GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 1, 2013

Talk Versus Action

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

Kingston Council applies for more CCTV funding

1 August 2013

Kingston Council will seek State Government funding for more CCTV cameras in up to five sites designated by police as potential trouble spots.

A Special Meeting was held by Councillors on July 29 to allow a decision to be made before the Government’s August 2 deadline for funding applications.

Councillors voted to seek $225,000 for up to 17 CCTVS to be placed in:

• Mordialloc

• Cheltenham

• Carrum

• Chelsea.

These were the priority sites recommended by local police as good locations for CCTVs, based on factors including need and the technical difficulty of installing the recording devices.

The decision follows Council accepting $125,000 last month for CCTVs to be installed at the foreshore car park off Gnotuck Avenue, Aspendale, the bus interchange off Station Street, Moorabbin and the exterior of an affordable housing complex on the Nepean Highway in Moorabbin.

This left $225,000 available from the total pool of $350,000 the Government had offered for CCTV installation applications from Kingston Council.

As with the Government’s previous offer, Council will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the CCTVs. If the estimated cost of $225,000 is exceeded after more detailed examination of the sites, the locations ranked as the highest priority by police will be implemented.

Kingston Mayor Cr Ron Brownlees OAM said CCTVs fitted within Council’s Community Safety Strategy.

“While CCTVs are not a guaranteed anti-crime measure, we have applied for more as our community overwhelmingly supports their installation and the cameras will act as an additional crime prevention tool for police,” Cr Brownlees said.

– See more at: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Lists/News/Latest-News#sthash.cswP8rht.dpuf

 

July 31, 2013

Another Chain-Saw Massacre?

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

Council has announced another community consultation for a landscape plan at Koornang Park. The accompanying blurb states: “The plan sees the removal of the predominant row of over-mature Cupressus macrocarpa trees (Monterey Cypress) which are at high-risk of tree limb failure.” The blurb then goes on to say: “The development of the landscape plan has been guided by principles which prioritise safety, increase useable open space and promote environmental sustainability.”

Council has also provided a link to their ‘Have Your Say’ on their webpage. We acknowledge the fact that this time there is at least some form of ‘consultation’ (unlike the Duncan McKinnon episode) and the questions are open-ended. However, we are entirely sceptical as to the claim that ALL OF THESE TREES represent a physical danger, or if in fact, any of them do.

We ventured down to Koornang Park today and spoke with numerous residents who had no idea of what was going on. They also expressed alarm at the prospect of losing so many of these cypress trees. Please note that the ‘landscape concept’ does not indicate anywhere how many of these trees are to be removed.

What many of these residents did say was:

  • The trees provide a terrific sound barrier to block out the traffic noise from busy Koornang Rd
  • The trees also provide a natural barrier from the playground to the street so that young children cannot run onto the road – the playground is not fenced.

Apart from the fact of losing valuable and we maintain healthy trees, the safety issues in the above points would appear to go against council’s claim of ‘prioritising safety’. Rather, we are at a loss to understand why cypress trees have suddenly become public enemy number one for this council!

P1000163

P1000164P1000161

 

July 30, 2013

Council ‘Endorsement’ Of The MRC

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

Featured below is the centre of the racecourse manifesto published by the MRC. That this features prominently in Council’s Resident’s Handbook is literally astounding given that:

  • Most of the ‘agreement’ terms are not being met – ie times of access
  • The number of days open to public
  • The area now declared as off-limits to residents due to the synthetic track
  • The countless fences that were not in the original submission

That council sees fit to publish this version is to endorse the MRC completely and to abandon, we suspect, all attempts to ensure that the Melbourne Racing Club adheres to the terms of the original ‘communique’. Surely council could have refused to publish this document at the very least?

racecoursePS: Here are some photos that we’ve received from a resident that shows just what a waste of space this so-called ‘development’ has turned out to be. The photos we’re told were taken Sunday last in the mid afternoon.

car park

access

 

July 29, 2013

Some ‘Inconvenient Truths’

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

Council has mastered the technique of not answering all aspects of a public question. What is responded to often becomes a game of semantics, half-truths and not so subtle acts of omission. We illustrate this from the following examples of public questions tabled at last week’s council meeting. The bolded sections represent those aspects that have been entirely ignored.

QUESTION: The residential development at 175 Balaclava Road, North Caulfield, is a toxic site which was not comprehensively remediated. The amount of permeable surface, if any, is much less than the minimum required. There is zero setback from Balaclava Road where the standard is six metres. There is zero setback from the side street, Elmhurst Street. Balconies and awnings extend from this development over both Balaclava Road and Elmhurst Street, and no fees, rents or other charges are applied to this occupation of public space. How does council account for this generous flexibility in application of the planning rules, and what is the estimated financial benefit that has accrued to the developer from this?

ANSWER: “The Town Planning Application in relation to the residential development at 175 Balaclava Road which incorporated balconies that extended beyond the title boundary was refused by Council. An appeal against Council’s decision to refuse the application was lodged at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT directed the grant of a permit which retained the balconies beyond the title boundary. This was not Council’s preferred town planning position given that Council had refused the application. However, VCAT did apply a permit condition requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement which, amongst other things, acknowledges Council’s ownership interests and would absolve Council of any risks associated with the balcony overhangs.

A condition of the VCAT directed permit related to the provision of a Statement of Environmental Audit prior to the commencement of the development. In order to comply with this condition, the Applicant was required to submit a Statement of Environmental Audit that confirmed that the site is suitable for the use and development allowed by the planning permit. In December 2008 the Statement of Environmental Audit was received and, as a result, the abovementioned condition was met.”

COMMENT: What is not stated is that the VCAT order was not the result of the first appeal, but the result of ‘mediation’ between Council and the developer. In other words the VCAT decision merely formalised what council agreed to previously.

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

QUESTION: What is Glen Eira Council’s current policy on rooms, balconies, and awnings that extend over public space from a/. residential buildings, and b/. commercial buildings? Is the public space so occupied leased or sold or is it a gift of space to developers? What legal liabilities might accrue to ratepayers from this use of public space? 

ANSWER: Council does not support developments with balconies and rooms that overhang the title boundary. However, as was the case with 175 Balaclava Road, Council does not always make the final decision in relation to these matters. In those situations, it is Council practice to advocate for VCAT to require, via a permit condition, that the applicant enter into a Section 173 agreement with Council.

Section 173 agreements apply in those circumstances where controls are required outside title boundaries. Typically Section 173 agreements address property rights and protect Council, and in turn ratepayers, from risk.

A Section 173 agreement in such cases would explicitly state that ownership of the area outside the title boundary does not pass to the owner of the land being developed. The agreement also sets out restrictions on the owner’s use of the balcony /encroaching area. These restrictions allow Council to tightly control use and minimise risk. Generally, Council does not charge owners for use of the airspace, unless there is a commercial use. Owners are required to have appropriate insurance for public liability in relation to their use of the airspace. Section 173 agreements are placed on the title of the property and bind current and successive owners of the property.

Section 173 agreements are not required for awnings.

Council may enter into a licence or lease of the airspace above Council land.

Decisions of this nature are made on a case by case basis.”

COMMENT: what a wonderful word ‘generally’ is. It can encompass a multitude of sins without disclosing a single thing. This response makes it clear that:

  • There is no formal policy on gifting the public realm to developers
  • Nor are they asked to always pay for this largesse
  • Contradictions do not appear to worry Council either – for example, please compare the opening and penultimate sentences in this response (underlined)!

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

QUESTION: Will Council be undertaking community consultation on the residential zone reforms? 

ANSWER: The extent of consultation would depend on the extent of any departures from the current Housing Diversity/Minimal Change arrangements and that is not known at this time.”

COMMENT: Here is further evidence that there will NOT BE ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION on the residential zones, except in the most trivial and unavoidable areas such as amending the East St.Kilda student housing areas from Minimal Change to Housing Diversity since this is already fait accompli with 5 storey permits granted and Council’s failure to adhere to its own policy as pointed out several times by VCAT members. As for the rest of the municipality it is clear that council intends to rubber stamp the current  scheme without community input!

