GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 14, 2014

Trustees & Conflict Of Interest

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[20] Comments 

The manner in which our 3 councillor trustees treat the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act, are incredibly ‘flexible’ to say the least. The past 3 council meetings illustrate this perfectly.

On 25th February, a Delahunty/Lobo Request for a Report was passed. Not one of the councillor trustees declared a conflict even though the Request specifically named Trustees as an important component of the motion and their implied role in lease negotiations.

Next comes the 18th March council meeting where ALL 3 councillor representatives declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. This meeting included the officer’s report from the previous council meeting plus the Magee ‘amendments’.

But to top it all off, at the last council meeting (April 8th) we had the farce of only Hyams and Esakoff declaring an interest but Lipshutz remaining in the chamber, delivering his little ‘update’ on trustee meetings and then abstaining from the vote. Ludicrous, farcical, and totally improper we maintain. Lipshutz’s role is no different to Hyams’ and Esakoff’s as a trustee. If they declared a conflict of interest then so should have Lipshutz. Political expediency it would seem, pays no attention to the finer points of the law and ethical conduct. The fact that not one single councillor questioned Lipshutz’s presence makes them equally culpable in this instance we believe. No doubt all had been successfully ‘arranged’ beforehand and behind closed doors.

Section 78B of the Local Government Act outlines what ‘conflicting duties’ means –

Indirect interest because of conflicting duties

(1)     A person has an indirect interest in a matter because of a conflicting duty if the person—

(a)     is a manager or a member of a governing body of a company or body that has a direct interest in a matter;

(b)     is a partner, consultant, contractor, agent or employee of a person, company or body that has a direct interest in a matter;

(c)     is a trustee for a person who has a direct interest in a matter.

(2)     A person has an indirect interest in a matter because of a conflicting duty if the person held a position or role specified in subsection (1) and, in that position or role, dealt with the matter.

Finally, we have the comments of Andrew Newton himself, recorded in the minutes of February 6th 2006

Council is not “represented” on the Trust. The duty of a trustee is to the Trust. A trustee, who is also a Councillor, is under a legal obligation to make Trust decisions in the best interests of the Trust. In practice, a Councillor will be able to bring information and advice from their Council role to assist the Trust in its deliberations. Nonetheless, a person who is both a trustee and a Councillor may from time to time be placed in a conflict of interest on an issue involving both the Trust and the Council and will need to resolve that conflict of interest – usually by absenting him/herself from the decision-making on that issue by either the Trust or the Council or both.

4. Issues

The Caulfield Racecourse Trust has the usual responsibilities of a Trust for the governance of the land. The Caulfield Racecourse discharges most of its activities through a lease between the Trust and the Melbourne Racing Club.

We must also assume that the various resolutions which required council to send off letters to Ministers, Valuer General, Auditor General, etc. have now been sent. As per usual not one word has been uttered as a consequence of these missives. Why haven’t the actual letters been published so that the community knows exactly what is going on? Have responses been forthcoming?

 

April 11, 2014

The ‘Phoenix Precinct’ & Monash: Dead As A Dodo!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

We have UPLOADED HERE the Planning Panel Report on the URBIS/Monash University application for rezoning of the Western part of the Phoenix Precinct. We encourage all readers to peruse this document and especially the highlighted sections since they reveal how ‘reactive’ and lacking in vision, this council’s planning department is. We highlight two examples:

  • Council noted that this Policy is based on an urban design framework approved in 1998. Council is looking to review this policy in 2014……(page 10). So what we have here is once again a case of putting the cart before the horse. First, pass the Amendment, and then worry about ‘policy’!
  • Below is a screen dump that outlines the Phoenix Precinct Policy from the Planning Scheme. Please note the insistence that what is required is ‘co-ordination’ and ‘balanced planning’. Hardly, we say, when the racecourse, c60 and now Monash are each treated as INDIVIDUAL AND SEPARATE planning issues without any developer considering the overall flow on impacts to surrounding areas – be it traffic, population, high rise, commercial activity, and infrastructure requirements.

phoenix

And last, but certainly not least, residents can glean some insight into Monash’s plans – not directly from Council of course – but via the submissions put forward at the Planning Panel. Here’s what Monash intends (at this stage!) –

The objective of the University is to eventually have a student population of 15,000 effective student load (ESL) in excess of the existing 10,000 (ESL) on the Caulfield Campus, and that much of the new development is to occur within the western precinct. The Masterplan provides for an increase in total floor area from 90,000 sqm to 168,000 sqm and allows for 800 student beds on, and adjacent to, the campus. The proponent plans uses for Derby Road frontage buildings that are complementary to the Derby Road commercial area including retail, food and beverage and other compatible uses. The planned increases in intensity of use of the campus site and the intended complementary uses of Derby Road frontages strongly indicates opportunities for improved economic activity in the area. The extent that realisation of the Masterplan would offset or even surpass the economic activity generated from Caulfield Plaza, is not quantified but, at a minimum, indications are that a redevelopment of the area would provide a significant economic stimulus for the area. However, this issue relating to the closure of Caulfield Plaza is largely a moot point as the existing Priority Development Zone already provides for the redevelopment of Caulfield (page 20).

Readers should note that the above figures do NOT mean that the student population is targeted to reach 25,000. To the best of our knowledge ESL means full time students. Hence the actual numbers of students accessing Caulfield campus may be closer to 40,000 given the large proportion of post graduates and part-timers.

We have yet to see anything produced by this Council which analyses and dissects the ENTIRE AREA and focuses exclusively on what this will mean for residents – and they’ve only had about 15 years to do so!

 

April 9, 2014

The Backroom Boys & Hidden Agendas?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[35] Comments 

URGENT BUSINESS

Magee moved a motion that Council that sports grounds in the centre of the racecourse be considered as URGENT BUSINESS. Hyams declared a conflict of interest as did Esakoff. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT DECLARE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND REMAINED IN THE CHAMBER. No councillor challenged his presence. (Delahunty was absent).

MAGEE: moved the motion that council’s position was that the centre should be used for sporting grounds; that on the 7.30 Report the MRC CEO stated that ‘community sport would be welcomed’; that council writes to the Trustees and that they ‘ensure’ that community sport be developed in the centre and that a copy of the letter go to the Minister for Crown Lands , the minister for sports and to the minister for racing. Motion seconded by Sounness.

Magee went over council’s resolution for the centre of the racecourse where many sporting teams were missing out and that the ’54 hectares of land’ could be used for sportsgrounds. Said that this ‘vision’ was presented to the community and ‘accepted widely’ and that all councillors have ‘worked tirelessly’ to get this done. Magee said that it was good to hear that the MRC CEO ’embraced this vision’ and that it’s the first time they have said anything like this. Magee welcomed this statement. At the moment there’s a ‘lease being prepared’ and Magee thought it was ‘incumbent on us to work with the’ MRC and to write to the trustees and ‘inform them of this agreement’ and how the MRC ‘have now embraced’ this vision. The trustees have to now ‘take this advice’ and work it into ‘any lease agreements that are before them at the moment’. Said that the MRC should ‘only ever be given a lease’ for areas outside the actual racetrack and not the racetrack itself nor the centre of the racecourse. Stated that this is the ‘first time in 150 years’ that the ‘two groups can actually work together’. The turstees job is to administer the racecourse ‘for the benefit of all Victorians’. Claimed that here’s the perfect time to do all this ‘given that there is an agreement’ and that the MRC spokesman has ‘made it very clear on national television’ that sport is ‘very clear to the’ MRC and ‘we welcome that’. Said that since they’ve stated this that all that’s left is to ‘inform the minister’ to ‘let them know there is an agreement in place’.

SOUNNESS: asked Magee if he would accept a change in wording from ‘community sports grounds’ to ‘organised sport’. Magee refused to accept change in wording. Sounness still accepted the motion and said that he ‘copped it in the neck’ about lack of sporting ovals, lack of off leash dog areas because of organised sports, and lack of passive areas. Said that this is an opportunity and should be followed up. Open space for sports grounds can’t be found that easily in a built up city so the centre could be the solution.

LIPSHUTZ: said he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because he didn’t think there was one but that it is ‘appropriate’ that he ‘report’ on what’s been happening in ‘recent times’. Claimed that the trust ‘has not been sitting on its hands’. Said that for the first time the ‘non MRC trustees as of one voice’ and that there have been ‘ongoing lease negotiations with the MRC’ for the past 2 years but these negotiations haven’t as yet ‘reached fruition’.   Said the lease is about the Tabaret and the grandstand and not to the ‘infield and the tracks’. Said that the MRC ‘does not have any legal right’ to anything in the infield. Said that the trustees are therefore committed to a ‘license agreement’ for the infield so the MRC ‘knows precisely what it can do and what it can’t do’. Went on to say that the trustees have got a valuation for the land rental and have put that to the MRC. Claimed that the trustees had ‘always taken the view’ that the valuation should be done by the Valuer General and that the chairman has asked for this. Said that he had been at a meeting today with Greg Sword and the governor executives and that the ‘valuer general will get a brief’ and that if there’s disagreement the Minister will ‘arbitrate’. He didn’t ‘expect that agreement will be reached’.

Said that he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because the trust ‘has taken a very strong view’ that the ‘centre of the racecourse should be used for sport’. Didn’t think that even though the MRC CEO said he welcomed sport, he wasn’t that sure that the MRC itself would endorse this view. Said that the ‘government has also advised’ that there should be sport in the infield but that boils down to the ‘license’ negotiations. Thhere is training and he didn’t think that ‘in reality’ training would go ‘any time soon’ and this would be in the ‘scope of 10 to 15 years’. So if training remains there are ‘safety’ issues both to the public and to the animals. Thus claimed that ‘this motion itself does not actually further anything’ since there is ‘already a commitment by the trust’ to have sport and that won’t happen very soon because they still have to negotiate the ‘license arrangement’. And if there’s no agreement then the ‘minister will step in’. Reassured everyone that ‘the trust has been very active’. Stated that at his morning meeting with the MRC they discussed the issue about opening up access to the racecourse. Said that ‘everyone’ recognises that entrance through the tunnel ‘is not satisfactory’ but ‘equally it is an issue of safety’. Claimed that the MRC has now ‘committed to looking at those issues’ and seeing where there could be ‘palisade fencing’ so that there could be the ‘visual entrance’. Didn’t know whether these things would ‘come true’ but reiterated that the trust is ‘committed’ to having sport, but unsure of the ‘extent’ of this. Therefore he didn’t see that there’s any conflict of interest since the Magee motion ‘is in accord’ with the ‘wishes’ of the trustees.

OKOTEL: asked Magee if he would consider writing to the trustees asking for their position on sport in the centre. Magee didn’t accept this proposal. Okotel then queried the value of writing to the trust asking them to state a position that they are already taking. Thought it ‘would be better’ to have the trust put their ‘position in writing’ so that it would be public and council might ‘utilise’ whatever is written to them as an ‘advocacy tool’.

PILLING: thought that Magee’s motion is only what council is asking for and is ‘complementary’ to ‘what’s going on behind the scenes’.

MAGEE: thanked Lipshutz for remaining in the room since he thought it’s important that people know what the trustees and councillor reps on the trustees are doing. Said that he wasn’t surprised that when Lipshutz became a trustee ‘he would always be acting in the best interests of Glen Eira’. Stated that he thought that Greg Sword was trying ‘to do his best’. Two years ago the trust’s position was a ’64 year lease with no conditions’ and now ‘they’re looking at the same things we are’. Now the MRC CEO wants ‘the same thing’ and the government ‘wants sport in the centre of the racecourse’. ‘Everybody’s together. There’s nobody opposing this’. Wanted his motion to ‘stay the same’ because it sends ‘a strong message’ that council ‘wants to work with them’. Conceded that ‘no one is saying’ that training should go ‘tomorrow’ but important to say that a ‘section of the racecourse’ can be ‘given up’ such as ‘3 ovals’ and then build on that’ and ‘phase out training’. Said he ‘wanted to see racing stay there forever’ but that training is ‘not a permitted use’ and it’s not written anywhere that it is a ‘permitted use’. Concluded by saying that Tang and he first moved the motion that the lease be reduced from 61 years to 21 and that this motion was defeated by 9 to 2. So they never wanted a 21 year lease . ‘We’re not going to tolerate the exclusion of Glen Eira residents’. Said that the 21 year lease ‘is pivotal’ to the future. Quoted the president of Ajax about the lack of space for sport and that 75% of his team can’t play in Glen Eira and ‘that’s a shame’. So there are about 130 or 140 kids who can’t play sport where their ‘parents pay rates’. ‘No one in this room thinks that’s acceptable’ and here’s the ‘opporunity’ to do something. Everyone (trustees, mrc, community) is ‘all on board’ with this.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSING THE MOTION. TECHNICALLY THIS MEANS AN ABSENTION!

 

April 4, 2014

Agenda: Delays, Conflict of Interest & Open Space Levy

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

WHY THE DELAY?

Contrary to what Mayor Pilling stated at the Caulfield Village planning conference, namely that council would make its decision on the development plan on April 8th, there is no item set down for decision this coming Tuesday night. What makes this omission even more fascinating is that Schedule 2 of the C60 amendment states – 

The responsible authority must make a decision on the development plan or amendment to the development plan within 60 days after the completion of the display.

The submission/advertising period ended on the 26th of February. The next scheduled council meeting exceeds this 60 day limit – admittedly by only one day. However, given the ‘legalities’ that this council is so keen on, we have to wonder what is really going on. Surely 4 months (at least) to ‘assess’ the submitted plans should be sufficient for our fabulous planning department? Or is there possible dissension in the ranks? Perhaps another conveniently supplied ‘loophole’ for the MRC to ‘negotiate’ to their advantage? All conjecture of course, but given Council’s track record (pun intended) on this issue we have to wonder. Perhaps council might for once furnish residents with an explanation?

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Records of Assembly make for some more interesting conjecture on the Valuer-General item from the previous two council meetings.

At the 11th March meeting both Hyams and Esakoff declared a conflict of interest. Lipshutz (who was present) DID NOT DECLARE AN INTEREST. Presumably he therefore partook in the discussion.

A week later, on the 18th March meeting on the same item, he apparently changed his mind and did declare a conflict of interest.

OPEN SPACE LEVY

Council is finally making a move after 11 years in hiking up its open space levy to 5.7% across the board by seeking permission to ‘prepare and exhibit’ Amendment C102. Whilst most welcome, and certainly a vast improvement on what the Open Space strategy initially proposed (ie 4 to 5%) we have to note the following:

  • Stonnington, which has the second lowest proportion of open space, is currently seeking an 8% levy and more for its commercial precincts. Glen Eira with the lowest proportion of open space is, in contrast, only seeking a 5.7% levy for all developments – commercial, residential or mixed use.
  • Instead of clapping themselves on the back in relation to the $4m levy achieved from the proposed Caulfield Village we have to wonder why this council settled for so little given that this 5 hectare bit of land is going to be the most densely populated area in the municipality.
  • There are claims of ‘analysis’ in a paper that is mooted to become a ‘reference document’ to the Amendment. That of course has not as yet been made public. Other councils (ie Whitehorse, Bayside) don’t seem to have had any problems in publishing their detailed analysis prior to the actual Amendment process. Even worse is that the officer’s report claims that the objective is to meld the Open Space Strategy with the proposed Amendment when there was absolutely no detailed discussion, nor analysis provided in the now accepted Open Space Strategy.

PS: And for the sheer heck of it we’ve pinched the following (slightly edited) from Abbattoir Facebook.  

fraser

 

April 1, 2014

They’d Make Great Car Salesmen!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

110628_Guy_-_1_billion_development_approved_for_Caulfield_Page_1110628_Guy_-_1_billion_development_approved_for_Caulfield_Page_2

 

March 25, 2014

Hyams’ Little Temper Tantrums!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[53] Comments 

Former Glen Eira mayor defends public meeting slur

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 21, 2014 11:00AM

A GLEN Eira Council critic has accused two-time mayor and current councillor Jamie Hyams of calling her a “bitch’’ at a public meeting, but he says her account is not accurate.

Rosetta Manaszewicz aired her complaint via a public question at the council’s March 18 meeting and has challenged the council to bring him to account.

She said that at a planning conference on March 3 Cr Hyams “called me, among other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?’’.

Cr Hyams said he used the word, but offered a different account of how he used it, saying he used it as a verb, describing her behaviour.

“You have misrepresented or misheard the words,’’ he said in his reply speech.

He said she contributed to a blog that was relentless in its criticism of the council and the blog carried “baseless and highly defamatory’’ comments about councillors.

Ms Manaszewicz insists Cr Hyams used the word as a noun, to describe her.

Both agree the exchange took place in the foyer of the Caulfield Park Pavillion before a Caulfield Village planning conference, both agree the word was used and both are refusing to back down on their accounts.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was showing a petition to a resident at the time. She said Cr Hyams’ words were unprovoked and something needed to be done.

“There was no misinterpretation in what was said,’’ Ms Manaszewicz said.

“I just think it’s appalling for an elected representative.’’

Cr Mary Delahunty weighed in.

“To refer to someone’s actions as bitching, or indeed to call them a bitch, is derogatory, used in a sexist manner, it’s unacceptable and I’m genuinely aggrieved that council has lowered itself to such a level that a response such as that is read out at an official meeting,’’ Cr Delahunty said.

Last year, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd forced the resignation of the candidate for the safe Labor seat of Hotham, Geoff Lake, amid revelations he verbally abused a wheelchair-bound fellow councillor at a 2002 Monash Council meeting, calling her a “f—ing bitch’’.

That matter went to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission at the time and Mr Lake made admissions and apologised.

Glen Eira Council did not answer Ms Manaszewicz’s questions, instead taking them on notice.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/former-glen-eira-mayor-defends-public-meeting-slur/story-fngnvlpt-1226861034823

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

The public question & Hyams’ response:

On March 3rd at the Caulfield Village planning conference two time ex-mayor Hyams called me, amongst other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does Council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?

The Mayor responded. He said: There are several parts to this question. The first part I can invite Cr Hyams to respond. The second part relates to a Council position. Because of the time constraints we ran out of time to come to a collective Council position so I will take the second part On Notice.

Cr Hyams provided a response. He said: “You have misrepresented or misheard the words I used. I didn’t call you a bitch. I used the word as a verb to the effect that you just bitch. It is possible I also used the word whine and said you whine and bitch, but I don’t think so.

The context was that I came across you trying to have a resident sign a petition that called for a Royal Commission into, among other things, alleged conflict of interest of councillor trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, of which I am one. Had this been the sole cause of my comments, they would have been unwarranted. However, that is far from the case.

Glen Eira Council is, by any measure, a well-performing Council. We consistently perform well in public surveys, our rates are among the lowest in Melbourne and the Auditor General regularly praises our performance and compliance. Recent achievements such as GESAC and the new residential planning zones have been widely lauded by many both within Glen Eira and from other councils. Just to name a few of our successes.

You, however, appear to devote a large part of your life to attempting to make this Council look as bad as possible. You are an administrator of and major contributor to an anonymous hate blog that is relentless in its criticism of this Council. In the time
that I read it, I never once saw a post (as opposed to a comment) that had anything positive to say about this Council, and while I have not bothered reading it in over a year, others have assured me that nothing has changed.

You are often seen at Council consultations trying to propagate your critical views around the entrance and I am also assured by others who attend Council meetings that at the end of each meeting, you chase after any journalists who attend to try to have them write about your negative impressions of the meeting.

To give just a few specific examples, when Crs Esakoff, Lipshutz and I were appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, you organised and submitted a petition calling for us to be replaced as trustees because, according to you, we did not adequately represent the community. You somehow thought that your opinion and those of the 100 or so who you managed to have sign your petition were more important than the nearly 17,000 residents and ratepayers of Glen Eira who voted for one of the three of us to represent them, returning us first in our respective wards.

Your blog has also carried baseless and highly defamatory allegations that I and other councillors have been corrupt in our dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club and the C60 development, and I am reliably informed that you have been personally
circulating these allegations. I am still considering my options in relation to that matter.

In 2009, you were pushing for a review of Council’s dog off-leash areas, and adamant that Harlock Jackson should carry out the review. This was done, by Harlock Jackson, and resulted in a considerable increase in off-leash areas across Glen Eira. However, you still strongly criticised the review and the process, including at a public consultation meeting held by Harlock Jackson as part of the review.

I believe that Councillors are entitled to express their feelings as long as they do so in a way that accords with the expectations of our civic society, and, in this case, for many reasons including those set out above, my comments were acceptable.”

Cr Delahunty. Statement pursuant to Glen Eira Local Law 232(2)(f).

“I accept that Council has taken part of the Public Question on notice but I am aggrieved by the reply in such that it seeks to somehow wash away the language that was used. I find the language that was used to be offensive no matter whether or not you agree with the persons views. I don’t think it’s appropriate for elected representatives, adults, anyone to refer to someone’s actions as bitching or to call them a bitch is derogatory, is used in a really sexist manner is completely unacceptable. I don’t think views held that differ will ever make that acceptable and I am genuinely aggrieved that the Council has literally lowered itself to the level whereby that sort of response was read out at an official meeting. It is sad.”

 

March 24, 2014

What A Joke!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

An astute reader has raised a very interesting point about Tuesday night’s council meeting. It concerns the little private tete a tete between Newton and Okotel when both left the chamber. Okotel was seeking ‘advice’ after being challenged by Delahunty.  Newton presumably provided this ‘advice’. This raises countless questions in itself:

  1. We do not remember such an incident ever taking place in Glen Eira before. The ‘normal’ course of events is that all ‘advice’ has been provided in chamber and usually by Burke. Why was this conducted outside of chamber?
  2. Could the question of potential conflict of interest be applied to Newton himself since he was an integral part of the ‘negotiating team’ for the ‘agreement’ which involved crown land in the centre of the racecourse?
  3. Okotel’s explanation featured conversations that took place in the pre-meeting. Council’s code of conduct precludes a councillor from making public any information from such meetings unless it has the approval of the ‘councillor group’. Since 3 councillors were not in the chamber, and others were definitely not asked for their agreement, we wonder whether Okotel in fact breached the code of conduct?!!!!!!!

What all of this shows is the circus that parades as good governance in Glen Eira.

 

March 22, 2014

Records Of Assembly

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

Lipshutz moved to accept. Seconded by Okotel

Lipshutz had ‘nothing to add’. Lobo spoke ‘against’.

LOBO: said that in the past he had ‘expressed my reservations’ about the records of assembly in that the minutes are ‘altered, changed, replaced’. Agreed that there couldn’t be ‘details’ but that council shouldn’t ‘be permitted without the consensus of everyone’ to change things.Thought that ‘changing and replacing’ would have ‘implications’ down the track ‘such as conflicts of interest’.

PILLING: said that he knows that Lobo has raised this before but he was confident that ‘process’ was being followed and it’s ‘good’ to be ‘diligent in the upkeeping’ of the ‘policies’.  

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that ‘no one is changing these minutes’ and if they come to council ‘they are the minutes’ and if councillors decide to change anything ‘they do so at this meeting’ and ‘nowhere else’. Even though Lobo has raised the issue he agrees with Pilling that ‘process is being followed’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

 

March 20, 2014

Item 9.3 – Part 2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[23] Comments 

MAGEE: outlined the leases – $45,000 for ‘head lease’; Neerim Road stables ‘$10,000 a year’. Explained how much properties near the racecourse pay and noted a McDonald’s store pays $180,000 rent per annum and Hungry Jacks pays $271,000 per annum in rent. All the racecourse is paying is ‘around $80,000’.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s much that we don’t know’ and she certainly didn’t know as much as Magee but she does know some things by ‘virtue of having met with people from the MRC’. Said that she knows that leases are currently being ‘negotiated’ and that they’ve ‘expired’ but been ‘extended’ to give more time to the negotiations. Stated that there had been 2 separate valuations – by two sections of the trust. These two valuations are so vastly different that ‘they can’t come to agreement’ about how much to charge. As a result an ‘independent body must be involved’ and that’s the valuer general. Also said that to get this done then council has to ‘take the steps’ that Magee proposes. Stated that council’s position was that it wasn’t getting the ‘commercial returns’ from crown land and therefore it was an ‘inappropriate situation’ for residents everywhere. Even though this might be a little ‘late’ given the current lease negotiations when both valuations from the trust are ‘so different’ it’s still important to ‘take a stand right now’. (time extnesion at this point). Stated that council thought the reserve should be ‘governed by a committee of management’ and the money from the rents go back to the governing body which will ‘disperse that’ for the 3 purposes that were in the original grant – ie public park and recreation. This would be very ‘timely’ when considered against the need for ‘how much public open space in that part of Caulfield’ given population increase and that these people shouldn’t be ‘looking out the window at horses training and nothing else’ on the racecourse.’ Essential that all commercial activities on the land be ‘valued properly’. What ‘really’ makes ‘me sick’ is the ‘pokies on crown land’ and therefore ‘government subsidised gambling’. Didn’t want to ‘put up with’ this and it was ‘an absolute disgrace’.

PILLING THEN ASKED IF MAGEE AND DELAHUNTY WOULD BE PREPARED TO REMOVE PART 2A OF THEIR MOTION. BOTH REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL. Pilling then asked for speakers against the motion.

OKOTEL: said that she wasn’t against the entire motion just part 2A. Thought it was ‘important’ that there is an independent ‘watch dog’ to see exactly what the land’s worth and she ‘endorses’ the comments on that. She was against 2A because the negotiations had been ongoing for some time and were ‘about to conclude’ so to ask the Minister now ‘to step in’ is poor because ‘my understanding is that the minister would be reluctant to step in’. Also if council asked him then the outcome might only be to ‘frustrate the negotiations’ and could only damage the ‘relationships’ that council has with the MRC and therefore ‘not be to the benefit of residents’. Didn’t think that having both 2A and 2B ‘doesn’t make sense’ since it should be ‘either/or’. She thought that the ‘best for the public interest’ would only be the motion about the valuer general coming in to ‘review the lease when it is finalised’. At that stage council would be ‘informed as to what is in the lease’ and therefore that’s preferable to the current situation where ‘we’re in the dark’. Said that once the lease is signed then ‘it will be brought to light’ and then council may ‘have input into it’.

SOUNNESS: realised that council has got ‘representatives’ (ie councillor reps) and that they’re trying to represent council ‘as best as possible’ but they’re ‘only 3 voices’. Said he ‘recognised’ that the trust was an ‘opaque body’ and a lot of ‘questionable decisions’ in its history. Thought that this was ‘a bit of a risky manoeuvre’ when one set of decisions are replaced with another and ‘that may not necessarily produce a good outcome’. He’d ‘heard’ a lot about the racecourse and it was a major issue and would ‘always be messy’. His ‘experience’ of such bodies is that they ‘do occasionally go rogue’ but they can be brought back ‘into line’ with ‘political will’. Gave the example of Fox and the sea front land. So he thought this was a ‘risky scenario’ but overall ‘still a worthwhile one’.

LOBO: judging by what Magee has outlined it ‘looks like Mickey Mouse’ is ‘handling the place’. Asked if this was ‘democracy in Australia and Glen Eira in particular’. Claimed that there’s no democracy but ‘soft dictatorship’ . Pilling then interrupted and said that the comments were ‘unwarranted’. Lobo responded with ‘okay’. Thought that the 8500 sq metres was ‘daylight robbery’ and that council didn’t get ‘a cent’ from any of the money collected. Crown land he claimed was given to the people but it’s ‘only council’ who are fighting and that ‘the people of Glen Eira have to get together’ and ‘not only write on blogs’ or ‘letters’. Urged people to ‘make yourself known’ and to ‘shake them up’. Said that the motion ‘may be a bit late’  but it’s like a ‘child being born at the last moment’ and decisions have to be made. Stated that the councillor trustees ‘should work’ towards getting the best for residents because it’s residents ‘who have put us in’ and the trustees ‘don’t tell us anything confidential’. People can’t go to meetings. Everyone has to ‘take the bull by the horn’ and if not this will continue ‘for another 150 years’.

DELAHUNTY THEN ASKED OKOTEL THAT SINCE SHE SAID SHE HAD ‘FURTHER INFORMATION’ IN THAT THE LEASES NEGOTIATIONS WERE ‘ABOUT TO CONCLUDE’ whether Okotel could ‘elaborate on her understanding of that’ and ‘how she’s come to that understanding’.

OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding comes from confidential discussions’. Wanted ‘advice’ then about what she could say. Pilling then said that she could clarify what she meant and whether ‘she meant to say those words’.DELAHUNTY THEN INTERVENED AND SAID THAT IF OKOTEL IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ‘CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE’ WHO HAVE ALREADY DECLARED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THEN SHE SHOULD ALSO LEAVE THE ROOM AND NOT BE PART OF THE DEBATE. Pilling said that ‘it’s up to her to clarify’. OKOTEL THEN AGAIN WANTED TO ‘TAKE ADVICE’. At this point major confusion with Burke muttering in Pilling’s ear. He then basically ‘adjourned’ whilst Okotel and Newton left the chamber. They returned in about 2 to 3 minutes.

People in the gallery then complained that they couldn’t hear what she was saying – ‘not a word’.

OKOTEL: said that she had this question ‘in my mind’ in the ‘pre-meeting’ and that the 3 councillors weren’t in that meeting. Said that in this meeting she asked ‘how far away’ are the negotiations from being completed and that she thought this was ‘pertinent’ as to whether there would ‘be time’ for the ‘minister to get involved’ and that Magee told her ‘that we don’t have much time’. Reiterated that Magee said this whilst the others weren’t in the room.

Pilling then asked Delahunty if this ‘satisfied’ her.

DELAHUNTY: ‘it does’ but it confirms that it’s ‘conjecture and not actual knowledge’. Then asked if ‘any councillor’ has spoken to or ‘been lobbied by any of the three councillors who have declared a conflict of interest and left the room’. All councillors said ‘no’.

PILLING: agreed with Okotel on 2A because it was ‘pretty late in the piece’  and it’s a ‘blunt instrument’. Said that 2A in its second part ‘doesn’t achieve what we want’ . It’s got ‘limited value’ . Said he ‘acknowledge the general passion’ but wasn’t ‘sure this is the best way to go’. thought 2A was ‘counter-productive’ and that blame should be laid on ‘successive state governments’.

MAGEE: one of the valuations was ‘just on one million dollars a year’. Said that he’s got ‘no issues’ the MRC ‘as an entity’. They do a ‘great job in administering the racecourse’ and they do what ‘they’re allowed to do’. Nor does he have issues with ‘our three council trustees’. claimed that they’ve been ‘very generous’ to him ‘with their information’ and they’ve ‘told council what they’re allowed to discuss’ and he ‘respects how they’re conducting themselves’. Said that in July 2012 he wrote a letter to the Premier asking for appropriate ‘governance arrangements’ relating to leases. Said that ‘shortly after that I was removed’ and that’s the first time in 150 that a trustee hasn’t been reappointed. The only response he got from the Premier was that the matter was in the hands of Minister Smith and he hasn’t heard from Smith. Went on and referred to the Select Committee on crown lands emphasising that this committee represented all political parties. Since 2008 ‘not one action has taken place’ since the report. (an extension of one minute). Read from the report regarding lack of minutes,meetings closed to public and lack of public park. Ended up by saying that the Trustees weren’t the right body ‘to administer’ the leases or the land and it ‘should be a committee of management’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR: MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, SOUNNESS. VOTING AGAINST: PILLING AND OKOTEL

PS: we are in error. It has been pointed out to us that when Delahunty asked each councillor if they had been lobbied by any of Hyams, Lipshutz or Esakoff that Pilling did not answer the question. We wonder why!

 

March 19, 2014

Item 9.3: Racecourse & Valuer General – Part 1

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[12] Comments 

We’ve broken discussion on this item into 2 parts due to its length.

Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect conflict of interest’. Magee moved an alternate ‘motion/recommendation’ apart from ‘noting the report’. Also included was that the Minister for Crown Lands be approached and asked to ‘take over’ lease negotiations with the MRC; for the Valuer General to review the leases ‘before it gets signed’ and to complete a ‘review of all current leases’. Magee also asked for a ‘review’ of the landswap and that the Auditor General ‘conduct an audit performance’. He also wanted government to go back to the Select Committee Review and consider their recommendations. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said the issue was ‘complex’ and that he’d been a trustee, chairman of the trustees and also on the lease committee. Stated that he’s a ‘hoarder’ and kept a lot of information. This was a ‘serious’ matter and wanted a ‘serious’ response from minister and government. The Trustees are about to ‘enter’ into a 21 year lease with the MRC and ‘that’s fine’ but ‘when you look at’ history’, ‘makeup’ and ‘track record’ of the Trustees then it isn’t fine because since some of the trustees are members of the MRC then they are ‘adjudicating on a lease to themselves’. He also thought that ‘at least 2 other members’ belong to the MRC. This makes him think that there is some conflict of interest. Quoted from the minutes of a Trustee meeting from 2011 where (reading) it said that Magee raised the issue of conflict of interest and the resolution was that ‘advice’ be sought from the Government Solicitor. They got an answer and Magee quoted again and paraphrased from the long letter that ‘the public can reasonably form the view that conflict exists’. Also mention of ‘improper influences’.

Went on to say that the current chairman also tabled documents at meetings  that ‘he believes’ that there was a conflict of interest with the MRC members. The chairman (Greg Sword) ‘also sits on the lease committee’. So even though they ‘know’ there is a conflict of interest ‘the process continues’.

Stated that the trustees do include ‘experienced’ and ‘decent’ people. Referred to the landswap from 2009 of the ‘Tabaret carpark’ and the land at the end of Glen Eira Road was part of the deal. The Trustees ‘might have’ thought this was a ‘good deal’ and voted for it.

AT THIS POINT PILLING SAID THAT MAGEE HAD ‘REACHED’ HIS FIVE MINUTES. MAGEE ASKED FOR AN ‘EXTENSION OF TEN MINUTES’. Pilling said that he would give Magee 2 minutes. Magee said that after all these years, this is ‘a very serious issue’ and wasn’t happy with 2 minutes. Also said that he thought it was ‘incumbent on me to explain’ all the information that he’s got. Pilling then stated that he was worried about other councillors getting a say. Delahunty then moved that Magee gets a 10 minute extension. This was seconded by Lobo. Put to the vote and PILLING USED HIS CASTING VOTE TO DEFEAT THE MOTION. VOTING FOR: Lobo, Magee, Delahunty. Against: Okotel, Sounness and Pilling. (Mutterings from the gallery at this point!)

Magee then continued for a lesser time allocation after Delahunty moved another motion.

MAGEE: quoted again from the minutes relating to the landswap where he raised the issue of the ‘status’ of the landswap and whether it would be ‘returned to the Crown’. Said that this means that the Trustees ‘had no idea what they were voting for’ and that they were ‘giving away 8500’ sq metres and they ‘got back nothing’. The trustees job is to ‘protect the reserve’ and all they’ve done is to ‘give away 8500 square metres’. Magee then read from the minutes his question as to whether the landswap or any part of it was to ‘become part of the reserve’ and whether they knew. ‘No’ was the answer. Magee then asked the rhetorical question about how they could be responsible for land that they ‘gave away’ without even knowing they’d given it away. Also asked what they thought at the time and what advice they’d been given and which of the trustees who voted for and against the landswap. Magee said that he asked this 3 times wanting to see the minutes of these meetings. THEY COULDN’T FIND THE MINUTES – ‘THE MINUTES HAD BEEN LOST’. So here’s a ‘group’ about to sign a 21 year lease for a 2 billion dollar asset and they can’t even do the proper paperwork. Magee then cited 2010 minutes on ‘2 leases’ where there hadn’t been ‘any advice on what the value was’. These leases and the relevant paperwork also ‘couldn’t be located’ he read from the minutes. Amazingly the trustees end up asking the ‘person they leased it to, to give them a copy’. The lease for Aquinita Lodge to the Freeman Brothers was also incapable of ‘being located by the Trust’. Said that the Trustees ‘are not capable’ of administering the reserve and ‘doing the right thing’.

Said that when he became chairman the first question he asked was ‘what is the racecourse worth?’ They asked the Valuer General who recommended a certain company who has done leases for big sites like Southbank etc.Magee then itemised some of the leases – ie Grandstand – $45,000pa.

Pilling then told Magee that his 5 mintues are up and that he should ‘consider other councillors’ and that he’s got the 3 minute summation time ‘at the end’. Magee said he would be ‘as quick as I can’.  Delahunty then moved that Magee be given 2 minutes extension. Seconded by Lobo. This time only Okotel and Pilling voted against.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »