GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 21, 2012

Double-Speak Perfected!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off

We’ve featured the Minister for Planning’s response(s) on the question he was asked in parliament last week concerning the publication of submissions on the Zoning Reforms. His answer was that it is all in the hands of the Advisory Committee who must first perform a ‘peer review’ of the submissions. As the opposition member pointed out, the real reason is probably that the vast majority of the submissions were totally negative!

Just to clarify the issue further we quote from the Minister’s terms of reference for this Advisory Committee – “Any documents provided to the Committee must be available for public inspection until submission of its report, unless the Committee specifically directs that the material is to remain confidential”. More buck passing it appears, since the Minister in his response does not seem to understand the terms that he or his department set down. He stated: “It would not be appropriate that they would be peer reviewing a public document, because obviously there would be influence on them to do that. The documents will be made public when the process is concluded. That is the appropriate way to do business, and that is how it will be done.”

We got pretty tired of waiting, so doing a simple Google search, revealed the following submissions. No real surprises in that the Building and Planning industries are all gung-ho about the proposed changes. Readers may access the documents simply by clicking on the desired ones.

Master Builders Association

Housing Industry Association

Victorian Farmers’ Federation

Planning Institute of Australia, Victorian Division

Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA)

November 16, 2012

Shame! Shame! Shame!

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

This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.

Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.

Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity, jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”

However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”

Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.

In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.

In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
 Community needs
 Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
 Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
 Government policy on open space contributions
 Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
 Access for all abilities
 Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
 Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
 Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
 and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.

Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
 providing opportunities for participants,
 conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
 exhibiting good governance
 respecting public facilities
 and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.

In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.

Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”

November 15, 2012

Hot Air Galore!

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

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz

PILLING: strategy for new policy is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’

MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.

PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.

MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.

SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.

MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.

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

GESAC COURT USAGE

PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.

LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.

DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.

HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.

PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

November 12, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More Spin?

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

Item 9.7 of the current agenda features a four page report on the GESAC basketball allocations. Two things need to be highlighted:

The 90 hour court allocation agreement given to the Warriors has NOT BEEN FULFILLED despite what Burke would like us to believe
We have serious doubts as to whether the courts (and GESAC) are really paying for themselves

First, a little history to place things in context. The Warriors were finally awarded the EOI after much dilly-dallying in December 2011 and on Burke’s decision. GESAC did not open until May 2012. That gave the Warriors at least 5 months to get their act into full operation via a concerted recruitment drive – which they did according to their website and Facebook pages of this period. But, even as early as June 2011 the Warriors were trumpeting their success in gaining GESAC and their website featured the call for recruits even back then. That is over a year ago! Recruitment is still ongoing.

There are many statements within the Burke report that we take issue with. We will go through these sequentially.

We’re supposed to believe this statement: “GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.” GESAC did not open at short notice. The progress was continually monitored according to media releases and Pool Steering Committee reports. More importantly, the courts themselves were part of a separate contract, contingent on additional government funding. Furthermore, the courts were completed by December 2011, yet allowed to stand idle for 5 months waiting for the entire complex to open. No satisfactory reason has been provided as to why the courts were not opened earlier since they boast entirely separate access and their own facilities. The basketball season also started in December, so it would have made perfectly good sense to open the facility at this time. We suspect that the reason this did not happen was simply because the Oakleigh Warriors did not at that time have sufficient teams even though they had been recruiting for over half a year as we’ve stated above.
Burke also asserts: “GESAC opened mid-season.” – ie in May. Hardly MID SEASON! The basketball winter season was 4 weeks old. Most Associations and the poor old Warriors were unable to get their full competition off and running EVEN though one of the stated reasons they won the EOI was because of their superior marketing of the game! In fact, in the months leading up to the opening they were marketing a competition that would be held in other stadiums until GESAC was completed….that competition never happened!
Another statement – “The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened”. Well, we are now in November and GESAC has been open for 6 months YET THE WARRIORS HAVE STILL NOT FULFILLED THEIR HOURLY ALLOCATION! Burke tries desperately to befuddle the picture with his irrelevant and bogus figures. We remind readers that the Warriors hired 90 hours of court time in the Friday to Sunday timeslot. They were awarded the EOI on the promise of paying over $4,000+ per week for these 90 hours. Now we’re told that the court time utilised by the Warriors in this timeslot only tallies 79 hours. That’s 11 hours less than the contract stipulated and just under $500 per week that GESAC and ratepayers are possibly losing out on. Please note that these figures are also the latest figures. What was going on in June, July, and August for example? How many court hours were standing idle during this time and how much revenue was lost? In fact, the question needs to be asked – Have the Warriors handed over, for the duration of these 6 months, $4,050 each week? This would now total close to $100,000. Has council received this payment from the Warriors or have they been given special dispensation with ratepayers subsidising their court time? That is the crucial question!
Nothing in Burke’s report allays our fears in regard to the above. Citing casual bookings is irrelevant. The McKinnon Basketball Association lost out on the contract allegedly because they couldn’t match the promised payment of the Warriors. Now we find that the Warriors are not fulfilling the terms that were promised. We have to again ask: how well did Burke do his homework? What analysis, if any, was made of the Warriors’ capacity to pay the agreed to price, when recruiting had, and still is, ongoing?
We have to also question whether GESAC will ever be used for Women’s BigV competitions since GESAC lacks separate change rooms and a function area for after match. So much for proper holistic planning!

There are countless questions that have never been answered by this council in relation to the finances, the staffing, and the additional costs accrued in delivering GESAC. Residents have been like mushrooms – kept in the dark. Perhaps at the very least we can get a little more honesty simply by refraining from calling this a $41.2 million dollar project and instead admitting that with interest payments, staffing, legal bills, outfittings, costs of traffic lights and extra parking, etc. etc. the project will come in at close to $60+ million – if not even more. Enough spin we say. How about full disclosure on all expenses (itemised) and actual income. It is high time that facts replaced spin and residents knew exactly how their money was being used.

The fiasco and discontent that the basketball allocations have caused is unforgiveable. As we see it, the root cause goes back once again to the abdication of councillor responsibility and leaving everything in the hands of officers. Our previous comments need to be repeated:

Councillors must ensure that they have a leading role in sporting allocations. This is achieved by careful analysis of the relevant delegations to officers.
Sporting allocation policy (if one in fact exists) must be made public as must the criteria for decisions. The community plan states that council policies will be available on the website. They aren’t! Transparency is the victim once more.
If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then why, oh why, has council been so reticent to provide the full information that we have referred to above?

November 4, 2012

Monty Python, Basil Fawlty, & Catch 22 All In One!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment

The amended Local Government Act has now come into effect. In our humble view it is a mess, a piece of legislation that the Monty Python’s of this world would have a fine time in lampooning. We will highlight only one aspect of the new legislation.

In their infinite wisdom legislators have decided that a Probity Auditor is necessary to investigate THE PROCESSES involved in any complaints of bullying, sexual harassment against a CEO. Please note – the probity auditor will not investigate the actual complaint, just how it was handled. But it gets even worse! At the 11^th hour legislators decided to introduce an amendment which gave the CEO the power to declare complaints as “vexatious and frivolous”. So what we have is the ludicrous situation where the person complained about can decide whether the complaint is bona fide or merely vexatious.

Given that some Labor members then raised the perfectly logical argument that this in effect would constitute a conflict of interest, Minister Guy and later Minister Powell argued that this could be overcome by the CEO delegating this function to one of his/her underlings!!! This should work a treat in Glen Eira no doubt.

For those who would appreciate a good laugh (or cry) we’ve uploaded the sections from HANSARD which deal with this issue. We have to seriously question where plain old common sense has disappeared and why bureaucrats are increasingly becoming a protected species thanks to both Liberal and Labor governments.

October 24, 2012

More Bureaucratic Howlers!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

“Reasonable laws, reasonably enforced” is by now the regular rejoinder to any public questioning of this Council’s over zealous officers. Of course this slogan is nothing more than a cop out as we’ve already seen for the past 9 years with Local Law 326. However, events of this week surpass even the lunacy of Lipshutz and the park watchdogs.

Rodney Andonopoulos, a candidate in Tucker Ward, was with his children and handing out his election flyers on the hallowed turf of GESAC one morning. Lo and behold, he was told to move on by an officious officer with the excuse that he could not hand out flyers on CROWN LAND! Here is what he had to say from his Facebook page – “Thanks to the management team at Gesac- Glen Eira Sports And Acquatic Centre that told me I was not allowed to spruik on crown land. I moved on to avoid an argument in front of my children. I’ll be back.” We wish him well on his return to OUR LAND.

No wonder we need 1200 staff when their duties involve such nonsense! ‘Reasonable’ this lot certainly ain’t and as far as the ‘law’ goes – well it seems this is made up as we go along. Readers should note that there is nothing in both the Electoral Act 2002 and the Local Government Act which states that what Mr Andonopoulos was doing is a breach of any law!

October 23, 2012

Headlines: For All The Wrong Reasons!

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

Why bother, asks former Glen Eira mayor

Date October 23, 2012

Melissa Fyfe

HELEN Whiteside considers herself a normal sort of person. She’s political, no doubt – a paid-up Liberal Party member. But her time as Glen Eira mayor left her so disillusioned she wonders why an average community member would bother running for council.

With council elections winding up this week, Mrs Whiteside is calling on residents to scrutinise candidates carefully. As for the troubled Glen Eira councillors – some of whom were sacked in 2005 and are standing for re-election – they all deserve to be thrown out, she says.

Glen Eira – which covers suburbs such as Caulfield, Bentleigh and Elsternwick – consistently outperforms other councils on community satisfaction.

But in the past four years the council has faced the Ombudsman’s scrutiny over 10 separate issues, one Ombudsman’s report revealing Councillor Frank Penhalluriack’s alleged bullying behaviour and failure to declare conflicts of interest, and a critical assessment from the local government watchdog, the third since 1998.

Mrs Whiteside, a popular mayor, resigned in 2010. The council suppressed her letter of resignation. She told The Age she resigned because she felt some councillors were not declaring conflicts of interest and were set against chief executive Andrew Newton, wasting at least $30,000 on extra legal advice during the renegotiation of his contract.

Now that every sitting councillor except one is standing for re-election, the former mayor says residents should think carefully. ”Integrity is fundamental to being a councillor,” she says. ”Transparency, accountability and being objective. I believe councillors should make decisions for the long-term best interests of the entire community.

And her former colleagues? ”I don’t think they should be re-elected,” she says.

Mrs Whiteside said she was particularly disturbed about the 2010 decision to relinquish public open space to the Chabad House synagogue extension at 441-496 Inkerman Street, St Kilda East. She alleged Cr Michael Lipshutz had a conflict of interest because of an association with the synagogue’s benefactor, Jewish community leader Joseph Gutnick.

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside’s revival of this matter was ”anti-Semitism of the worst kind. She is saying that because I am Jewish I am not fair-minded … I have no association with (Mr Gutnick) whatsoever,” he said. (Greens Cr Neil Pilling also voted to hand over the park.)

Mr Lipshutz said Mrs Whiteside was a ”failed councillor and a hopeless mayor who divided the council”.

Since the last election in 2008, councillors have had several brushes with the state’s integrity agencies and the court system. This year chief executive Mr Newton filed a bullying claim against Cr Penhalluriack. The hardware store owner refused anti-bullying training and is fighting councillor misconduct allegations at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

In a 2010 investigation, Chief Municipal Inspector David Wolf found insufficient evidence to prosecute any councillor, but uncovered councillor behaviour ”at odds” with the council’s objectives and ”underlying issues with regard to transparency and accountability”.

When drafting the chief executive’s contract in 2010, councillors inserted a clause requesting he notify them of any inquiries from the state’s integrity agencies. Mr Wolf found the illegal clause existed in an early draft, but no one owned up to putting it there. ”Despite all the talks and presentations the councillors get on governance, it is still not getting through,” a council source told The Age.

The Glen Eira city council elections are this Saturday.

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

First frisbees, now fitness

23 Oct 12 @ 12:01am by Donna Carton

KILLJOY bureaucrats who pulled the plug on a weekly frisbee game have now told a teen fitness group they can’t play tag in the local park.

Not-for-profit group Humans Vs Zombies was told their tag games were “unsuitable” for Virginia Park Bentleigh.

They had requested permission to take about 30 kids there for a game in which “humans” chase “zombies” with foam dart blasters. o

Humans Vs Zombies Victoria secretary Anthony Osborne said the group’s objective was to get young people “outside, exercising and interacting socially, rather than home behind a computer.”

“We are looking to partner with councils’ youth services and park management as well as grant and funding bodies,” Mr Osborne said.

“We are also looking for parks.”

Some councils have been positive but Glen Eira and Manningham have refused.

Glen Eira council is still reeling from the negative publicity it received after a group of young frisbee players said they were told they needed a permit to play in Caulfield Park.

Councillors have now vowed to review the local law concerning park permits and clarify the definition of “organised sport.”

Council public relations chief Paul Burke told the Leader the council hadn’t recieved Humans vs Zombies’ request – nor any applications “from Clingons, Romulans, Daleks or Goths.”

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

Council is where the sun should shine

2012PRINT EDITION: 23 Oct 2012

Mathew Dunckley

I love a good local council story.

There is something about the grand council chamber which suspends usual standards and leads to pitched battles over potholes.

The gravity of municipal level matters has a certain charm. A personal favourite was the Melbourne municipality that banned cricket teams from hitting sixes. Another Melbourne council threatened to use DNA tracing on dog poo on the beach to find offenders. The publicity seems to have been a deterrent. But the whiff of small-time CSI speaks volumes about local concerns.

Then there are the numerous dust-ups and petty personal political intrigues that have always filled local papers. Perhaps this is why people regard councils as sometimes annoying, sometimes amusing, and, often, irrelevant.

They shouldn’t be regarded this way. In the post-Kennett amalgamation era, Victorian councils are serious entities managing large amounts of public money. In total the 79 councils manage $55 billion worth of assets and spend close to $5 billion a year. They are worthy of scrutiny.

Right now, Victoria is enjoying its four-yearly council campaign carnival, complete with the sight of John Elliott running in the Melbourne lord mayoralty race.

All up more than 2000 hopefuls have put their hats in the ring to contest seats on Victorian councils.

Reporting on councils often falls to local papers.

As a young (or should that be younger) journalist at Leader Newspapers, I had the pleasure of covering Glen Eira Council in Melbourne’s south-east.

Every suburban journalist covers council, but not everyone gets Glen Eira. Councillors were at each others throats (sometimes literally), the chief executive was at war with the councillors, and there was a myriad more misdeeds and mischief.

The council was managing an annual budget of about $100 million a year, but after months of chaos, it was investigated and sacked.

Chalk one up to the local paper, eh? But it was not that simple. As part of the investigation I was required to front municipal inspectors, swear an oath and answer questions. The penalties for refusing to appear, to swear the oath or to answer the questions were thousands of dollars in fines or prison. There is nothing small-time about those powers. The inspectors wanted me to identify sources. I refused, citing my code of ethics. After some scoffing remarks about journalistic ethics, the inspectors made it clear they did not accept my reasons and recommended to the minister that further action be considered against me.

I happened upon that minister at a Christmas party later that year. I offered to do dishes or mow lawns to stay out of the clink. She indicated she did not think putting journalists in prison was a good idea. Lucky me.

Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu’s so-called shield laws should have fixed this problem.

Such laws, taking shape around the country, give journalists a legal right to refuse to divulge their sources. But Baillieu’s pledge went only as far as court cases and he has refused to go any further.

That means Victoria has carved out protection for journalists when dealing with a number of public institutions including council inspectors. Victoria argues it is following other states’ example, but I can’t understand why you would craft shield laws and consciously leave out local government.

Councillors and council workers who leak to journalists almost always commit a breach of the Local Government Act. They risk career-ending prosecutions, fines and even jail for talking to journalists. They warrant protection. Yet, somehow, the right of journalists to protect sources when covering local government is ranked as less important than those covering other levels of government, or crime.

Local government decisions directly affect everyday lives. And as every corruption commission in the country (Victoria’s is not yet established) will tell you, councils are fertile ground for misdeeds.

Inhibiting the ability of local press to cover councils is poor policy.

Baillieu’s attempt to improve the system looks almost as worthy of ridicule as the genetic profiling of dog turds, and equally unable to be polished.

Source: http://afr.com/p/opinion/council_is_where_the_sun_should_vtYMZ9f1triCf9riXuj6KL

October 16, 2012

Censorship, Mistruths, and Spin: The Hallmarks of Glen Eira Council

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

Magee was taken ill just before the start of the council meeting and hence was an ‘apology’. We wish him a speedy recovery.

LIPSHUTZ – moved that the minutes of the Local Laws committee be deferred until next council meeting. Pilling seconded. Reason was the the minutes in the agenda weren’t ‘as full as they should be’ and that they didn’t reflect what occured, so more ‘fulsome’ minutes are required. Did say that the committee has been looking at Local Law 326 (organised sport). Said that there had been plenty of press coverage on the frisbee story and that they’d been told that kids had ‘been fined’. That then became a ‘story not that they were fined but that they would have to get an allocation’. Said he asked officers what happened and they told him that a complaint had been made that about ’30 or 40′ people were playing with ‘football boots’ across cricket pitches. A ranger investigated and found that this wasn’t true – there wasn’t any football boots and nothing about cricket pitches. In the end ‘Yoav Silverstein contacted Council’ to ask about an allocation. ‘He was told that a one off allocation cost $120 or a 6 month allocation cost $300’. Said that this is the same for eveyrone if they wanted a barbecue. Said that the ‘whole purpose’ of allocations was to provide ‘certainty’ and paying ‘means they have priority’ but it ‘doesn’t mean’ that if kids want to play frisbee they need an allocation. Claimed that there had been a ‘total blowup by the press’. Said that the ‘truth is that no-one was warned off…..welcome to play….no fine….. Went on to say that the law should be reviewed and the reason it hasn’t been dealt with as yet is because ‘our corporate counsel has been involved idn other matters’ such as the VCAT ‘which has kept her quite busy’. In the next council the ‘whole local law will be reviewed’ which is ‘far better’ than doing it piecemeal and so ‘do the whole local law as one’. assured everyone that no permit is required if they want to play ‘catchy’, football. ‘but if you are an organised sport’ then you do need a permit. Went on to say that council has ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’ and in this instance the law has been ‘enforced reasonably’ and ‘no-one has been fined’.

PENHALLURIACK – said he was pleased that no one was fined. Said that this issue with the local law 326 had been going on for quite a whiile. Said that Mr Varvodic was fined and then the fine withdrawn and they organised a permit. The definition of ‘organised’ has been something that he’s tried to get the Local Law Committee to look at for a long time and clarify because ‘it’s fine for Cr Lipshutz to say reasonable laws reasonably enforced but sometimes the law is not reasonable’ . Said a law is only ‘reasonable’ when it can be understood by the public. this law can’t be easily interpreted. Said he doesn’t know what ‘organised’ means any more than Lipshutz does. Said he was pleased that the ‘ex-chairman (Lipshutz)’ of the Local Laws Committee was ‘now going to be working on it’ because ‘it is long overdue’.

HYAMS – when the Local Laws Committee gets together in the new council he hoped that ‘they would get around to looking at the Alcohol free area’ in Bentleigh as ‘has been agreed they should’.

TANG: said that the meeting discussed the Tree register and there was discussion about how the laws could be enforced and there were ‘sub-issues’ that should be ‘captured in any subsequent minutes’. Admitted that the issue of organised sport has been around from even before he was on council – schleppers football team – but they were more ‘frequent’. Didn’t think this was about one individual but how to interpret what ‘organised sport’ means. Problems not about the law but ‘how you interpret it’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it was a ‘definitional problem’ and that the Local Laws Committee ‘would deal with that’. Said that he didn’t believe it was ‘coincidence’ that the issue has come up ‘two weeks’ before the election in order to ’embarrass council’ and that the reports in the media are ‘totally wrong’ and that journalists should have made ‘proper enquiry’ when the ‘allegation is simply not true’.

Public questions

At least 15 questions that we know of were declared invalid on the excuse of the electoral act and hence were not read out, much less answered. This is reprehensible since none of the questions had anything to do with ‘electoral matters’ – in short, it was another instance of avoiding accountability and responding to residents’ concerns. Even those questions which were responded to, failed to answer the question asked, or basically indulged in semantics and dissembling.

Question 1: asked if Council’s submission on the Planned Zoning Reforms would be made public. The answer stated that the ‘submission’ was already available on council’s website. Untrue and incorrect. What is available on council’s website is not the actual submission, but the Akehurst ‘report’ which was tabled at council on the 4^th September 2012! The public has not seen what went in to the department! So much for transparency and answering public questions honestly!

Question 3 – asked for the results of the ‘monitoring’ of Frisbee games in Caulfield Park. The response said that there’s a “regular gathering’ in Caulfield Park by people playing ‘what appears to be’ Frisbee!

Question 4 – asked about the traffic management plans for major events at Caulfield Racecourse saying that for the past 3 events this had been substandard – either they notices went out too late, or they were incorrect. Wanted to know what Council had done about this. The response went into the need for traffic management plans to be provided and that in September Council had received from the MRC the plan for the spring racing carnival. It said that residents would be notified ‘at least 2 weeks’ prior to the events. The MRC provided notice after the 2 week deadline so that they ‘didn’t meet’ the requirements and ‘council will be drawing this to the attention of the MRC’. Big deal we say! The second part of the question remains unanswered, and as with the Camping and Caravan show, council has done nothing but a little tap on the wrist!

At this point Penhalluriack rose and said that he notified Hyams about the situation on Saturday morning – and wanted to ask Burke if any officer had gone out to ‘look at the barriers’. Also said that ‘this seems to be a consistent complaint’ from residents living in the area.

Hyams then said that this wasn’t the time to ask officers questions because that should have been done at Item 11.3 of the agenda!

Penhalluriack then said that he hadn’t ‘had the time to formalise my own response’ to the public question and that he was commenting on the answer that had been given. Since he told Hyams about this on Saturday morning he’d ‘like to think that council went out and did something about it’ because the barriers ‘were in the wrong place’ and the ‘wrong times’

Question 5 – asked about the now out of date Road Safety Strategy and why even the old one isn’t on the website and when the latest one will be prepared. The response was that the 2007-2012 strategy ‘was at an end’ and that a new one was ‘being developed’ and that when the new one is adopted it will be up on the website. Terrific! We didn’t know that ‘strategies’ disappear into the ether!

Question 6 asked about ‘advocacy’ for rail separation and whether council would table the documents related to its ‘advocacy’. The response was merely a listing of ‘submissions’ to various departments, and meetings attended by officers and councillors. Residents are obviously not going to get a look at these ‘submissions’, nor reports back from most of these meetings!

BURKE THEN STATED THAT ‘A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ‘HAVE BEEN RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE CHAIR AS THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL’S CARETAKER POLICY’ REGARDING ‘ELECTORAL MATTERS’!!!!! CENSORSHIP REIGNS SUPREME ONCE AGAIN!

PS: we’ve just broken another record – 1,335 hits for the day!

October 16, 2012

A National Laughing Stock!

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

Sporting groups support Caulfield park frisbee teens

16 Oct 12 @ 05:00am by Jessica Bennett

Glen Eira Council told teens they could no longer play Frisbee in Caulfield Park without a permit.

SPORTING groups have pledged support for a group of frisbee-loving teens forced to halt their weekly game in Caulfield Park unless they pay the council $120 for a permit.

They gathered casually most Fridays to play frisbee in the park, until a council officer told them to stop until they had a permit for their “organised” sport.

Simon Talbot, president of Ultimate Victoria – the state’s ultimate frisbee-governing body – said it had unsuccessfully tried in the past to set up a formal arrangement with the council for frisbee players at Caulfield Park.

“We heard about this group (being kicked off) and are more than happy to help them deal with the council,” Mr Talbot said.

Heads of State Frisbee League president Matthew Hill offered the group a free place in their men’s league at Alma Park.

Tal Silverstein, the mother of one of the players, said they communicated who would play via Facebook, but that was the only organisation. “They don’t all go every week, they have no coach, no uniform and no league – how is that organised?”

Glen Eira Council did not return Leader’s requests for comment.

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

Letters to the Editor: Land is for public use

Crown land is public land, to be provided for the enjoyment and benefit of Victorians.

There are several types of management arrangements for Crown land, including trusts, local government control, Parks Victoria and so on.

But with each management type, it must be maintained for a range of community uses. Is this the case with the current board of trustees at the Caulfield Racecourse?

What is the harm in opening their meetings to the public? Surely, this is in the spirit of the trust’s responsibilities?

Kate Dempsey, Independent candidate, Camden Ward, Glen Eira

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

Caulfield project monstrous

Regarding “Caulfield Racecourse Reserve chairman told to resign” (Leader, October 8), I hope they also ask whoever voted for the Caufield Racecourse development.

This highly controversial 20-storey monster will change the face of once-wonderful Caulfield forever.

Congestion and pollution will be the new norm. I certainly won’t be voting for the councillors who imposed this on an angry community.

Christian Stewart

PS: LATE NEWS ITEM

Footy group demands answers on use of Glen Eira parks

16 Oct 12 @ 01:21pm by Donna Carton

GLEN Eira councillors will be grilled tonight on the issue of unathorised games in local parks.

Following last week’s furore, when teenage frisbee players were told to stop their weekly game unless they paid $120 for a permit, a local soccer-playing group said the issue needed to be clarified.

The Caulfield Park Social Soccer Club says it has been paying for a permit for years, despite being just a weekly group of players and not an official organisation.

Spokesman Nick Varvodic said he would ask 15 questions of councillors at tonight’s meeting.

“Does our informal, once a week, gathering of friends to play a casual sports game in Caulfield Park require a permit?” he has written to Cr Michael Lipshutz.

“We are still confused after six years. So, for clarification and no ambiguity on either side could you please answer with a simple, Yes or No?”

Mr Varvodic said some councillors responded to the news of the frisbee ban with suggestions the local law concerning unathorised games be overhauled.

He said he hoped his “informal group” would be treated the same as the frisbee group in any law change.

Last week East Bentleigh mum Tal Silverstein revealed her 18-year-old son and his friends played frisbee in Caulfield Park most Friday afternoons until “someone from Glen Eira Council made them stop the game.”

“They said it was an organised sport and that they couldn’t play without a permit,” she said.

The council is now in caretaker period because of the October 27 election, and the council’s caretaker policy states: “Public questions at council meetings, which would normally be recorded in the minutes, should avoid ‘electoral matter’ and a question may be ruled out of order on that ground.”

Tonight’s Glen Eira council meeting is at 7.30pm at the Glen Eira Town Hall, Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield.

October 13, 2012

MRC & Council: Three Strikes & You’re Out!!!!!!

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

We’ve received the following information from an alert resident. It highlights what can only be regarded as either sheer incompetence on the part of either, or both, the MRC and Council, or the continued utter disregard for local residents. Traffic management plans to handle “major events” at the Racecourse are nothing short of a disgrace. Over to you Councillors! What ‘punishment’ will be meted out to the MRC? Did our wonderful Glen Eira Traffic Management Department actually clap eyes on any plan and did they in fact okay it? Are they now supervising and overseeing this traffic mayhem?

Here’s part of the email and other info:

The road closures around the Caulfield Racecourse associated with the last two “major” events held at the Racecourse (Spring Racing Carnival – October, 2011 and the Caravan and Camping Show – March, 2012) were severaly criticised because there was less than 24 hour notice given to residents.

Today, the start of the 2012 Spring Racing Carnival, residents should be even more angry at the inability of the MRC and Council to properly inform them of the road closures – this time the advice might have been sent out early enough, but it’s totally useless IF IT’S WRONG – WHICH IT WAS!

Here’s the notice

What’s important here is the following:

The Caravan and Camping show notice stated “The following streets will be closed to all traffic from Kambrook Road:

Eskdale Road, Newington Grove and Hudson Street at Kambrook Road; and
Entry for residents will be via Bambra Road Only”

The closures took place at around 12 noon.

The above Spring Racing Carnival notification states “Residents of Hudson St., Payne St., Eskdale Rd., Newington Gve. and Redan Rd. should avoid using Glen Eira Road to return to their homes after 2.30 p.m.”

No mention of blocking the road but blocking commenced at 8.30 a.m. ( what happened to 2.30 p.m?)

No mention of Wyuna Road to Redan Road exit being blocked.

Redan Road is not blocked.

What impact does Glen Eira Road have on accessing these streets – should it be Bambra Road?

After the Caravan and Camping Show notification, Council stated “The recent notification provided by Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to residents for the Caravan and Camping Show was disappointing and unacceptable and the MRC has been so advised.” This is the third consecutive time the MRC has stuffed it up – time for the three strikes you are out rule to be applied. It’s just not good enough that the information sent out to residents is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh and by the way, they need to change the configuration of the road blocks or have a Police presence at the Smith Street Roundabout – cars are mounting the nature strip and footpath to gain access to Bambra Road from Eskdale Road.

Here is the photographic ‘evidence’.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates