The agenda for next Wednesday night is out and surprise, surprise, there is no mention of the CEO appointment. According to the legislation, public notification of the intent to reappoint must occur at least 14 days prior to the resolution being passed. On Wednesday it will be 15 days since the announcement was buried away in both the Age and on council’s website. So why the silence? If this is to be done in camera, then the only possible item that might be applicable is the lovely catch-all phrase “under section 89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter”. Tautologies reign supreme in Glen Eira!

Other items set down for in camera are also intriguing. For example the regrassing of 2 Caulfield Park ovals. Readers might remember that this was put off for one year in order to save money. Yet it does not explain why on November 3^rd 2012 the Age featured this tender advertisement – “Redevelopment of Caulfield Park No 3 & 4 Sports Ovals Requirement: Sportsground drainage, irrigation, surface reshaping & resurfacing.” Applications closed on November 17^th. Then low and behold, on  July 27^th 2013 we get the identical advertisement again. This time closing date is 16^th August 2013. That raises many interesting questions:

• Why was this advertised last year when the budget had decreed to delay regrassing?
• Why does the 2013/14 budget state that the cost of regrassing is $650,000 and the figure in the incamera section states $450,000? Surely with all the millions already spent on ovals council would have a pretty good idea what this would cost? Or is this just another example of creative accounting?

There are plenty of other fascinating items up for decision as well, but we will conclude this post with a comment on the financial report. Seems like GESAC is continuing to rack up the bills with another $33,000 for landscaping and the ‘release of retention money for waterslides’. More squabbles perhaps with this particular contractor? Then there’s another $19,000 for the purchase of ‘additional strength equipment’. But the really, really big one is the incamera tender for $610,000 for ‘air handling and ducting’. Of course council does not reveal that this is for GESAC to rectify what is obviously a huge problem. But this was again advertised in the Age on September 7^th, 2013! Hopefully this figure will appear somewhere in future financial reports!

More disturbing is that so many projects have not had a penny spent on them in 3 months, or a piddling proportion of their allotted funds. Duncan McKinnon pavilion is the perfect example. The same goes for Local Area traffic management improvements. Taking into account the carryovers of money from the previous year’s budget, and granted that ‘progress’ in Glen Eira is invariably at a snail’s pace, we still have to wonder whether or not these interminable delays are the results of a continuing cash shortage?

Finally, it is worth pointing out again that:

• The non-appearance of the Local Law – promised for March 2013 by Lipshutz
• The non-appearance of a sporting ground allocation policy

With a bit of luck these may appear just before Xmas when it’s hoped that not too many people will notice!

Why is it that every single major project in Glen Eira is always behind schedule and not just by a few months, but sometimes by years? Duncan McKinnon pavilion is just the latest in this history of delay, budget blowouts, and possibly another legal battle. To compound this dismal record there is always the accompanying silence and keeping residents in the dark as much as possible.

This year’s Annual Report proves our point. Buried on page 82 there is this one, solitary sentence: Construction has commenced but walls and roof are not yet complete. The builder is behind schedule due to rework on items which have not met quality standards

Quality standards? So a ten million dollar project that was initially earmarked for half that price is again the victim of poor workmanship? What should concern ratepayers is:

• Has Council called in the legal eagles again and how much is this costing?
• Has Council called in consultants to ‘correct’ the ‘errors’ and how much is this costing?
• Has Maxstra (the builder) in fact walked off the job since there is now no hoardings advertising their involvement?
• How much ‘remedial’ work has been undertaken and who is paying for this?

The most pertinent question however involves councillors and how well they have been keeping their eye on the ball. Pilling, in particular, promised much, but has delivered little. His blog on December 25^th 2011 had this comment:

At the first Councillor assembly meeting in January I have requested a full update and explanation by our administration for the current situation. I acknowledge there were some delays caused by VicRoads in approving the new carpark entrances. However this should not have prevented the preparation and finalisation of the tender documents for construction being completed.

Then 16months later on April 8^th 2013 we get this ‘promise’ –

Recently along with other Councillors I was provided with an on-site tour of the construction site of our current major capital project – the new pavillion at Duncan Mckinnon. This is a $9.5 million project that will deliver wonderful new modern facilities to the literally thousands of local children and families who play sport at our busiest recreational facility. There will also be a reconfiguration of the carpark to allow for safer traffic movements.

As one who competed on the track from the mid-seventies to now seeing family members participating in the netball competitions there, it is especially pleasing to see this progress.

The photos above show the construction is well advanced-with completion on track for the end of March next year and I will post regular updates

Needless to say, that is the last we have heard about Duncan McKinnon from this councillor, and in fact Council as a whole. Nothing has been mentioned in Council Meetings and the records of assembly generally are silent on the issue.

The Annual Report states that walls and roof should have been completed. Below we feature a photo we took over the weekend. The roof is nowhere to be seen and walls are barely up. In six months nothing has practically changed!

But that’s not the end of the story. Victory Park change rooms are also well behind schedule. The ‘excuse? – The scope of works was increased to deal with poor ground conditions, requiring the works to be tendered which has delayed the delivery of the project. Works are currently in progress.

Could so much bad luck really be hounding poor old Glen Eira Council? Or are these delays partly the response to a cash flow crisis?

PS: The tender for Victory Park closed on the 17th May 2013. That’s 5 months to add two change rooms and showers. Multi-storey buildings are completed in less time!

We’ve uploaded the main parts of the LIST OF ISSUES in the saga of Glen Eira City Council versus Hansen Yuncken. We make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of either party (that is for the courts and/or mediation). All we can say is that it is extremely illuminating to read the claims and counter claims and then compare this with the continual spin that was perpetrated on unsuspecting ratepayers. Lipshutz’s continual reassurances that council was ‘on top’ of things now certainly rings hollow in the face of what these documents reveal. There is more here than simple weather delays, the finding of asbestos, and changing pool tiles as we were led to believe up until November 2011. Please read and then ponder what this reveals about overall management of such a project.

COUNCIL’S CASE (uploaded here)

There are 3 main facets to Council’s claims – liquidated damages basically for late completion/handover; defective works and variations from the contract. They are also after damages and costs.

For liquidated damages Council is demanding – $1,589,000 plus another $766,000

For utility charges Council is claiming – $137,218.92

For ‘variations’ to the contract Council is claiming – $453,313.44 plus another $321,057.00

For ‘defective work’ council is claiming – $91,319.00

Council finally claims ‘loss and damages’ for $3,084,846.00

HANSEN YUNCKEN’S CASE (uploaded here)

HY deny many of the dates submitted by council as late for handover

HY ‘does not admit’ that a ‘verbal conversation’ took place regarding utility costs payable by HY and nor was the company liable to pay for these costs

On ‘defective’ claims HY denies, disputes and concedes some of these

HY counter claim for $3,001,019.60 ‘on account of variations to work under the contract’

Readers should focus on the concluding tables that HY has supplied in the 244 page document.

COMMENT

The far more vital question concerns governance. For example:

• What have councillors been told in the past 3 years? In what form was any information provided – written, verbal, presentations?
• What questions did councillors ask and were they answered?
• Have any councillors ever clapped eyes on the contract?  Did any councillors ask to see and read the contract?
• Have any councillors ever seen the List of Issues?

Answers to these questions will reveal fully how this council functions and its governance.

With typical subterfuge, secrecy, and minimalist interpretation of the Local Government Act, this group of councillors have once again let the community down big time. Andrew Newton has been reappointed for another term.

Buried in yesterday’s Age was the miniscule advertisement to this effect. Buried even deeper on council’s Public Notices section of the website is this totally non-informative announcement –

“Reappointment of Chief Executive Officer

In accordance with Section94(4) of the Local Government Act 1989, public notice is given that the Glen Eira City Council intends to put a resolution to reappoint Mr Andrew Newton as its Chief Executive Officer.

The passing of this resolution would result in the reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer without the position being advertised.”

As we’ve commented previously, no job should be for life, especially in senior management. By not advertising or even being willing to ‘test the waters’ these councillors will never know who might be capable of doing a better job. Given the turbulent history of this council (all under the stewardship of Newton), it is unbelievable in our view that no advertising of the position will occur. All residents need to demand a full and open account of the goings on from every single councillor.

Whilst hundreds of thousands of dollars are expended on current legal battles over GESAC, we have to ask how professional, how vigilant, how qualified, and how effective the Pools Steering Committee was in actually overseeing the whole project.

The committee was supposed to meet on a monthly basis. Not until the change in the Local Government Act when ‘assemblies’ had to be reported upon were any minutes tabled at council meetings. The first such set of minutes were dated the 29^th September 2010. Since then, only 13 sets of minutes have been made public and several of these monthly meetings appear to have disappeared or simply did not take place. Hardly satisfactory when you are dealing with a $50 to $60 million dollar project. 13 meetings in 2 years on the biggest project ever undertaken is simply astounding. Yet, Lipshutz kept assuring residents how ‘on top’ of things Council was. With the current ongoing legal wrangles we can only raise an eyebrow and ask if being ‘on top’ of things should have involved heaps of more meetings and good management.

Even worse is that the Council designated Senior Project Engineer (Raj Gopalakrishnan) has never been listed as an attendee at these meetings. The supposedly regular attendees should have been – councillors (Lipshutz, Esakoff, Magee); Mark Judge (General Manager, Major Projects); Martin Snell (Major Projects Manager) and council directors such as Peter Waite and Andrew Newton.

Below is the attendance record for all of these published minutes. Hardly a convincing performance we would say, especially from Magee. Of the 13 meetings Magee was absent for 6 and didn’t make it to one site inspection. Snell also covered himself in glory by missing 5, and Judge was a no show on 3 occasions. Hardly surprising we say that Council is now in court and haggling over what went wrong with GESAC.

9^th February 2012 – Magee absent

1^st December 2011 – all present

3^rd November 2011 – Snell absent

5^th October 2011 – Snell absent

8^th September 2011 – all present

8^th August 2011 – Magee absent

7^th July 2011 – Magee, Newton, Waite all absent

2^nd June 2011 – Waite absent

24^th March 2011 – “Magee did not attend site inspection”

25^th January 2011 – Magee, Judge, Snell absent

20^th December 2010 – Magee, Judge absent

27^th October 2010 – Newton, Judge, Snell absent

29^th September 2010 – Magee, Snell absent