 

July 24, 2013

Community Consultation & The Veracity of ‘Minutes’

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

Below is the ‘debate’ on accepting the various committees’ ‘minutes’ and their recommendations. We’ve focused on the Community Consultation ones.

Delahunty moved to accept and seconded by Lobo.

DELAHUNTY: stated that the consultation committee ‘sets the standards‘ for consultation and seeks to ‘widen, broaden, deepen’ and make consultation ‘appropriate’ so it’s an ‘important committee’. Related what had been discussed: terms of reference; and EOI from  people wanting to be community reps as well as reviewing engagement strategy. Said that one submission from a resident was ‘very helpful’ (on disability). Vouched that this ‘was a true and accurate’ record of what happened at the meeting.

LOBO: said that 4 EOIs had been received by council. One was from a ‘very senior’ and ‘experienced resident’ and was in the ‘format’ that they were asked to submit. Went on to say that there were no ‘qualifications’ or ‘requisites’ given to people. Claimed that the committee decision was to ‘hold the applications on ice’ until advertising again. Said that in his view it’s the ‘right of ratepayers’ to both ‘represent the community’ and ‘contribute to a council that they finance and pay our salaries’. People who apply are community minded and spend ‘their own time’ in the effort to ‘make a difference’. Re-advertising creates the impressions that ‘we are not a transparent council’. Community reps for this committee is different to the environmental one where some professional expertise is required. Quoted Ghandi about ‘greatness’ and no correlation to  ‘education’ and that these applications should be ‘viewed’ in the same way. “Barriers’ to ‘perceived transparency’ have to be removed. Asked the rhetorical question as to precisely what they’re looking for – ‘a rocket scientist’, ‘psychiatrist’ or ‘a doctor of philosophy’. The Local Government Act compels councillors to act ‘impartially’ in carrying out their duties. Said that these would be ‘just words’ if not acted upon.

OKOTEL: spoke about the Violence against Women day and how council supports two groups in this area.

HYAMS: told the gallery that with this motion it’s not just about receiving and noting the minutes but also ‘adopting the recommendations’ so if councillors agree with Lobo that council shouldn’t be readvertising for community reps ‘they would vote against this motion’. Said that he didn’t think that readvertising was a ‘slight’ on those who applied and that they had hoped to ‘attract a slightly broader range of applicants’. Readvertising was ‘just a way of trying to achieve a broader range’ and doesn’t mean that those who already submitted won’t be selected. Went on to discuss the grants committee.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams comments on the Legal Service then went on to say that the minutes ‘tell the story’ of how council is ‘spending your money’ and they also tell the story about issues being discussed and ‘values and how we impart those values onto things we deem to be important’. People need to ‘keep track of these minutes’ and ensure that councillors are ‘held to account’ and ‘not discussing ourselves’ in these meetings and ‘not having a go at each other’. All that’s happening is ‘we’re discussing the issues and doing what local government’ should be doing. Finished by saying that some of the things she isn’t proud of but others she is and urged people to read the minutes.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (NOTE: Lipshutz and Magee were absent)

 

July 23, 2013

Are They Worth $300,000+ Per Annum?

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

Residents have every right to question why we are paying over $300,000 per annum for a bunch of councillors who continually fail to fulfil their legal and representative roles. Glen Eira councillors, as evidenced at tonight’s meeting are entirely superfluous to the running of council.

Tonight was an absolute talk fest. Phrases such as ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ were repeated ad nauseum – perhaps in the false belief that repeating such terms has some correlation to the lack of transparency and accountability that is the hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this council.

We will report in detail in the days ahead. However, the lowlights are:

  • Not one single word about delegations and how councillors are literally unnecessary appendages in the entire process when all control and power is delegated to officers. Not one word about councillor ‘call-in’ and not one word about how nebulous and vague the criteria which govern decision making for the Delegated Planning Committee is.
  • Public questions and the non-answers were again allowed to go through to the keeper with no councillor making any comment on any of the responses
  • No questioning of the community consultation terms of reference, except for Pilling’s aside that it appears to be different to other committees’ terms of reference. Lobo waxed lyrical regarding the selection of the community reps, implying that he was opposed to re-advertising, and then voted to accept.
  • An admission that the Open Space Review has not yet landed in the arms of councillors, but officers somehow manage to include some points from the review in the report on the ABC potential land sale.
 

July 21, 2013

What’s Safety Worth?

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

Most readers will have seen the Leader’s articles on council’s steadfast refusal to implement CCTV cameras in Bentleigh and how this has been contrasted to the actions of Kingston. (see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/glen-eira-council-wont-take-cash-for-cameras-despite-residents-support/story-fni0fit3-1226680390247

AND

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/glen-eira-council-says-position-unchanged-on-bentleigh-cctv-cameras-for-two-years/story-fngnvmhm-1226681231971

Several things need to be pointed out:

  • As with the alcohol free zone in Bentleigh, this is another instance of repeated buck passing.
  • The looking of a gift horse in the mouth is unconscionable where public safety is concerned. This council repeatedly complains that it receives less in government grants than other councils. Yet, when $155,000 is handed to them on a platter, the money is refused.
  • The issue of CCTV cameras has now been dragging on for years.

There’s a wonderful irony that next Tuesday the Municipal Health & Well Being plan is up for ratification. Here are some quotes from this very policy which should be read in conjunction with this refusal to enact what countless other councils and government regard as ‘safety initiatives’

 “Community safety

During consultations it was identified that feeling safe to go out at night would lead to more opportunities for physical activity and social activities which were both key priority areas for health.”

We are fortunate that Glen Eira residents enjoy a health status above the state average. However risk factors for our community are expected to increase with population ageing. The provision of information, services and programs and the continued provision of a safe environment enables residents to make healthy lifestyle decisions ensuring a healthy future for Glen Eira.

Council will focus activity on improving social, physical and economic environments”.

Then there are the following 2 quotes:

“A safe environment where people can live work or play has a direct impact on the community’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing (Better Health Channel, 2013).

Promoting safety and safe practices within the community can contribute to increasing the confidence of residents about safety (Victoria Police, 2013).”

And how will Council ensure that these ‘vision statements’ are fulfilled? With their usual nonsense objectives and indicators!

Objective: “Promote and implement a range of community safety information and programs during community safety month.

Measures: “Three community safety initiatives held during Community Safety Month.”

Finally, there is another issue of governance. On the 14th August 2012, the following resolution was passed –

Cr Magee/Forge

a. That Council notes the report;

b. That Council writes to the Chief Commissioner of Police requesting the

Police review their decision not to monitor CCTV in Bentleigh

c. That a report come back to Council at the next Ordinary Council Meeting

after the response is received.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED. 

To the best of our knowledge no such report has surfaced. We also find it difficult to believe that there has not been anything coming back to council, especially since the Records of Assembly report that Hyams spoke with the Minister.

We can even go back to the 18th March 2008 when graffiti and the call for CCTV cameras in Elsternwick hit the news. The final sentence in this news report read: “Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke said the council used CCTV cameras at problem hot spots, with the next area for focus to be the public toilets in Bentleigh.”

We do not know whether CCTV cameras are installed at the toilets. If they are, then clearly it is possible to do what is required in the interests of public safety. If they aren’t installed, then once again this council is full of promises, hot air, and no action!

 

July 19, 2013

Agenda: Delegations & Community Reps

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

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature several important items

DELEGATIONS

Once again councillors are largely sidelined when it comes to planning matters and the most important powers are ceded to officers. We reiterate what we’ve said in the past:

  • No councillor ‘call-in’ on applications – ie. countless other councils deem it essential that a councillor be given the right to insist that a planning application be decided by a full council rather than 3 bureaucrats as happens in Glen Eira under the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) structure
  • The criteria for determination remains vague and unquantified. For example: the Schedule to the DPC states that this committee may decide upon applications when “There has been significant objection/s in terms of substance or number received to an application, amendment or any other matter”. Precisely what ‘significant’ entails is of course not stated. Are we talking 5 objections, 10 objections, 50 objections? We note again that numerous other councils specify the number of objections that will automatically see the application go to a full council meeting.
  • There are other nebulous phrases contained in this schedule for the DPC: ‘significant departure from policy”. Again, what does significant mean in this context, and who is to decide? Certainly not councillors!
  • We refer readers to a previous post where the significance of such delegations is outlined in greater depth: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/delegations-the-glen-eira-way/
  • We also note that Newton’s spending power has now reached $750,000. This amount does not require a council resolution!

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

The farce of ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira continues with the minutes for this meeting. The positions for community reps will be readvertised since according to the spin – “The committee discussed the lack of diversity of applicants in relation to young people and families and thought that it was important to seek applicants from a broader range of community members.” Strange that we happen to know of at least 2 applications from well versed residents who just happen to also be ‘family’ members with young children. Their ‘rejection’ has more to do with whom council doesn’t want representing the community voice than with whom they do want. Intelligent, articulate, and pro-community people we suspect would be anathema to the powers that be!

There’s also a paragraph on the review of the overall consultation strategy itself. We find the following particularly relevant: “In section on engagement tools and techniques include: disadvantage to meetings and forums as ‘can be dominated by interest groups, and disadvantage of social media as ‘individuals may submit multiple times’. Does this augur the demise of ‘multiple methods’ of community consultation?

Finally, the proposed terms of reference for the committee when it is eventually reconstituted with community reps includes the rider that VOTING POWER will only be granted to councillors! Reps will be selected on ‘agreed criteria’. Of course, these criteria remain top secret!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

See the following as items of real interest:

“Cr Lipshutz – a development in Inkerman Road that has a Condition requiring that a laneway be properly made that will cost the developer. Asked that this Condition be reviewed.”

“Cr Delahunty – advised that she had met with the Chairperson of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust who had updated her on thek Trust’s current deliberations. Said that she understood that there is nothing preventing the Councillor Trustee members keeping the full Cpouncillor group updated on the Trust’s deliberations.”

Readers should also peruse the report on the ABC studios site and its potential sale for residential development.

PS: A very quick search has revealed some further fascinating comparisons between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours regarding the delegation to the CEO. Unlike Glen Eira, these other councils have imposed certain limitations on the powers of their CEOs. Glen Eira appears to set no limits!

Stonnington – without the concurrence of the Mayor communicated to the delegate at a meeting or conference convened by him or the Mayor for the purpose of informal discussion (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/about-council/council-delegations/)

Bayside – If the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action, act or thing which involves:

4.1 awarding a contract exceeding the value of $300,000 for an annual capital works contract;

4.2 awarding a contract exceeding $100,000 per annum for the supply of goods and services for a period exceeding 5 years;

4.3 approving a contract variation that exceeds 20% of the original contract sum, where the original contract sum is $250,001 or greater;

(http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/10.15_Instrument_of_Delegation_to_CEO_-_2013.pdf)

 

Boroondara – A new power to acquire or dispose of other interests in land to the value of $500,000 or less (excluding GST) is inserted.

Under the existing delegation, the Chief Executive Officer also has the power to vary contracts which were approved by Council. The power is conditional upon expenditure limits, being: [if] the value of the contract is greater than $500,000, the aggregate value of the contract (taking into account the value of expenditure for the further term and the value of the variation) may not increase by more than or 10% or $100,000 whichever is lesser.

(http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Meetings%20and%20Agendas/Council/20130527/Report7%20Instruments%20of%20Delegation.pdf)

Monash – Increase the maximum value of contracts that can be awarded by the Chief Executive Officer, to $250,000.

(http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp28may13/6.1.pdf)

 

 

July 17, 2013

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting……

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

concern

letters

 

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

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

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

  1. A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
  2. The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
  3. The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
  4. The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
  5. The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28th May and submissions closed on the 6th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

  • How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
  • Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
  • Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
  • How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
  • To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
  • What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »