Glen Eira Debates

My fellow concerned citizens, 

As requested, please find attached the text of my letter of resignation from the Council of the City of Glen Eira, dated 30 July 2010 

I’m sorry I cannot reply to you individually due to the large number of responses I received, but I would like to express my thanks to you all for your interest in the good governance of the City. I also thank you for your sentiments of support. Many of you reminded me of the issues we dealt with together over the last 5 years. Some of you asked why I did not raise some of these issues more publicly whilst a Councillor. I understand this point but the Local Government Act allows certain matters to be treated In Confidence, and I have to abide by the law in this situation. However I can assure you I raised many concerns both with individual Councillors and with the Council as a group. 

I would like to encourage all of you to involve yourselves in Council matters and to demand transparency and accountability. For example:

• Attend Council meetings every 3^rd Tuesday at 7.30pm at the Council Chambers and submit questions in writing before 12noon on the day of the meeting Questions can be about any relevant matter, but  questions should be specific, constructive  and short, to elicit the best possible response..
• Become informed about issues, individual Councillors attitudes and behaviours which may affect their decision making on particular issues.
• Appreciate the quality and hard work of the Council Officers and Staff who have been recognized by State and Federal Government for their high achievements in many fields
• Communicate your opinions to your Councillors and be aware of the importance of the position of Mayor who must lead the Council and be unbiased and sensitive to the interests of the whole community.
• Read the most recent Report by the Local Government Inspector and his criticisms of some Councillor behaviours.  

I continue to live in Caulfield North and remain interested and concerned for the long term future of the Municipality.   

Sincerely 

Helen Whiteside

14 November 2010

 WE’VE UPLOADED THE LETTER HERE and also under ‘Why We’re Here’.

Today’s Caulfield Leader – Page 7

OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF GLEN EIRA

RESIGNATION FROM COUNCIL: FORMER MAYOR HELEN WHITESIDE EXPLAINS

Dear fellow citizens and ratepayers of Glen Eira,

Helen Whiteside resigned as councillor of Camden Ward and Deputy Mayor in July 2010. Council decided not to make public my resignation letter. Many people have contacted me with questions and support seeking more details, so I feel the need to explain.

After 5 years on council, elected twice, it was with sincere regret that I felt I had to resign.  The reasons were an accumulation of council decisions which in my opinion were not in the long term best interests of the City of Glen Eira, including, among others:

CEO reappointment: poor governance, excessive legal costs, and biased decisions during an extended process to reappoint our high performing CEO

Open Space: the decision to rescind a S173 agreement exchanging public open space land, now resulting in open space being removed from public use;

Conflicts of Interest: In my view some councillors did not make decisions based on merit and objectivity in the interests of all

Subsequent  to my resignation some councillors with whom I worked closely for 5 years took objection to my questioning of these matters of principle and their standards of ethical behaviour. In the interests of transparency I am willing to send the text of my resignation letter to anyone who contacts me by email hmwhiteside@bigpond.com

Yours sincerely

Helen Whiteside

31 October 2010

Geelong Advertiser – November 3^rd, 2010 

“FUNNY how some city councillors simply don’t get it. Their closed-door briefings should be open to the public and they could do themselves a great service in the process.

New rules means they have to publish an agenda but the public gets to know nothing else. And as this newspaper has revealed, the briefings have been used for straw polls, to change officer recommendations and to make decisions later rubber-stamped in open council.

The agenda rule was enacted after State Ombudsman George Brouwer warned of the patent scope for corruption. But the new agenda rule don’t go far enough.

Cr Bruce Harwood, a former mayor, insists there’s nothing untoward in the briefings. He claims that in his eight years as a councillor he’s not seen nor had any knowledge or even any suggestion of illegal or improper behaviour, secret deals done or changing of recommendations from officers.

Three years ago, ratepayers will remember, Cr Harwood, then a police detective, was investigated but cleared by the Office of Police Integrity over his role chairing a meeting that approved a nightclub extension for Home House owner Darryn Lyons; this, after holidaying on his yacht on the French Riviera.

He acknowledged in this paper yesterday that the council had abided with the Ombudsman, VCAT and other like government statutory body decisions.

What we don’t understand is why he or the council aren’t interested in sharing what they know with the ratepayers who voted them to office – and who may be affected by the decisions made from information and recommendations offered, garnered or changed at these briefings.

The State Government has offered lip service only with the new agenda rule and the council is similarly reluctant to engage the public. Again, we have ask, what is there to hide?”

We at glen Eira would take this even further and suggest that on the evidence of the records of ‘assembly of councillors’, the public is kept totally in the dark. For example: the minutes of last meeting record an item from the assembly of councillors as ‘exchange of emails’. Yet Lobo felt it necessary to oppose the acceptance of minutes (he got confused over council/special committee minutes and assembly reports) and asserted that this phrase should be retitled ‘racism’. So, we the poor suffering public only get a glimpse of what is really going on. But it’s even worse when one considers the fact that not only are such meetings closed to the public, but even advisory committee meetings are also conducted in secret. Only the environment advisory committee has external community members – all the rest are a closed shop. All of this is unfortunately ‘legal’ – it depends on the ethos, culture, and mentality of each individual council as to how they will interpret and implement the legislation. This is where our councillors have been a total failure in allowing the continual erosion of democracy in this council.

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

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 24^th 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 9^th, 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 30^th, 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 17^th, 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 12^th, 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 30^th June, 2009 not to proceed with the sale HAS NOT BEEN RESCINDED.
2. What happened between June 30^th and February 17^th 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 12^th 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!

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?