GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 23, 2013

How ‘Green’ Is Pilling?

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

Here is Pilling’s response to the countless complaints that have come in regarding the Caulfield Park oval extension and the removal of 39 trees. We then feature the Friends of Caulfield Park’s answer to Pilling. In our view the writing is on the wall as to the kind of Mayor Pilling will be!

Thank you for your letter concerning the works to be undertaken to Caulfield Park ovals 3 and 4. I am responding on behalf of all of my colleagues.

I understand the genuine concerns that you have about the thirty-eight trees that are to be removed to allow these works to fully proceed. Whilst this is the case I feel it is important to emphasise twenty-five trees in the works area are to be retained as part of the proposed works and an additional forty trees will be planted in the area, including some indigenous trees that do not currently feature in the park.

Decisions like this aren’t taken lightly and all Councillors considered carefully the issues before coming to a similar view; that the long term benefits to all park users including reducing present risk issues significantly outweighed the short/medium term tree losses. Below is the background and reasons for this decision to proceed.

The Caulfield Park Master Plan  adopted over a decade ago and after extensive community consultation, envisages that works in the north east of the park would separate the two ovals. Masterplans have provided Council with designs and management direction for specific parks and in some cases implemented as a whole or progressively as in the case of Caulfield Park depending on funding availabilties. They also offer suggested solutions to risk issues such as in this case and are  reviewed regularly to ensure that the actions planned are still currently necessary. In this case Council concluded that the upgrading of Ovals 3 and 4 was still a much needed priority. In the 2013/14 budget $600k was allocated to install drought-tolerant grasses on these ovals and thus complete this successful program for Caulfield Park.

The two ovals currently do not make the best use of the available space.  The ovals overlap which presents a risk to players of running into each other or a ball from one game coming into contact with someone playing in the other game.  This identified risk puts a liability risk on Council.  In previously implemented park redevelopments, Council has taken the opportunity to eliminate these situations (eg Lord Reserve, Murrumbeena Park and Caulfield Park). This same approach and process was taken when Caulfield Park ovals 5, 6, and 7 along Balaclava Road were redeveloped in 2008/9. During that phase of implementation of the Master Plan, Council planted 320 trees whilst removing 13 trees. As is the case now the number of trees removed in 2009 were kept to as minimum as possible.

There is also an expectation amongst the community sports clubs that Council will take this action to eliminate any potential risk to players.

In short these ovals are compromised and the situation needs to be improved. The prospect of reconfiguring or combining the ovals that would essentially mean a reduction in playing surfaces is not supported by Council. Currently there are difficulties accommodating all forms of community sports on the limited number of grounds in the municipality especially in junior sport. To reduce is not a realistic option nor is to proceed spending $600k on an inadequate situation.

In relation to Caulfield Park whilst the western end is totally dedicated to passive use only, the eastern end is dedicated to both passive and active use and these uses sit harmoniously side by side.

The works to ovals 3 and 4 at the eastern end of Caulfield Park will lead to these ovals becoming safer by reducing risks to participants by reconfiguring the ovals to appropriate standards.

The ovals will be more environmentally sustainable with far less water used while providing a superior surface for players and passive users alike, even in drought like conditions which are in line with future climatic predictions. As well an upgraded irrigation system and the installation of sub-surface drainage will form part of the works.

I hope that provides a more comprehensive explanation of this issue, as always I am available to meet up onsite to further discuss your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Cr Neil Pilling

Mayor

City of Glen Eira

FOCP’S REPLY

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your reply and your view of FoCP’s concerns.

I hope that you can see from the public response to this proposal that you have not made a fully thought through decision in this matter and that you will revise it to match the whole community’s expectations.

In your letter you make several points:

  • You mention that decisions like this “aren’t taken lightly”.  This seems farcical when there was no external consultation.  It flies in the face of Council’s purported consultation program.  If you were serious, why were we, the Friends of Caulfield Park, not asked for an opinion?  Were you trying to avoid finding out what it was?
  • How can you pretend that you all “considered carefully all the issues” when you did not find out what they were?  Which ones did you consider?  Please spell them out.
  • What are the “long term benefits to all park users”?  Please spell them out.
  • Please identify which park users, other than cricketers, fall under your description “all”.
  • “reducing present risk issues seriously outweighed the short/medium term tree losses”  What are the risk issues to which you refer?  You state that “The two ovals do not make best use of available space”.  You suggest that the overlap “presents a risk to players of running into each other or a ball from one game coming into contact with someone playing in the other game”.  Frankly, this probability is less than someone tripping over the concrete plinth. There are seven ovals set aside for cricket at Caulfield Park.  This whole weekend, at the height of the cricket season, three ovals were used for four half-day matches.  People running after balls will be running towards each other, so how could they collide?  Have you considered the risks to non-cricketers that Council is increasingly exposing itself to?  Will you be banning walking around the oval perimeters while sports matches are in progress in order to reduce risk on Council?  The bigger the oval, the bigger the games and the bigger the players and the greater the risk to non-participants (the majority of park users).
  • You state that “these ovals are compromised and the situation needs to be improved”  Why not reserve these ovals for junior cricket, or have one large and one small one?  Were these options considered?  Did you consider what could be done if the tree loss was to be minimised?  Tree loss seems to be at the bottom of the list you have considered.
  • You state that there is “an expectation amongst the community sports clubs  . . .to eliminate any risk to players” .   Do you know that the great majority of users of the park are not using it as part of a sports club?  There is an expectation amongst the members of the community that you will not cut down trees and that you will not increase risk to passive users of the park by taking sports arenas out to the pathways they use.
  • You mention the Master Plan as a justification.  The Master Plan is 15 years old.  Communities change and it does not reflect today’s users.  The imminent arrival of 1,000 new people from the C60 development was not on the horizon then.  To reduce passive space is like lowering the wall in front of a tsunami. As you know, the adherence to that Master Plan has been skewed many times, generally in favour of the sports groups.  Some instances are the far greater than planned Pavilion in the centre of the park, the relocation of the main path through the park (which now makes it possible for Council to seek to create larger ovals than are in the plan).  You will see that the Master Plan shows an extensive region of trees along the north-south path between the ovals (check the map you sent me).  Also, when is the amphitheatre to be removed if you are following the Master Plan so slavishly?
  •  You go on to state that whilst the western end is totally dedicated to passive use only, the eastern end is to both passive and active and that these uses sit harmoniously side by side”.  Actually the western quarter may be primarily passive, but the great majority of the park’s area is given over to organised sport (check the map you sent me).
  • You state that “there are currently difficulties accommodating all forms of community sports”.  The existing ovals are seldom used simultaneously.  If you want more sports areas, why doesn’t Council do something a bit more effective about using the centre of the Caulfield Race Track?  This is ideal for sporting activities as trees cannot be planted there as they would obstruct the view of the racing.
  • Further you state that “To reduce is not a realistic option nor is to proceed spending $600,000 on an inadequate situation”.  Firstly let me remind you that  the contract is for $450,000 and that if you were not enlarging the ovals and taking down trees, you would not be spending so much, so it would not be unrealistic.  In any case the budget provided $650,000 for grasses, not for enlarging ovals.  This is clearly a new idea as you are also planning to pull out about a dozen trees planted by Council in the last couple of years.
  • Because of climate change the need for shade is becoming paramount to make the park safe for passive users. The replacement of 39 trees, many of which provide shade, will both reduce the available shade and increase the heat profile of the park.  This exposes the park and the park users to increased stress.

We, the Friends of Caulfield Park, and the greater community who have been sending you emails hope that you will confer with your fellow Councillors and find out that there is a better outcome along the lines we have suggested.

The lack of consultation to date has been appalling.  Why are you only now offering to meet us on the site. What happened to last month or the one before?

Yours sincerely,

David Wilde

President

 

November 22, 2013

Agenda: Recording Council Meetings

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

There are many agenda items of interest for Tuesday night’s meeting. This post will focus only on Paul Burke’s lamentable effort to maintain the status quo and not have audio recordings and/or webcasts of formal council meetings available to the public. The arguments trotted out are entirely predictable and far from convincing.

First off, readers are hit with the suggested cost – $44,000+. Next there is the ‘legal risk’ with statements such as this – Although the likelihood of a defamation action being brought against the Council, individual Councillors or council staff for comments made at a meeting may appear remote, the broadcasting/podcasting of Council Meetings increases the risk due to the larger audience created by the broadcast/podcast of the meeting.

Burke then goes on with this incredible statement – The increased risk is created due to the much wider audience created by the broadcasting/podcasting. Obviously if comments are made at a meeting with no public gallery and the meeting is not broadcast and the comments made receive no publicity it is unlikely that any action would be brought, but this could be different if the meeting is then podcast.

So, are we to assume that it is ‘permissable’ for councillors or administrators to ‘defame’ others when no-one is present in the public gallery, but unacceptable when visitors are present to witness or hear the potential defamation?

What then follows are some attempted distractors such as ‘file size’ and whether people will be able to find the ‘specific items’ that interest them in the recording. Below we feature how simple the solution is and how it does not present any problems whatsoever for Manningham. They simply splice the recordings into the specific agenda items. It shouldn’t take Einstein to figure this out.

manningham

Then comes the typical Glen Eira administration tactic of only presenting ‘selective’ rather than full and comprehensive information. Burke lists several councils and their policies and current practice. Not only is this list incomplete – but it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! For example Burke states that Frankston council only provides audio recording for ‘internal use’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s what the Frankston website has got to say on the issue –

Members of the public can request an audio recording of a Council Meeting on CD. This new initiative is to increase the accessibility of Council meetings for those unable to attend in person.

Recordings of Council meetings are available for meetings occurring on or after 6th April 2010. Recordings of Council meetings will be retained for three months only.

On completion of the required details in the form below, a CD will be mailed to the person at the nominated address. Please allow up to 10 working days for the CD to arrive.

Please note that the audio recordings do not constitute an official record of the meeting. The official record of a Council meeting is the Council meeting minutes, which can be accessed on Council’s website or upon request to Council’s Governance unit. (http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Meetings/Council_Meetings_Available_On_CD)

Burke of course does not reveal that there are numerous other councils that broadcast their council meetings. These include:

Melbourne City Council

Hobson’s Bay – Audio recordings of Ordinary and Special Council meetings will be made available for download on the internet via the Council’s website not later than the day following the meeting and will be retained and made publicly available for 12 months following the meeting date. Members of the public may purchase copies of recordings for a fee of $1.00.

Mornington Peninsula – http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Our_Shire/Our_Council/Minutes_Agendas/Council_Meeting_Audio_Recordings

Ballarat – moving towards this with a resolution passed on September 25th 2013 – http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/1882408/25_september_public_minutes.pdf

There are probably many others that we have not bothered to chase down. Once again the failure of officers to provide accurate and comprehensive information for councillors is unforgiveable. No specific recommendations are part of the item – so it is once again over to councillors to make a stand and to earn their keep. Will transparency win out over secrecy? Will the rhetoric of increasing public interest and participation stand up or will councillors merely ‘note’ the report and consign this to the dustbin of history for another 3 or 4 years? Will Burke be told to rewrite and this time ensure that he earns his $200,000+ pa salary by providing accurate information or will it be passed off as another ‘clerical error?

Allowing residents to actually hear the continual shenanigans, the appalling level of debate, the inconsistencies, and the repeated failures of good governance is not something that this council and its administrators want to publicise. Transparency and accountability are anathema. That’s why we will continue to provide what we regard as a vital public service in reporting on each council meeting.

PS: HERE ARE A FEW MORE COUNCILS THAT DON’T HAVE THE ‘PRIVACY’ AND ‘RISK’ ISSUES THAT GLEN EIRA ALWAYS SEEMS TO HAVE. THEY HAVE INSTITUTED AUDIO AND LIVE BROADCASTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE IT WOULD APPEAR!

Greater Bendigo – Council meetings are broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7Mhz. http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/About_us/The_Council/Council_meeting_agendas_and_minutes

Moyne Shire Council – http://www.moyne.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=2562&h=0

Wellington Shire Council – http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Council-Meetings/Live-Council-Meetings

 

November 20, 2013

Open Space Strategy: Back To The Future?

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

The lack of open space in Glen Eira is well known. So well known in fact that the 1998 strategy made no bones about the need for council to increase and improve its open space planning and to ensure that it was funded appropriately. Now, 15 years down the track, there is a new hefty document that to a very great degree regurgitates what has been known for the last decade and a half. That, of course, leads onto questioning:

  • Why have so few of the 1998 recommendations been carried out, or alternatively, been completely ignored?
  • What guarantee do residents have that the ‘high priority’ items of the 2013 strategy won’t go the same way as the recommendations of the previous plan?
  • To what extent has this new draft policy been ‘reverse-engineered’ by administrators to basically present only what they want to present? In other words – how autonomous were the consultants?

On this last point we note that this company has done strategies for numerous other councils. In some of these the consultation methodology involved community forums and/or focus groups BEFORE the release of any draft. Not in Glen Eira. Here the familiar top down approach is sacrosanct.

Perusing the draft document there are countless caveats and disclaimers that somehow manage to appear in the Glen Eira version, but which are significantly absent from other work produced by this company. For example: the phrase ‘where feasible’ appears nearly 50 times in the Glen Eira document. The term is totally absent in the Whitehorse strategy and in the Moonee Valley document it appears only 6 times and in Boroondara 7 times. The phrase ‘where feasible’ is thus a wonderful escape clause from doing anything. Who decides what is, or isn’t ‘feasible’ is another issue completely and we know, don’t we, what the answer to that is!

The 1998 strategy listed 14 specific and overarching criteria against which recommendations were to be assessed. The 2013 version has reduced this to a mere 6. Significantly, what is missing from the 2013 effort are such fundamental aspects as ‘management plan’, ‘community involvement’ and the emphases on structured and unstructured open space. In 1998 we were told how much open space was devoted to sport (53%). No such figures appear now.

We raise all these issues not to decry the 2013 effort as ‘useless’ but for residents to be aware of the pitfalls and the need for them to insist that councillors do their homework and commit to firm priorities. When a document lists 30 or 40 desirable actions, then prioritising is essential, a strict management plan is essential, and a financial plan together with a solid time line absolutely crucial. Mere waffle about a possible 4 to 5% open space levy contribution from developers does not address these questions. Given the lack of open space, will council impose a higher levy on businesses? On specific areas? And why wasn’t this option included together with the C110 Amendment as other councils are now doing? Instead Glen Eira will now have to go through an amendment process which, as Hyams always likes to tell us, could take years! That is not ‘strategic’ and timely planning in our view.

More on the open space strategy in the weeks ahead!

 

November 18, 2013

Your Rates At Work Or Vandalism?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

The following are screen dumps taken directly from the Friends of Caulfield Park website. They do not require any further comment from us!

caulfield1caulfield2caulfield3caulfield4caulfield5

 

November 14, 2013

Two, Or Three, Or Four Bites At The Cherry!

Posted by gleneira under GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Why can’t this administration seem to get something right the first time around? Why is so much of public money recklessly wasted? Why is there so little concern for the environment, especially when it involves the expansion of sporting grounds or the building of mega palaces?

All of these questions relate to the announcement of ‘works’ in Caulfield Park (see below). The lowlights are:

  • The removal of 39 recently planted and now well established trees and then replanting new ones. How much does this cost?
  • Another ‘regrassing’ and sudden need for the extension of the cricket oval.

We note that this is now the second time that ‘corrections’ have been made to Caulfield Park ovals. They built a pavilion only to realise after the fact that ovals had to be ‘reconfigured’ and more concrete poured in. Now the same thing appears to be happening – another ‘reconfiguration’. Either this says that the ‘bible’ – ie Master Plan – was a dud to begin with, or decisions are again ad hoc, and ill planned.

Please click on the photos to view in greater detail the proposed new actions.

caulfield1

caulfield2

 

 

 

November 13, 2013

Is This What We Want?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Residents really need to sit up and take notice of what is happening throughout Glen Eira. Not, mind you, just in the old housing diversity areas, but in minimal change as well. The volume of applications for subdivisions and applications for two double storeys in minimal change has gone through the roof. But worse, is what is happening as a result of the new zones.

On August 23rd the zones were gazetted and made LAW. So in the space of barely two and a half months applications for over 300 apartments in just two of the zones have been submitted – many of them requesting car parking waivers. Given the failure of this planning department and councillors to plan properly and judiciously, we see large parts of Glen Eira becoming the slums of the future and the clear establishment of a second class citizenry. Those who will dwell in certain suburbs can expect to be inundated with high rise and not be given a second thought by this council. It is progressing according to the Newton, Akehurst and gang’s vision. What is unacceptable is that no-one has ever stated what the optimal number of buildings should be, nor whether the infrastructure is capable of dealing with this dramatic growth. When is enough, enough? When the population reaches 160,000? 180,000? Or when all in-fill properties have been used up and Glen Eira is no longer ‘green’ but a dirty, concrete jungle choking on its traffic mayhem, lack of open space, and continual flooding.

Below we feature some of the applications that have come in post August 23rd with the clear warning that this is only the start!

ADDRESS

DESCRIPTION
21 Truganini Road CARNEGIE 4 STOREY; 42 UNITS; CAR PARKING WAIVER
12 Arawatta Street CARNEGIE 8 THREE STOREY DWELLINGS; CAR PARKING WAIVER (PERMIT ISSUED)
14 Maroona Road CARNEGIE 3 STOREY, 26 UNITS; CAR PARKING WAIVER
40 Koornang Road CARNEGIE 4 STOREY, 21 UNITS; 2 SHOPS CAR PARKING WAIVER
1A Orrong Crescent CAULFIELD NORTH 4 STOREY, 18 UNITS; 3 SHOPS
4 Bond Street CAULFIELD NORTH 2 THREE STOREY
10-12 Cromwell Street CAULFIELD NORTH 3 STOREY; 12 UNITS
185 Booran Road CAULFIELD SOUTH 3 STOREY; 14 UNITS; 5 SHOPS CAR PARKING WAIVER
17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA 3 STOREY; 7 UNITS
4 Kitmont Street MURRUMBEENA 3 STOREY; 11 UNITS
Unit 1 20 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA 5 DOUBLE STOREYS
13 Etna Street GLEN HUNTLY 3 STOREY; 12 UNITS; CAR PARKING WAIVER
15 Manchester Grove GLEN HUNTLY 3 STOREY; 22 UNITS
677 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST 4 STOREY; 10 UNITS; 2 SHOPS
730A Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST 5 STOREY; 29 UNITS; 1 SHOP; CAR PARKING WAIVER
348-352 Centre Road BENTLEIGH 4 STOREY; 20 UNITS; SHOPS
27 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH 3 STOREY OF 5 UNITS & 2 TWO STOREY OF 5 UNITS; CAR PARKING WAIVER
495 South Road BENTLEIGH 3 STOREY; 14 UNITS (PERMIT GRANTED)
6 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON 3 STOREY; 10 UNITS
225 Orrong Road ST KILDA EAST 3 STOREY; 15 UNITS

There are 308 new dwellings proposed in the above list – plus 13 shops. We assume that at least 275 will be rubber stamped by Council. If this represents anywhere near the ‘average’ then the total number of dwellings that could happen over a year would be close to 3000! Council already admits the following figures – with the proviso that these  figures represent the ‘old’ planning zones only and not what is currently on the cards:

September permits – 189 new dwellings

August permits – 177 new dwellings

July permits – 122 new dwellings

Source: http://pparsreporting.dpcd.vic.gov.au/PPARSReporting/monthly.jsp?ra=22&date=9-2013

 

November 12, 2013

Open Space: Compare & Contrast

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

2

PS: Before we forget, we remind readers that the Mayoral ‘election’ is taking place tonight. Strong rumour has it that Pilling will get the nod, but the intrigue involves the Deputy Mayor. Again, the rumour is that Lobo will be supporting Lipshutz for Deputy instead of Delahunty. If true, how amazing! An individual who has been screaming ‘racism’ , who is a Labor man, will now support his nemesis? If Lipshutz is running for Deputy, then it is pretty clear in our view as to why – Pilling needs a ‘minder’ to ensure that he sticks to the gang’s agenda! If there is any credence to this rumour then what a sorry, sorry state of affairs!

 

November 7, 2013

Secrecy & Sycophancy Writ Large!

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

071113_Reappointment_of_CEO

 

November 7, 2013

What A Balls Up!

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

Glen Eira Council cops costs in adjourned case against former councillor

  • Andrea Kellett
  • November 06, 2013 4:25PM
Former Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack outside the Melbourne Magistrate's Court today. Picture: Janine Eastgate.

Former Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack outside the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court today. Picture: Janine Eastgate. Source: News Limited

GLEN Eira ratepayers have copped an $11,800 legal bill after a crucial omission by council lawyers on day one of a criminal court case against former councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Magistrate Denise O’Reilly has ordered the council pay defence teams’ costs for today’s wasted appearance.

But total costs to Glen Eira ratepayers for today’s gaffe will be far more than $11,800 once the bill of the council’s legal team, including a barrister and instructing solicitor, is taken into account.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court also adjourned the case until March, to allow council lawyers to prepare and give “proper” notice of crucial witness evidence.

Mr Penhalluriack, his company K.I. Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd and former tenant Tomer Rabba have been charged with breaching the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

The council alleges they operated an illegal rooming house from a rental property on Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, between May and June last year.

All have pleaded not guilty.

Magistrate O’Reilly told council lawyers she wanted “proper” notice of their intention to present hearsay witness evidence.

“There wasn’t proper notice given,” she said.

“I think it’s the right thing that they give proper notice.”

The evidence relates to a conversation a Glen Eira Council building inspector is alleged to have had with a man at the property last year.

The court heard council’s legal team could not find that man, known only as ‘Brent’, and they wanted “hearsay” evidence of what he is alleged to have said, allowed in court.

David Grace, for Mr Penhalluriack, objected and urged Ms O’Reilly to let the hearing continue without that evidence.

The discussion relates to how many people were staying at the property and could be relied on in the prosecution’s case that the house was being used as a rooming house.

It has since been demolished and replaced with a car park.

Ms O’Reilly adjourned the case to March 3 for three days.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Penhalluriack said he was “disappointed” about the delay.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/glen-eira-council-cops-costs-in-adjourned-case-against-former-councillor/story-fngnvlpt-1226754412798

COMMENT

What the Leader article does not make clear is that Council had 3 lawyers (including a barrister), their own corporate counsel, the ‘policing officer’ (Katz) and 3 other officers sitting in court all day. Another 3 officers were waiting in the wings to be called as witnesses in the days ahead. That should, we estimate, come close to at least another $15,000 that’s gone down the drain for nothing and is just the beginning. The case is scheduled for 3 days. If Penhalluriack wins then the cost to ratepayers could be huge.

After 3 mentions, and continual delays, Council’s lawyers still seem incapable of getting their act together. Shades of the original VCAT hearing where council was ordered to go away and write up its case properly. Instead of providing clear ‘briefs of evidence’, as required by law, ‘hearsay’ introduced at the last moment became the bone of contention. The magistrate ordered that Council undertake proper process by giving ‘notice’. In other words, basically telling council, and their expensive lawyers, that they’ve stuffed up! Also worthy of mention is that the charge against Mrs Penhalluriack was withdrawn right at the start. Make of this what you will!

 

November 6, 2013

The Circus In Full Swing!

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

We strongly recommend that every single Glen Eira resident should at least once in their lives attend a council meeting in order to view the continual circus, and general incompetence of our elected representatives. Tonight was no exception. Below is a very brief summary of what occurred. Full reports will follow in the coming days.

MORTON AVE APPLICATION

1. Pilling and Magee moved to accept the recommendations for a 6 storey development with the usual arguments of ‘appropriate’ for this zone; ‘reasonable’ high density; ‘right building for right place’, etc. etc.

2. Arguments against were waiving of loading bay, reduction in visitor parking.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

3, Esakoff then moved another motion that this be 5 storeys and 33 dwellings plus 4 visitor car parking spots. Seconded by Okotel. Main arguments were problems with traffic, parking, and that 5 storeys was okay plus a waiver of 3 parking spots ‘was fair’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST

Great confusion at this point since: – (a) no decision on application and, (b) no amendment had been put. Everyone scurried around like lost sheep ‘consulting’. Pilling then came up with a third motion – back to 6 storeys and 3 visitor car parking spots! This time motion got up unanimously!

MAV CONFERENCE

Esakoff reported on the MAV conference she attended and the raft of resolutions passed at the conference. All well and good. Trouble is that not once did she say anything about the voting pattern of Glen Eira City Council!!!! We remind readers that none of the motions were presented at an ordinary council meeting and no formal resolution has ever been taken on how to vote on any of the motions. Worse still, is that residents are kept in the dark. It is secrecy, lack of transparency and abysmal governance all over again!

Plenty of calls for Lobo to withdraw some of his comments which he eventually did but not before he named Lipshutz as the councillor who told him that officers could not understand him. Okotel was having hearing problems and attempted to use ‘right of reply’ to counter some comments from other councillors (Lobo, and she assumed an error by Delahunty) – so, on and on, with utter nonsense – especially the interminable, and in our view either trivial, or irrelevant, Requests for Reports. Perhaps we should consider retitling this post since circuses are entertaining. Tonight’s effort was definitely not ‘entertaining’ but an indictment of councillors, their priorities, and their total lack of knowledge when many have been councillors for yonks!

Finally, responses to public questions were either evasive, non-informative, or entirely irrelevant to the questions. Well done Mr Burke!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »