GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 17, 2013

The People’s Democratic Republic Of Glen Eira!

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

How committed local government is to democracy, transparency and full accountability is most easily measured via its Local Law Meeting Procedures. Forget all the spin, all the tens of thousands of dollars spent on fancy words, posters, logos, mottos, and plain old bulldust. How council meetings are run, what is allowed and disallowed provides the real picture of how open, honest and community minded a council is.

The chart provided above reveals the full story of the abuses currently perpetrated by this administration and its select band of self interested councillors. We have gone to great lengths to verify our data. EVERY SINGLE Local Law from EVERY SINGLE council in the State has been analysed. Of the 79 councils in Victoria GLEN EIRA IS THE ONLY COUNCIL THAT DOES NOT HAVE A NOTICE OF MOTION in its meeting procedures. Unbelievable, and unforgiveable!

Year after year the same old drivel is trotted out by Lipshutz and his masters – ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Well, we believe there is plenty that is ‘broke’ in Glen Eira and it all stems from the Local Law and associated policies. Here are some facts:

In Glen Eira, Newton has total control of the agenda. Again, no other council in the state has had the gall to include what is in our Local Law – “Other than for special meetings of Council called under section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, the notice papers and agenda for all meetings of the Council shall be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or his/her delegate”. That means that officially no councillor can get anything onto the agenda without Newton’s consent. A Notice of motion would allow issues to be put on the table and discussed/debated in an open council meeting. All that is required is a mover and a seconder. The motion may not result in the resolution being carried, but that’s democracy at work! The furphy that mechanisms currently exist via ‘urgent business’ provisions are sheer nonsense. For something to ‘qualify’ as ‘urgent business’ it has to occur after the publication of the agenda and before the subsequent council meeting – ie a few days! Then there’s also the pathetic option of a request for a report. Again, this may take months to surface and all it does is provide officers with the time and opportunity to skew the information in whatever way they wish. History shows that such reports are simply ‘noted’ on most occasions and/or recommendations fully accepted. Without a Notice of Motion councillors, in trying to represent their constituents are hamstrung, silenced, and basically knobbled.

When every other council in the state sees fit to include a Notice of Motion in its meeting procedures, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to afford its residents and councillors this fundamental right needs to be carefully examined. Who stands to lose out if a Notice of Motion is codified? Why doesn’t Glen Eira embrace this democratic principle? Who are the culprits that oppose such rights and why? It’s worth noting that when this issue came up in June 2011 the councillors who then voted against having a notice of motion were Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff. Forge had removed herself from chamber and Lobo was absent. The general gist of the arguments was that a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’ (Lipshutz), ‘irresponsible’ (Hyams), and that voting against it was ‘protecting future councils’ (Esakoff).

More on the travesties that currently exist in the Local Law in following posts!

January 15, 2013

Media Release

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

Bailey Reserve parking improvements

approximately 70 additional indented car spaces and a drop-off zone on the Bailey Reserve side of Gardeners Road, Bentleigh East to help alleviate the pressure on the very popular community facilities based Bailey Reserve. (sic, sic, sic)

These additional car parks will ease the pressure caused by the high demand for car parking in Bailey Reserve from residents using the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) and the extensive sports grounds.

GESAC now has more than 9,000 members and is on target to achieve more than one million visits in its first year of operation. This has made parking scarce for other users of the Reserve facilities and the volunteers who administer the clubs operating from Bailey Pavillion and the Softball Pavillion.

There are currently 355 car parks at Bailey Reserve so the new parking will increase capacity by more than 20 per cent which will assist in alleviating the pressures.

Final design of the new car parking area is underway and once this work is complete, Council will be able to resolve the final number of car parks able to be included on the site and the lead times before construction would be completed. It is expected that works will commence in early February.

Council considered a number of options for improving car parking for Reserve users. Council will be giving ongoing consideration to the possibility of introducing timed parking restrictions on the Bailey Reserve side of East Boundary Road and possible parking opportunities in the East Boundary Road median strip.

Source: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/Media_Releases/Bailey_Reserve_parking_improvements

COMMENTS

There are some extraordinary statements here. The bolded paragraph is nothing short of astonishing since it means that councillors voted for something that is not ‘final’; that could change overnight and of course will not come back to council for resolution.
Next there is the intimation that more car parking sites will “be included on the site’. Where did this come from? It was not part of any resolution.
Please note that what is missing from this Media Release is the $600,000 cost and whether the poor sods living on Gardener’s Rd were even informed, much less ‘consulted’ about this ‘development’.
Is it too much to ask that when this council publishes announcements on its website that such announcements are free of errors, typos, and in the end are intelligible – see paragraph one! After all, we imagine that the officer responsible for this website is well paid for his/her efforts unlike ourselves!

January 13, 2013

Tender Of The Year?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

CONTRACT NO. 0772-2013

Provision of Organisational Capacity and Capability Review

Council wants to undertake a high-level Organisational Capacity and Capability Review with a view to ensuring the organisation is operating towards optimum levels in meeting the service needs of the Community and its operations are sustainable in the medium to long term.
Tender documents may be downloaded (free of charge) following registration via the Tenders section of Councils web site (www.banyule.vic.gov.au).

January 11, 2013

Drains, Flooding & Spin Galore!

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

There’s one item from the last council meeting that we have not as yet commented upon – the Stormwater Harvesting/Flood Mitigation at Boyd Park. This item has a long and convoluted history, culminating in the unbelievable ‘debate’ that occurred in the chamber last December. Here’s some background:

The item first surfaced in December 2010 and its stated purpose was “For Council to consider a proposal to harvest stormwater for park and street tree irrigation from a Council drain in the Outer Circle Linear Park, Murrumbeena.”. A huge underground tank would supposedly hold 1.5 million litres of water. Flood mitigation was an ‘add on’ and certainly not the prime objective. The report noted that Council had been ‘offered’ a government grant of $529,000 but the entire project would cost approximately $1.1 million. Mention was made of ‘soil contamination’ but considered ‘unlikely’. The recommendation requested council’s approval of the expenditure to match the grant and that this would come from the allocated, budgeted funds for drainage. The project was required to be completed by June 2013.

Pilling and Lipshutz moved the motion for the project to go ahead, PLUS that there be an “on-site” session with residents to “explain” the project. Penhalluriack, Forge and Magee voted against. They argued that a huge water tank would not necessarily prevent flooding (ie. what happens once it’s full; where does the water go?) plus that councillors had not been provided with enough facts and figures to justify the expenditure. Even Lobo (although he voted for) argued that it was a “big waste of money” and that a “cost-benefit analysis” was required.
The final vote was 6 to 3 in favour of accepting.

A year later on December 13^th 2011, there was this request for a report –

Crs Penhalluriack/Forge

Please provide a report at the next Council Meeting on the Boyd Park underground water storage and holding tank which council passed on the 14th December last year, and for which council has budgeted some $600k and is expecting a Federal Government Grant of $529k. Councillors were under considerable pressure to approve this project at that Council Meeting since confirmation was required by the end of the December. Has the expected cost of the facility escalated, and what is the currently expected cost? When will the public consultation occur and when will the project commence?

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The ensuing report (February 2012) had only one paragraph of relevance – the remainder was a regurgitation of the December 2010 report. This solitary paragraph read: “The feasibility was the subject of the 14 December 2010 report. With funding available this financial year, officers plan to complete Stage (b) works by the end of June 2012. Council can then complete the balance of the work by June 2013 in-line with the funding agreement with the Government.”

We note that 14 months down the track there is:

No comment on potential soil contamination
Part (b) (ie concept planning & design) is still not complete
No facts, figures to ‘prove’ any of the claims made a year ago or now.

Then suddenly at the last council meeting (ie 10 months further on) the project rears its ugly head again! This time however, we find:

Major pollution which it is claimed will blow the budget completely
A new addition to the original objectives – “Help reduce the amount of gross pollutants and sediment entering Port Phillip Bay by trapping materials from the Council drain in Nangana Road”

A revisiting of Penhalluriack’s argument that the drought has broken. In the end the report argued: “it is difficult justify the full scope of works as originally envisaged. Instead, officers recommend that Council delete the stormwater harvesting component (it could be retrofitted later if necessary) and consider the following options….” The options were: improving storm water & flood mitigation by the building of a pollutant trap at the estimated cost of $290k to $350K or just flood mitigation. Cost – $190k – $230k!

Of course, Option B was carried with Sounness, Delahunty and Magee voting against.

COMMENTS

This entire project, now over 2 years in duration, has been a total balls up from what we can see! Not once has any statistic of real import been provided to the public or councillors. Not once has there been any explanation as to why the thorough soil testing was not done immediately. Not once has any attempt been made to quantify the extent to which flooding will be reduced. It’s all been on a wing and a prayer and compliant councillors for the most part accepting whatever is put before them!

The debate of December last year is extraodinary for its sheer spin and smoke and mirrors and telling over 200 families who live in the area that they aren’t worth spending any extra money on! Here’s the gist of what was said!

Lipshutz: council had funding but now with discovered contamination this changed things. The minimum that council can do is flood mitigation. Said that the other option of trapping debris would affect 200 houses but this won’t have any real effect throughout the whole municipality.

Esakoff talked about “changed circumstances” and the “relatively small benefit’ versus cost therefore she supported option B.

Sounness said he realised that there were issues and that the storm water authority had to ensure that run off was disposed of safely. Said that he didn’t think the cost to do it properly is that much and if you don’t address debris then more flooding happens. Need option A because it will last for a long time and improve the quality of storm water and reduce flooding and this will improve the park itself.

Delahunty said that there’s an obligation to the wider community and here’s the opportunity to remove ‘gross pollutants from the storm water drainage system. Said that the argument was nonsensical’ to say that because the trap doesn’t do enough we shouldn’t do anything. Said that they’ll soon be hearing about the fantastic financial report ‘so the financial argument doesn’t stack up either’. Hoped that in the years to come they do make decisions that serve the wider community.

Magee: he doesn’t like to spend money ‘recklessly’ but to argue that we won’t do it is not an argument. For $120,000 council has a responsibility to do something. It might only make a small difference but if every council did it then there would be vast improvement. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Okotel- Magee’s suggestion was good but we can’t ‘in all good conscience’ do option A, ‘one drain, in one council’ when a lot of the drains are the problem. Won’t have any benefit. Better to advocate on behalf of residents to state government to fix the problem.

Hyams – question of degree, everyone agrees that money not spent recklessly. Small area, small difference it would make. Have to spend money on ‘things that would benefit them all’. Hoped that Delahunty wasn’t suggesting that just because the financial performance was good that council can now be less vigilant in how it spends its money.

Lipshutz – people have to make a decision. This is going to be a ‘drop in the ocean’ and won’t make much difference. Large downpours cause flooding everywhere and money can be used better in other areas. ‘Let’s do it overall, let’s do it all rather than one”.

January 9, 2013

Zoning Reforms

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, Miscellaneous
1 Comment

Glen Eira Council has in the past distinguished itself through its less than staggering performance in the VEAC submission on open space. Now there is the formal submission to the Minister’s Planning Zone reforms. It is barely two and a half pages long.

We are not suggesting that length is commensurate with quality but, when one reads the following submissions, the detail and arguments provided certainly put Glen Eira’s effort to shame. Further, whilst the Glen Eira opus barely mentions third party rights, this is prominent in most of the other council submissions.

Port Phillip – 39 pages

Greater Geelong – 26 pages

Boroondara – 64 pages

Maribyrnong – 12

Brimbank – 18

Casey – 27

Manningham – 23

Frankston – 14

Melton – 49

Cardinia – 31

Bayside – 45

VLGA – 37

January 8, 2013

Open Space Versus Concrete Plinthing!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

The lack of open space in Glen Eira is continually bemoaned by residents, councillors, and when it suits, public servants. Yet, despite opportunities to purchase new land, whether this be to create new parks, or to extend existing parkland, the vast majority of monies collected via the open space levies have been used for ‘maintenance’ and ‘infrastructure’. How this money is spent, or what it is spent on, and whether this truly represents ‘value for money’ remains shrouded in mystery.

In 2009 the Auditor General (http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/091209_Development_Contributions_full_report.pdf) in his report on how councils spent development contributions (now gone from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme) and the Open Space levies, concluded:

“There is little assurance that the development contributions system is operating as intended across local government. A lack of effective oversight and transparent reporting remain, despite similar issues being identified in 2005. Greater accountability for what has been delivered is needed, as is a better understanding of the future obligations that arise from the contributions received.

Weaknesses in the controls and associated management practices of selected councils indicate there is insufficient assurance they have collected all contributions owed, that they have been used effectively, and that councils have met all their statutory obligations.

Each council had appropriately used development contributions to deliver infrastructure they had committed to. None, however, had a complete record that accurately linked all development contributions collected with those expended, and the associated infrastructure delivered against that planned. This meant that they were unable to demonstrate that all the funds contributed by developers had been used effectively, or that all in-kind works provided met requisite standards.

Oversight of development contributions in councils was limited. Reports to senior management and councillors focused mainly on the status of fund balances, and lacked sufficient detail to provide assurance that contributions were being effectively managed.

Similarly, public reporting by councils was insufficient to demonstrate to the community that contributions were being spent for the purposes intended, and that the associated infrastructure was being delivered as planned. While all councils identified aggregate development contributions revenue in their annual reports, it was not always possible to clearly distinguish this from gifted assets and, therefore, accurately compare councils”.

The crucial wording in the above is ‘used effectively’, ‘transparent reporting’ and ‘greater accountability’. As the Auditor General concludes, all that councillors and residents get to see is ‘fund balances’ in Annual Reports. Hardly a satisfactory explanation, nor justification for the paltry expenditure of just under $2 million in the last decade on the acquisition of open space, yet over $12 million on ‘infrastructure’ as revealed in the response to a public question at last council meeting.

January 6, 2013

Open Space

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

Council is about to embark on a revamped Open Space Strategy. That’s great but, we have to wonder whether this will simply be another exercise in spin judging by the actions that have failed to be implemented from the 1998 strategy. Below are some extracts from this 1998 version. Please consider how many of the following objectives/statements/promises have been translated into concrete actions and how many that were mooted 15 years ago are still to be realised!

Where open space contributions are required for multi-unit developments, Council impose the maximum monetary open space contribution about of 5% wherever possible.

A 50% split between acquisition and improvement is suggested.

Constantly review opportunities to expand open space, particularly where sites may become available adjacent to existing parks in the precinct and allow opportunities to increase the size of these parks.

Retain a Public Acquisition Overlay to no 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale to complete the concept plan for Gardenvale Park (shown in the City of Caulfield Local Parks Strategy, 1987) and purchase the property when it becomes available, subject to current budget priorities

Changing recreation trends and an aging population indicate that informal open space is an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system

There is community support to get involved in the planning development and management of open space

Encourage government authorities ie schools to make their open space available for community use (especially where there are identified open space deficiencies) and investigate opportunities to provide additional open space if school sites are redeveloped

There is a community perception that there is a lack of unstructured open space in Glen Eira and changing recreation trends and an ageing population indicate that informal open space will be an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system.

The general community ‘feeling ‘ is that there is adequate provision of active open space that that future strategies should focus on ensuring a balance between active and informal recreational pursuits

Some sports require additional expanded facilties but generally the provision of improved maintenance and/or upgrades to existing facilities would satisfy current and future sporting demands

Concern for traffic management within and around various parks to ensure safety for users of open space.

Investigate opportunities to expand existing open space in the Gardenvale neighbourhood of the West precinct

Increase outdoor events in Glen Eira’s open space system, ie jazz festivals, open-air movies, art/sculpture displays of local artists work, flora and fauna displays

Organise community events in Caulfield Park to coincide with and complement the Spring Racing Carnival

Capitalise on the amphitheatre in Caulfield Park for a wide range of outdoor community events

Through the statutory planning permit process support and encourage the provision of open style fencing for new residential development that directly abuts open space

Review the provision of buildings in open spaces, including the provision of scout halls and other affiliated groups, and determine their possible rationalisation/reduction as part of the process of preparing park Masterplans.

Encourage and generate ‘friends”/community groups and school children to be involved in the development and on-going maintenance of parks.

Ensure that existing informal open space is not encroached on, inhibited or placed with any further restrictions, unless some form of compensation is negotiated ie land swaps

Design playgrounds to include fences, paths, seats, shade trees/shelter to provide comfort for parents supervising children

Build on the educational programs run by Council’s Park Services unit and develop an education centre in Caulfield Park to complement the native bushland reserve and bird aviary where education programs can be run with interactive facilities provided for community members to learn about Glen Eira’s natural heritage

Work closely with the Glen Eira Environment Group and the Society for Growing Australian Plants and utilise their knowledge and expertise to continue to enhance and maintain environmental open space in the city.

Negotiate with the National Trust to allow some form o community access into the gardens of Rippon Lea ie residents could be issued with a ticket to allow them 10 free passes per year into Rippon Lea

80% of open space system functions as outdoor sports/local parks combined

Develop a Masterplan for Elsternwick Plaza keeping in mind this park potentially forms an important recreational element to the Elsternwick urban village concept. The Masterplan should open the park up to invite pedestrian activity and integrate with Glen Huntly road

Work with the Society for Growing Australian plants to develop the original route of the old Elster Creek trail into a native vegetation corridor/nature walk with interpretative signage and encourage private property owners along the route to plant appropriate native vegetation to increase havitat potential.

A dominant portion of open space in each precinct is restricted at certain periods by sports activities, with the North-East and South-East precincts having the larger proportions of their open spaces used for organised sports at certain periods.

The dominant landscape setting in all precincts is sporting which ranges between 55% in the South-West to 88% in the South East

January 3, 2013

Silence Is Golden!

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

Readers will remember the 12 storey, 173 dwelling application for Dandenong Rd. that went to council on November 13^th 2012. Lipshutz, Magee, Sounness and Pilling all thought that 12 storeys was fine but the rest of the councillors reduced this to 8 storeys and 90+ dwellings. The officer’s report had the following to say about traffic –

“The proposal is considered to activate the Dandenong Road Frontage

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channeling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.”

We’ve since come across a Youtube video created by a Monash student (see below). What is most striking about the video is the sound. Listen carefully and ask yourselves, is this really a ‘significant advantage for this development site’.

January 2, 2013

GESAC: What’s Really Going On?

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

GESAC and its costs remain a mystery. We would bet that it is even a mystery to councillors. There is the incredible spin of success after success – 7,000 members, then 8,000 members, now 9,000 members (all in the space of 3 months) and the forecast of 10,000 members by the end of the month. All remains talk as far as we’re concerned. Not once has this council published a full and comprehensive list of expenses versus income. Nothing about memberships has been put in writing, such as what do these 9000 alleged members currently consist of? Are they FULL memberships? Part memberships? How many people have NOT renewed memberships? How much money has had to be refunded? How much is staff costing? How much is maintenance costing per week or month or even year?

Nor has there been any update on legal costs and the liquidated damages bills with Hansen and Yuncken. The same repetitious blurb has appeared in the monthly financial reports for the past 3 months. Hardly an ‘update’ to inform residents as to what is going on!

Nor has there been any murmur about the basketball court allocations. Burke’s report shows that the Warriors aren’t fulfilling their terms of contract as to hourly court hire. How much have ratepayers therefore subsidised the under-usage of the courts by the warriors? How much longer will this continue? What is happening now that the contract is due for re-appraisal? What are the criteria? Will councillors have the guts to insist that sport allocations become open and transparent rather than left in the hands of public servants?

All we know about GESAC are the incredible claims and the spread of bitumen and concrete for more and more car parking. Our questions are therefore quite simple –

If GESAC is such a raging success, then why is this council continuing to splurge money on full paid colour ads in all the local papers?
Why is council now offering to waive registration fees for new members if numbers are going through the roof as they claim?
When will these councillors insist on a full and comprehensive ledger which shows every dollar of income and every single expense?

The spin must stop and be replaced with facts, figures, and open transparent governance. Here’s the latest extravagance:

December 29, 2012

Some Standout Quotes

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

The year is rapidly drawing to a close, so we thought it would be fascinating to review what ‘progress’ has been made in the past 18 months on some of the major issues which have confronted this council. These include: C60 and the centre of the racecourse; GESAC basketball allocations, Notice of Motion. There are many others that will feature in future posts.

December 2011 Pilling (from his blog) – “In the aftermath of this year’s Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.”

29^th April, 2011- Media Release Headline – “Council places limits on C60”

Pilling on centre of racecourse – Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…”

Hyams on centre of racecourse – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’.”

Esakoff on centre of racecourse – The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

May 2011 – Council response to submissions on local law – ““A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

Southwick, Hansard, May 3^rd 2011 – “This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement”.

June 2011 – Dropping the Development contributions levy – officer report – ““It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”

Friends of Caulfield Park submission – “We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

Lipshutz on Heritage expert advice on Seaview property – .‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’

Lipshutz on Notice of Motion – “‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’….I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that…..the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.”

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates