GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2014

Audit Committee & ‘Transparency’

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

After years and years of secrecy, there just might be some changes in the appointment of independent members of the Audit Committee. Based on past history, we had quite reasonably assumed that the selection of an independent member was done and dusted but this resolution shows otherwise.

Crs Delahunty/Magee

1. That Council endorse the recruitment process to appoint an Independent Member to Council’s Audit Committee. That Council endorse the transparency of the process and that Council move forward from this point to find the appropriate candidate for the City of Glen Eira.

2. That this resolution be incorporated in the Public Minutes of this Meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Yet, the phrasing of the resolution, and the very fact that it was done behind closed doors does not assist in entirely alleviating suspicions. For example:

Why couldn’t this item have been tabled in open council and announced to all and sundry as other councils do? Surely it can’t be a state secret that a member is going and that council will now be embarking on a recruitment process?
How ‘transparent’ can something be when it is conducted behind closed doors?
What does ‘move forward from this point’ really mean? What ‘robust discussions’ possibly took place to even achieve this minute step?
Other questions hang in the balance – what role will officers have in the appointment? Will ‘selection committees’ of a few councillors be chosen? Will a recruitment company be involved? If so, at what cost to ratepayers? Will anyone receive an ‘invitation’ to apply for the position?
And the most important question of all – will this really change what happens in the Audit Committee?

Here’s how some other councils do things –

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_12_-_audit.pdf

http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp29apr14/6.1.pdf

July 6, 2014

Oops! – Another ‘Error’!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

The officer’s report –

A recent example was the Alma Club where Council officers attempted to secure land for an additional local open space in Caulfield North but, owing to the impact on the design, suitable land could not be made available and a cash contribution was made instead.

The Public Question –

Item 9.8 of the agenda cites the Alma Club site as an example of a cash rather than land contribution. For this site, I ask:
1. What was the undeveloped land value placed on the site?
2. What was the full cash contribution that council received?
3. Was this amount paid in one lump sum?
4. Why was any contribution paid prior to subdivision and as stipulated by law?

The ‘Answer’ –

The report at item 9.8 was correct in saying that Council tried to secure agreement to an open space contribution of land at the former Alma Club. It was right to say that, following a period of negotiation, that was not feasible and the open space
contribution will be in cash.

The report was mistaken to say that the contribution had been paid. What has been paid is back rates of $67,430. That was paid on 30 May 2014. (Back rates are payable when a property ceases to be eligible to be rated under the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act and becomes rateable under the general rating system. )

The misunderstanding between the payment of the back rates as opposed to the open space contribution was made during the writing of that section of the item between the Planning Conference on the evening of 25 June and the Item being finalised on 26 June. Council apologises for the mistake. The open space cash contribution will be payable in cash at the time of subdivision and calculated according to the value of the land at that time. If Amendment C120 is in effect, it would be 5.7% and could not be appealed to VCAT. While Amendment C120 is not in effect, it would be 5% or less and could be appealed to VCAT.
A difference of 1% would equate to approximately $75,000 for this one subdivision.

July 1, 2014

Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[23] Comments

A brief note on tonight’s meeting. Lobo, Pilling and Lipshutz were all absent. This inevitably lead to the circus of musical chairs, and three separate motions nominating individuals to attend a councillor ‘weekend’. Since nominated councillors had to declare a conflict of interest, and leave the chamber, there would not have been a quorum – hence the repeated motions/resolutions and the musical chairs.

Just how orchestrated council meetings are, how carefully scripted, was in full evidence tonight with countless Dorothy Dixer’s thrown at both Akehurst and Newton in the context of the ‘debate’ on Amendment C120. The dead give-away, was that Akehurst on numerous occasions read his answers from a prepared script! So much for impromptu ‘councillor questions’ that arise directly from the ‘debate’.

A public question on the assertion within the officer’s report that the Alma Club site had paid its open space levies, rather than a land allocation, was admitted to be ‘in error’ and an apology was tendered. Perhaps a council first, but again, this shows not only another stuff up, but that in all likelihood the offending paragraph was intended to mislead and deceive!

On the Caulfield Park depot removal to the Booran Rd/Glen Eira Rd, the infamous landswap was the primary feature with Delahunty moving a motion that if necessary council apply under FOI to see the legal documents involving the landswap, the valuation of the land, etc.

More on all of the above in the next day or so.

July 1, 2014

Open Space Levies

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

As a result of objections, council has gone out of its way to fudge the facts and to assert what can only be described as unreasonable ‘pressure’ on two objectors to withdraw their concerns and thereby avoid a Panel hearing. The argument as presented in the officer’s report is simple: cave in, don’t object, or you will cost the community $2 million. Utter rubbish we say! Some basic facts:

The cited $6 million dollars as ‘revenue’ is NOT cash in hand. This includes the so called estimated land contribution value. Council’s Strategic Resource Plan provides figures of a paltry $2.2 million in cash for the next ten years. We also remind readers that when council was granted the status of ‘manager’ of the Booran Road Reservoir it entered the ‘value’ of this land ($24m) onto its books but it was made absolutely clear that this had NO IMPACT on its financial and operational base. See the minutes of 3^rd November 2010.

Here’s another incorrect assertion – Public Acquisition Overlays are more likely to be disputed. It would be unfortunate if an Amendment was not supported by a Panel because of a proposed acquisition but the Amendment also included the higher contributions rates which were, as a result, not approved. A panel can disagree with one or two points and still make its recommendations to accept the amendment overall. Many panel decisions include some rejections or modifications of council proposals. It then comes back to council and they have the choice of accepting the panel’s full recommendations as they stand, abandoning the amendment, amending the amendment, etc. It is never an ‘either/or’ situation as these sentences pretend. Ultimately, this is nothing but scare-mongering.

There’s much, much more we could comment upon based on this agenda item. We will conclude with the view that every single resident has by law the option of objecting to amendments. Every resident also has a right to expect that when an amendment is advertised, it is devoid of errors, widely available, and easily accessible. None of these fundamental aspects of process have been carried out by council. The C120 Amendment (that is an actual draft of the amendment) has NEVER been included in council’s agenda papers, nor in its minutes – unlike some of the less contentious amendments! Even for tonight’s decision, the amendment itself is not available in the online agenda items. Residents would be hard put to find any announcements on council’s website for example or, if they happen to have missed the one and only advertisement in the local paper, then they also wouldn’t be any the wiser. Being hidden away behind the desks at libraries also does not fulfill our expectations of fully ‘engaging’ the public. So much for the Community Engagement Strategy with its empty promises and motherhood statements. Actions always speak louder than words and that remains the only worthwhile standard of evaluation.

Council has had years and years of doing nothing about its open space levies. Now suddenly, amendments are rushed through and, as so often happens, are full of errors that can only be ‘fixed’ up later. Instead of thorough planning that looks ahead and avoids countless further amendments to rectify anomalies or gaps, this council appears content to allow such poor practice. The residential zones and lot sizes are the most recent examples of inadequate planning. Other councils like Kingston for example, saw this ‘problem’ straight off and included lot sizes in their first draft of the schedules. Not Glen Eira! Not good enough we say. And to then blame residents for holding up ‘progress’ simply does not wash.

June 28, 2014

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[23] Comments

Audit Committee

There finally appears to be some ‘movement at the station’ with the following statement – The Chairman recommended that the process for the recruitment of a new Independent Audit Committee Member commence. The in camera items suggest that this process is near completion with this one liner – under s89 2(a) “personnel” which relates to the Audit Committee. Conclusion? That the reign of either Gibbs or McLean is about to end. Reasons for one of these departures is of course not mentioned, and nor has there been any public announcement that we are aware of for the advertising or recruitment of a new member.

Several other items also drew our attention –

The CEO noted that post implementation reviews of previously sub-contracted major projects, had resulted in the tender and referee evaluation process focusing more on how companies managed their subcontractors.

Following consideration of the Land and Buildings valuation paper, the Chairman requested that Council’s top ten open space assets be verified for accuracy of area size.

And from the Charter – An independent minute taker shall be responsible for keeping the minutes…… . A few sentences later there is this sentence – An appropriate officer shall act as independent minute taker to the Committee. We remind readers that for Councillor Assemblies, the municipal inspector had recommended, and council took up the recommendation (for at least some time) of obtaining a completely external minute taker.

Community Consultation Committee

Once again, two of the selected community representatives were absent! If memory serves us correctly, this would mean that only once have all four reps been present at such meetings. Hardly a result to write home about!

Amendment C120 – Open Space Levies

There is much in this item that we will comment upon in the coming days. One thing however is staggeringly clear – the inability of this planning department, plus the State Government’s offices to get something right the first time around. How an amendment can be drafted, sent off for permission to be advertised, given the go-ahead and STILL CONTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS of fact and accuracy is simply beyond belief. Who is responsible for vetting such documents? Why do these errors occur? What does this say about the entire shemozzle that is the process of drafting and implementing amendments? And most importantly, what does this say about the processes adopted by council. For example: submissions on the amendment closed on the 23^rd of June. Submitters were notified on the 24^th June that there would be a planning conference held on the 25^th June. More indecent haste? More disregard for the public?

June 24, 2014

Another $1.36 Million For Duncan Mackinnon!

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

As we’ve reported in an earlier post, the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion fiasco is ongoing, yet residents are continually left in the dark. Even more alarming is this throwaway line from the amended budget papers set down for decision tonight –

increased funding in the 2015-2016 capital works program to complete Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion ($1.36m)

The original published draft budget stated – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – (to complete construction during 2014-15)

Not one single word has come out from councillors or administrators as to what is really going on with this project. There has been no explanation of:

why the increased costs?
why the nearly 2 year delay?

Since The Leader is now providing a glimpse of the Maxstra (the original contractor) position we believe it is worthwhile to ponder the following questions and to seek answers:

will this ‘dispute’ also end up in court?
if so, how much will this cost ratepayers?
is the extra $1.36 million to demolish what is already standing?
why oh why can’t this council get major projects delivered on time and on budget?
Is it simply a case of inability to handle, oversee, and manage major projects (aka GESAC)?
how can a council contract two different builders yet face the same allegations of poor ‘communication’? Either the tender process and selection is poor, or there is some major validity to the contractors’ claims. Either way, it is residents who are ultimately short changed.
Finally we remind readers of the Pilling claims as to keeping residents informed. As per usual, nothing eventuates just empty and broken promises!

June 18, 2014

Thank You Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

The future is writ large in the following article from The Leader! Not that we object to residents using their noggins and making a profit. What we most strongly object to is the failure of this administration and its councillors to do the necessary homework in order to ensure that residential streets are given the maximum protection possible. Unlike other councils’ approach to the introduction of the ‘reformed’ residential zones, we remind readers that our glorious council introduced the zones in total secrecy, with zero consultation, and with such indecent haste that there are countless stuff ups that will now take years to remedy. For example:

No minimum size lot for subdivision – meaning that developers can subdivide and then subdivide again
No dwellings cap on any lot of above average size
No attempt to equal permeability requirements that other councils stipulate – ie. 25% compared to up to 40% by others
No ‘buffer zones’
Dividing streets and neighbours for no logical and accountable reason. For example Mavho St. (pictured below) where there is now a new application in for a 3 storey, 27 unit development and a reduction in visitor car parking. If this property was on the other side of the street and 8 or so houses down from Centre Road, it would be counted as ‘minimal change’. Why the eighth house is designated as minimal change and the 9th house as ‘housing diversity’ boggles the mind. But that’s the planning in Glen Eira!

Melbourne homeowners team up to take advantage of law changes and net $5.76m windfall

Donna Carton
Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
June 18, 2014 11:01AM

THREE savvy homeowners joined forces to sell their properties collectively, making upwards of $1 million profit.

They took advantage of recently changed zoning laws and the growing Asian investor interest in Melbourne.

The Bentleigh trio sold their houses in an off-market deal through Savills Australia.

Neighbours at 14, 16, and 18 Bent St sold their adjoining homes to a Chinese developer for $5.76 million, up to $1.8 million more than could have been expected from separate individual sales.

The undisclosed purchaser intends to apply for permission to develop a multi-level apartment building on the combined 1985sq m site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich, who negotiated the sale, said the neighbours could reasonably have expected to fetch $1.3-$1.5 million in separate sales, but the combined property provided a much more valuable development opportunity.

“This was an exceptional result where three astute neighbours realised the opportunity they could create by combining their properties to form an attractive development opportunity and it could not have been a better result,” Mr Heatherich said.

“As far as we know this is the first sale of this type based on an opportunity created by recent residential zoning changes and the current Asian penchant for Australian and particularly Melbourne property.”

Recent zone changes allow for multi-unit development within activity centres.

City of Glen Eira implemented the changes in August with the new ‘Urban Village Policy’ allowing for multi-storey development of up to four levels.

“Glen Eira was the first municipality to implement the zoning changes and with Bentleigh one of the main high density areas in Glen Eira, it was subsequently reclassified as Bentleigh Urban Village,” Mr Heatherich said.

Bent St runs off the busy Centre Rd shopping strip and is near the train station.

PS: here’s the link for the Channel 7 News of today. Please note the mockup of what a four storey building, containing 60 units might look like next to a single storey dwelling – https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/video/watch/24268737/teamwork-pays-in-savvy-land-sale/

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

And here’s the view of countless local streets carved up by whim or officers sitting at a computer and drawing lines on a map.

June 15, 2014

Hyams: ‘Lend Me Your Ears’!

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

June 11, 2014

Southwick: More Wheeling & Dealing?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

The following is taken verbatim from Tuesday’s publication of Hansard.

Caulfield Park Conservatory

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise today to raise a matter with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in regard to the Caulfield Park conservatory. The action I seek is for the minister to conditionally approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to the vacant space at Caulfield Park being appropriately utilised as a feature within the park. The conservatory was in fact originally located at Rippon Lea as a greenhouse, but the original burnt down in the 1920s. There has been a great level of community concern and a big local campaign to save the conservatory. Unfortunately the structure has been let to run down over the years, and the Glen Eira City Council surveyed residents to explore options of either developing, demolishing or refurbishing the site known as the conservatory. One of the proposals included a cafe, which was completely rejected by the community.

The building is in worse shape than originally thought, and even though the most preferred option from the community consultation was to refurbish the conservatory, the Glen Eira council has voted to demolish it. I am told the actual cost of refurbishing the conservatory is estimated to be in excess of $250 000, and council has only set aside $100 000 to do the work. As a result, due to the overwhelming community concern and the historical nature of the conservatory, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has offered to relocate the structure back to the Rippon Lea estate. I have been informed that the council supports this new approach and is willing to fund the relocation of the conservatory.

I believe this is a good option, as we will still retain the conservatory in the area and in fact return it to its original home. This also opens up the possibility of upgrading the space and better utilising it for local residents, who have been advocating for more seating for the elderly and families in Caulfield Park. I would be prepared to organise a meeting, under the minister’s direction, with council and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries to explore these possibilities and opportunities. It is on these grounds that I ask that the minister approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to discussion with the council, and to appropriately upgrade the vacant land and keep it as a unique feature within the park.

Caulfield Park is a great park. As I have said on many occasions, it is the jewel in the crown in our open space in Caulfield, and we are looking at relocating the depot to Booran Reserve and to be able to look at this particular conservatory as one of the key projects. It is certainly a historic building. It has historic significance, as I said, back to the 1920s. To take that building back to its original home at Rippon Lea gardens would be a great opportunity for all, and I ask the minister to consider this matter.

RESPONSE:

Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change)—I rise to respond to the members for Caulfield and Seymour. The member for Caulfield raised issues about the relocation of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. As the member representing a municipality that has the lowest amount of public open space in the metropolitan Melbourne I have to say that he has been a great advocate for the good use of the public space that is available. I have asked him to convene a group of people who have an interest in using the open space in his electorate, and he is doing a very good job in making sure that in discussing the moving of the Glen Eira council depot from Caulfield Park to the open space at Booran Road we get the very best outcomes we possibly can. In doing so he will be discussing that issue with a number of sporting clubs and other users in the area. I will certainly be happy to accommodate the meeting he has asked for to ensure we get a good outcome.

COMMENT

We note the:

alleged council involvement and contributing of funds – all done of course without a formal resolution, nor consultation, nor revealing the costs involved – if even known as yet. Does “council” in this instance mean officers, councillors, or a combination of both? If ‘discussed’, then where is the record of this discussion and who was involved?
emphases on discussion with sporting groups
what logistic analyses has been done to ensure that the size of Booran Park can in reality accommodate what is now the Caulfield Depot – the size of at least 8 house blocks and this land is only 984 square metres!
What road safety analyses has been done to ensure that trucks, etc. leaving Booran Park do not constitute any threat to traffic, pedestrians, cyclists?
If this becomes a depot, or even a sporting ground, what happens to those trees originally deemed ‘significant’?

All in all, lots and lots of questions and typically no answers and just more back room wheeling and dealing in secret.

June 9, 2014

Secrecy Versus Transparency!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

This paragraph featured in our post of March 23^rd, 2011 –

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

Item 9.11 in the current agenda is another case where secrecy rules the roost – the Municipal Emergency Management Plan. For a council which has one of the highest flood risks in the metropolitan area and where hundreds of homes and businesses were inundated by the floods of February 2011 it is frankly unconscionable that the following statement is made by Waite –

A copy of the current version of the Plan is available in the Councillors’ Room for Councillors to view. As it contains personal information, it is not a public document.

There can be no excuse as to why this document is kept under wraps, especially not when it has the potential to impact on countless lives. Residents have every right to know exactly what the ‘changes’ are and how well positioned this council is in order to respond to any kind of large-scale emergency. Resorting to claims of ‘personal information’ simply will not do – and especially not when all of the following councils (to name but a few!) see no problem in publishing their Emergency Plans on their websites!

As always, the focus needs to be on councillors and whether they have the will to ensure that such practices are put to an end.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-moreland/emergency-management/municipal-emergency-management-plan.html

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Municipal-Emergency-Management-Plan.html

http://www.centralgoldfields.com.au/?id=23510100B6A0B1D9AEE15DBACA25799900168F98

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/MEMP.aspx

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/governance/documents/item/b9ccbf99.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=municipal+emergency+plan

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Services-and-Support/Emergency-Information/Emergency-Information

« Previous Page — Next Page »