other, even more important influences at work here.

Several of the public questions allege that certain councillors may have a decided ‘conflict of interest’ in this issue since they are ‘relatives’ and ‘mates’ of the specific group in question. At this last council meeting the minutes reveal that in response to a direct public question on this point, both Tang and Lipshutz did not answer the question. Instead, they cited the legalese whitewash of the Municipal Inspector’s report. Why did they not simply deny the allegation? Nothing could have been easier than to say ‘no’ – I’m not in any way associated with this group’. Lipshutz unbelievably claimed that the question was ‘vague’!!!!

We copy below a discussion taken directly from Facebook which is irrevocable proof that:

  • This group does not have a permit
  • This group is ‘organised’
  • This group intends to infringe the current and past law by subterfuge and
  • This group includes Josh Lipshutz – the son of Michael Lipshutz. (Readers should note that once the public questions started flowing, the photo of Josh disappeared from the website)

 

The discussion (minus the names of individuals and editing for the sake of brevity) goes:

Person ‘A’ – The title says it all. Ladies and Gents we have a problem and I want to open it up to discussion. Here is the problem.
As of yesterday Monday 23rd Feb 09 we were warned that we must speak to the Glen Eira City Council for allocation of sporting grounds to continue playing Ultimate Frisbee in and around the local parks, and until then play must be discontinued. This message was delivered by a park ranger and I followed up by speaking to a Ms Belinda Smith (co-ordinator in this area) and was told that many clubs have already be(en) turned away and that they are not taking further applications for permits to play at local sporting grounds. This is due to the destruction on the sporting ovals and that with the drought in full force, the clubs who already have arranged to play, may have to forfeit their games due to destroyed ovals.

OK, where to from here? We have been given some options.
– Local school sports grounds. (Belinda Smith advised this)
– Princes Park non sporting oval areas such as the grass outside Caulfield Recreation Centre. (Belinda said this was ok, BUT that we may get fined none the less for playing there as it is a non-ball-game area, and we are an ‘uncontrolled sport’.
– We could shift the matches to a) Point Ormond (the end of Glen Eira Rd) b) the field down the road from the Malvern Town Hall (that being in another council district and therefore buying us more time) c) can shift to play in St Kilda, the grass just outside Soul Mama

Please voice your opinion here I for one would love to hear it, and feel our whole group needs to decide what to do. I will also try arrange a meeting so we can sit down and discuss this.

Thank you for your support so far, we look forward to rebuilding as soon as possible. Please notify all those who played but are not a part of this group that they must join us as soon as possible to keep in the loop.

Person ‘B’ –  Well, well, well.. it seems to be ‘1984’ here in Caulfield.

I too have rang our friend Linda, and she told me that, we CANNOT use the fields.. I reminded her (of) an email, that floated around Late November, regarding the banning of children using Princes Park, and the Deputy Mayor claiming that the law is to be suspended. The article is below 🙂

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22845193-2862,00.html

I wil be contacting our friends Mary Bolling & Ian Royal.. i also mentioned this to Linda, and she said, OK, as she choked on her words.. I guess the embarrassment of this last time hasnt left her office, as she was quite surprised i knew about it.. The conversation quickly ended, as she tried to back-pedal.. quite funny..

Anyway.. not really in the state to be fighting City Councils, but someone may as well take my rage, and it looks like Linda has a nice, pretty target on her..

I’ll keep you informed 🙂 All hail Winston Smith…

Person ‘C’ –  …..The other option,

if your local pain in the butt council worker comes down to fine everyone – try all running in different directions, and see how many people they catch to hand out a $250 fine. And when they ask for your ID, say you don’t carry it with you when you exercise. What are they going to do, arrest you for not carrying ID and walking on grass? Unless there are signs up stating that you cannot use the facilities, then they don’t have a leg to stand on come legal proceedings.So, I say, go for your life and keep fit!!!

 

Person ‘D’ –   i wholeheartedly support this fight against the council, not to mention any other establishment. curse my unexplainable resentment of authority…we could use a rotation system, swapping from park to park while the council chases us. it would essentially be a sort of cat and mouse game, running from the firm hand of the law.

Person ‘E’ – As much as I would rather be throwing a frisbee around than wasting energy fighting council, attention here is our key leverage point. The more attention we can bring to this cause, the better, as this seems to be a cycle the council will act upon.

Person ‘F’ – This has been an issue for some time, surely you all remember the fight between Schleppers’ football and the council some years ago. it was only a matter of time before the council got to us as well.

Person ‘A’ –  Thanks to all those who attended the meeting, your input was fantastic. Please everyone notice that there is a frisbee match this sunday. Please tell me if you didnt get the invite.

Ok the lowdown. …I will be hosting one game a week. I will attempt to keep it localised to one day and not keep shifting too much in the week. Monday or Sunday are my preferred days. Note that this week is a Sunday match and is posted at 3PM and not at the usual time of 6PM. Monday matches will be at 6PM. (i just cant play this monday). Further Sunday matches will take place in winter when the sun goes down too early for people to make it from work.

The matches will be played in various locations. I will be posting the location order on the group page. We will be playing at the Elwood fields (next to StKilda Marina), Elsternwick Park, Orrong Park. These fields will be rotated one per week to avoid the attention of any one council. Yes it is out of Caulfield, but seriously people deal with it.

Where to from here? We will continue the rotational method for now and hopefully, we can arrange some matches in Caulfield Park which will be a Picnic Match that involves the use of picnic equipment as legitimate excuses to play on their fields and therefore circumvent crap from the council. (will post more details some time soon about this).Ok ladies and gents,

Thanks for the input, it was appreciated. I look forward to seeing you all back at the fields. Please bring some friends to play!!!! (End of Discussion)

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

CONCLUSIONS

This entire mess is of council’s own doing. The shleppers footy debacle goes back as far as 2003! What we have here is a reactive and intractable bureaucracy that likes to wield its power like a sledge hammer. Reasonable laws they could be (with some tinkering), but they have never been ‘reasonably’ enforced! The examples are numerous – threatening to fine a bunch of residents in Bentleigh who for 25 years have lovingly tended their agapanthus plants on their nature strips and thus beautifying their street; last year’s ‘decision’ not to fine dog owners who fail to pick up their dog’s faeces the first time, when clubs at Princes Park were yelling blue murder. So the end result is that up to this ‘decision’ – not one dog owner had received a penalty! The list goes on and on. So now, when the heat comes on, or when council is humiliated, we witness a 180 degree swing to the opposite direction – no fines, no noise, no publicity, please!!!!! A great way to run a council isn’t it?

 PLEASE NOTE: we are certainly not advocating that groups who are ratepayers should be denied access to local parks, nor should they be hounded and threatened with fines as the above groups were. What these examples illustrate above all is that when Council introduces a law that is unenforceable, draconian, or makes no sense to the local community, it is a recipe for disaster.

More importantly however, these events touch on crucial governance and transparency issues. We ask, and demand answers to:

  1. What role have both Lipshutz and Tang played in this whole affair?
  2. What role has the administration played in not enforcing the law?
  3. Who makes decisions on policy in this council?
  4. Where is the ‘transparency’ that the Municipal Inspector demanded? Why are decisions continually made behind closed doors?
  5. Why was Lobo’s ‘request for a report’ defeated 8 to 1? Who is hiding what?
  6. Does this council believe that through its non-action that it is serving the principles of ‘equal justice’ to all?

We eagerly await the next episode of ‘Right to Reply’ at next council meeting!!!!

 

 

September 16, 2010

Shortest Membership in History! – VLGA

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[2] Comments 

There’s a delicious irony in the fact that Glen Eira Council is no longer a member of the Victorian Local Governance Association – especially in light of the Municipal Inspector’s findings of ‘problems’ with governance!!!!

This must be the shortest membership record of any Council in the state – just on one year! Again, we have to ask some hard questions:

  • When was it decided to quit?
  • Who decided – since there’s been no discussion tabled at Council Meetings?
  • Why has there never been any report on councillor’s attendance(s), meetings with VLGA?
  • Don’t councillors believe that an organisation devoted to ‘good governance’ practices has anything to offer a council that has been investigated three times in just over a decade?
  • It is most comforting to know that Glen Eira once again remains the ‘odd man out’!!!
 

September 15, 2010

Dissecting the MI’s Report: Part II

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

One of the allegations dismissed by the Municipal Inspector concerned the alteration of minutes. This allegedly arose from a ‘special meeting’ on October 14th, 2009, where councillors voted whether or not to reappoint or advertise the CEO position. By calling this meeting a ‘special meeting’ the public is conveniently kept in the dark. It wasn’t an incamera session of a normal council meeting – that took place on October 13th. Was it an ‘assembly of councillors’? If an assembly of councillors, then someone from the administration would have been present as note-taker? Was it a councillor only meeting? If so, then a councillor took the minutes and hence this meeting doesn’t fall within the strictures of the Local Government Act. But then we’re told that the allegation of no councillor officer present took place at the October 20th meeting. Hence it is safe to assume: 

  1. A council officer was present and took comprehensive minutes/notes
  2. The next issue thus becomes – who stood to gain by complaining?
  3.  And in the end what’s all the fuss about? 

If a council officer took the minutes which included ‘opinions’ and ‘names’, then THIS IS CONTRARY TO COUNCIL’S OWN ‘POLICY’ or practice!!!! For example: Council Minutes of 1st September, 2009 include the following paragraph in the Officer’s Report on an Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting: 

“Liz Morgan asked if future Minutes could include more detail. Officers advised the primary purpose of the Minutes was to record outcomes rather than a detailed summary of discussions.” 

In the same Council Meeting, the minutes record this response to a public question: 

The Deputy Mayor asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “Council keeps Minutes of Meetings and does not make and retain Hansard records of Meetings. Section 93 of the Local Government Act requires that Minutes contain details of the “proceedings and resolutions made”. Any matter that required a resolution would be the subject of a separate written item.” 

So, we have the clear understanding that minutes are NOT HANSARD. Yet this complaint stated that councillors objected to having their names and opinions recorded in this manner and wanted this altered. It was altered by majority decision. But why were minutes done in this fashion? Who had to gain? Who complained? 

If the notetaker was an Officer, then such information as to who said what, and what their opinion of the CEO might have been, would undoubtedly constitute ‘invaluable information’. If a councillor, then someone who was probably aggrieved by the decision to reappoint for only 2 years rather than 5. Whiteside has admitted ‘disappointment’ with the decision, and Magee announced publically that he was in favour of a 5 year contract! 

Conclusions: 

  1. The taking of such ‘detailed’ minutes should never have happened according to Council’s stated position. The fact that this was done suggests an ulterior and possibly devious motive.
  2. Councillors refusal to have their names attached to opinions reveals either (a) fear of ‘retribution’, or (b) lack of trust in each other and administration
  3. The complainant was an officer, or a councillor – again proving the existence of major rifts within the organisation
  4. Finally, the Municipal Inspector’s rejection of this allegation is not exoneration!! It only highlights again the divisions, the mistrust, and the spectre of the CEO overshadowing all in this ongoing saga. Nothing has thus changed, except perhaps, that councillors will now not meet ‘secretly’ and notetakers will be even more circumspect in their notetaking. The losers remain US!!!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »