GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 28, 2012

Accounting & Magnificent Spin!

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

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: council is again ‘progressing well’ and that GESAC is doing a lot better than council ‘anticipated’. They’d originally been looking at a $300,000+ ‘surplus’ but this has now gone out to over a million dollar surplus. Claimed that GESAC is now covering ‘all its borrowing costs’ but not ‘operating costs’. There are over 8,500 members and that he ‘anticipates’ that it will be ‘covering operating costs completely’. Also noted a sentence on page 2 where there ‘was a transfer of $136,000’ from a maternal child & health centre to GESAC for ‘heating and ventilation’. Said that this ‘wasn’t so much a transfer of funds’ out of the health centre but that council were thinking of ‘redeveloping’ the centre staff room. ‘Council decided that when they looked at the plans….it wasn’t worth doing….and as such it didn’t occur’. The money was therefore ‘surplus’ and now used for GESAC. Because GESAC is ‘so heavily used’ and there are lots of people in the centre that ‘we needed to lower the temperature’. ‘We don’t ordinarily remove funds from’ one project to another. Noted that what the Auditor General had said was that unlike other councils, Glen Eira has a ‘business plan before we do anything’ and if ‘it doesn’t stand up, we don’t do it’. So when officers looked at the issue of the staff room it didn’t ‘stack up’…’and as such it didn’t happen’. Went on about ‘operating costs per assessment’ – Glen Eira has one of the lowest & rates and charges are also one of the lowest; ‘fourth highest for pensioner rebates’ and ‘third highest for grants and subsidies’ and 3rd highest in capital works. Said that in some other councils the criticism is that money should be used ‘to pay back debt’. Claimed that was ‘poor’ because it would mean the degradation of facilities and ultimately cost more to replace.Glen Eira has a ‘rolling program’ that means they ‘keep things moving’ ‘so we don’t have to spend money’….’cost saving’. Summed up that it was an ‘excellent report’ which shows that ‘council is on track once again’ and that Glen Eira is a ‘template’ for quality and other councils.

DELAHUNTY: disagreed with Lipshutz on Auditor General’s report. Said that council had been asked to maintain a liquidity ratio somewhere ‘greater than 1.5’ and the report clearly says that over the next few years it will remain ‘around 1’ so there is a need for ‘caution’ with cash flows, ‘so there is a need for concern’. Said that congratulations are due to GESAC but it’s not yet ‘paying for itself’ since it costs council $1 per visit. Agreed with some of the things Lipshutz said but the liquidity ratio needed some caution.

HYAMS: said that Lipshutz is ‘adamant’ that all surplus should be ‘spent on capital works’. Spoke about the $7 million dollar debt for the Benefits scheme which council was ‘going to be charged 7.5% interest on’ that there are ‘grounds to consider’ whether some of the debt should be paid off sooner. ‘That’s a discussion we will all have no doubt’. Referring to Delahunty’s comments on the liquidity ratio agreed that ‘yes it is something we will need to keep our eye on’ but he ‘wouldn’t say it is cause for concern’ but a ’cause for caution’. It’s only ‘one indicator taken in isolation’ and overall ‘we are in a very sound financial position’ and that the report ‘reflects that’. Said that council is generally conservative in its forecasts so that the projected liquidity ratio is of this ilk and will stay ‘well above’ the 1 figure.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Delahunty ‘didn’t have the benefit’ of being present at the Audit committee when the Auditor General came out. The AG was ‘very satisfied’ with the ways things were being handled, congratulated them in fact and that ‘council was handling (things) very, very well’. ‘There was nothing of concern at all’….’we have to be cautious, we have to watch our ratio’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We freely admit that we are not accountants. Yet, some of the revelations ensuing from this item we find to be extraordinary. For the first time we learn that the Employee Retirement Fund cost of over $7 million is to incur a loan of 7.5% interest. Council has repeatedly claimed that the first $3 million plus, that is due to be paid by June 2013 has already been budgeted for. Does this therefore mean that council over the next 15 years can’t find a meagre $4 million dollars to pay off this debt? More significantly why are they locked into an interest rate of 7.5%? This is surely astronomical given today’s falling interest rates. Is this a sign that Glen Eira Council is in fact viewed by lenders as ‘high risk’ and hence the high interest rate? Why must there be any borrowing at all for a measly 4 or 7 million unless the cash flow is indeed on very parlous grounds?

So, for all the talk of being ‘on track’ and how wonderful this council’s finances are, there are countless questions that need answering and figures that reveal the absolute truth. Here are some further questions to ponder:

  • If Glen Eira is so wonderful with its ‘business plans’ then how can a budget be approved, funded, and then suddenly money is withheld from a child care centre and transferred to GESAC?  The actual sentence referred to by Lipshutz reads: “Transfer funds of $136K from Caulfield MCHC to GESAC HVAC works to cover the expenses on the additional HVAC plant”. Since these acronyms would mean nothing to 99% of residents, surely it is time that an important document such as this was made intelligible to people? More importantly, what does this again indicate about the overall planning and astuteness of the entire GESAC project? How often has this council ripped money out of one agreed to project to cover the costs of another?
  • Why has so little money been spent on other projects? Are they being delayed because there simply isn’t the money to go ahead with them? Lipshutz argues that ‘surplus’ is spent on capital works, yet over $10 million dollars is carried through from LAST YEAR’S budget! If that’s not delaying projects to an inordinate amount, then we don’t know what is!
  • The public deserves a fully itemised ledger on exactly what GESAC is costing. Figures cited in these reports need to be fully DEFINED. For example: do the ‘expenses’ listed for GESAC include interest repayments, staff costs, or are they simply everyday costs, such as heating, maintenance, etc? Without clear definitions the public is lost. Of course, this may all be deliberate!!!!!! It is definitely time for less spin and more upfront and detailed accounting!
 

November 27, 2012

The Tortoise & The Hare? No, The Snail!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Here we go again. Another ‘report’ into an issue that reared its ugly head years ago and is still to be resolved – the toy library.

Magee and Pilling moved on November 13th that a report be prepared:” “on the Carnegie Toy Library currently located within the Carnegie Pool facility. Concerns have regularly been raised with Councillors about the inadequateness of this arrangement. This report should detail all options for improving the present service including:

‐ expanding the present facility

‐ identifying alternative suitable sites to relocate the service

‐ any grants or funding opportunities available.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

History tells us that two and a half years ago this problem was known. In fact the library raised their concerns about a Health and Safety issue in June 2010 and made a submission to the budget at that time. Since the spin is continually about how this council is so concerned about its health and safety record we are amazed that for nearly 3 years nothing has been done to eliminate all potential risks. Below we feature the reports from the time in chronological order.

Full toy story for Caulfield’s library of fun

7 Jul 10 @ 10:20am by Jenny Ling

Toy library president Kym Arthur, with Liam and Zoe, says the library is running out of space.

A CRAMMED collection of toys at a Carnegie toy library has become a safety hazard for parents, staff and children, a report has found.

With membership numbers nearly tripling in 10 years, the Caulfield Community Toy Library is appealing to Glen Eira Council for funding so it can expand.

Library president Kym Arthur said up to 300 Glen Eira families now used the borrowing facility, up from 100 families when it opened at the Carnegie Swim Centre in 2000.

The number of toys has increased to 2500 to match demand.

A report, by design consultant Space Matters, said the small area had created a “serious occupational health and safety risk” and was “impacting the functionality, quality and range of services, as well as the safety of members and visitors”.

“We have just run out of space,” Mrs Arthur said. “We’re literally packed to the rafters. It’s very dangerous.”

The report, submitted to the council, proposes $7500 funding for extra storage space or $180,000 to construct a demountable building on the site.

The construction of the $41 million Bentleigh East aquatic centre had also put pressure on the library because equipment was being stored at Carnegie during the work, she said.

Glen Eira Mayor Steven Tang said the council would “look at the future of the library as part of any decision about the future of the Carnegie site after GESAC is opened”.

“If they have identified an occupational health and safety issue they would need to resolve it,” Cr Tang said. “One way of doing that would be to reduce the amount of stock at that premises.”

Now, two and a half years later, the Leader has run this story –

Cramped Carnegie toy library needs space

7 Nov 12 @ 05:00am by Andrea Kellett

GLEN Eira families have new hope that a solution can be found to their toy library’s space problems.

Caulfield Community Toy Library members are delighted Glen Eira councillors have called for a report into expanding their “cramped” service.

Council officers have been asked to consider options including expanding the existing space at the Carnegie Swim Centre, or relocating it. Parents have for years begged the council to help them find more room. They have nowhere to hold meetings, nowhere for children to play, little room to move, no heating, no dedicated space for toy repairs and not enough display room.

President Jo Prendergast said meetings were held at a local pub and half of the children’s costumes could not be displayed. “There are so many good toys here and you can’t see them or get to them,” Ms Prendergast said.

She has grand visions for the toy library to become a “community space”. “This could be more than just a toy library.” But for now, she and vice-president Corinne Goudge are pleased the library’s needs are “on the council’s radar”.

Cr Neil Pilling asked for the report, saying volunteers were “drowning in toys”. Mayor Jamie Hyams said the problem had dragged on for years.

The Caulfield Community Toy Library is at the corner of Moira Ave and Lyons St, Carnegie.

COMMENTS:

  • GESAC has been operating for 6 months now, but clearly nothing has been done to solve the issue
  • Why has it taken nearly three years for any action to eventuate – especially if there is a health and safety risk?
  • 6 of the current 9 councillors were in office at the time this was first brought up. What have they done to resolve the issue in the meantime, especially after the toy library’s comprehensive budget submission of 2010 (uploaded here)
  • How long will it take for the officer’s report to appear? Will it actually provide funding, sensible recommendations, or will the status quo continue?
 

November 24, 2012

How To Hoodwink & Control!

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

Backroom wheeling and dealing, plus the continued inability to present honest and forthright officers’ reports continues with the appointment of councillors to the various committees. There is much in this report that requires commenting upon. We will go through this sequentially

  1. Again no author noted. It’s rule by nobody in Glen Eira.
  2. Spurious claims as to the rationale behind the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee. For example, we’re told that the committee “was established because there was a risk that a Council Meeting dealing with an item concerning the Racecourse might fail for lack of a quorum”. In order for this possibility to eventuate a series of truly extraordinary events have to take place: all trustees must declare a conflict of interest; a councillor must decide to Winky Pop him/herself and someone must be absent. Even if someone is ill, there is no plausible reason as to why any meeting could not be deferred for a week, or possibly even 2! When the MRC is quite capable of delaying ‘developments’ at the racecourse we see no reason why council cannot defer a meeting for a few days until a councillor is able to attend and ensure a quorum. The C60 decision was in fact delayed for several months following the recognition that the farce of ‘consultation’ had to be endured as a good public relations exercise.

Even then, Lobo did not declare a  conflict of interest, he was not a trustee, and his presence would have ensured a quorum. The real reason for the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee is clear to everyone – insurance that the C60 and the ‘agreement’ with the MRC was passed.

The real sting in the tail however, comes with this incredible paragraph: “That Council now has a different composition and it may be possible to abolish this Special committee and deal with Racecourse matters in Ordinary Council Meetings. That will be determined after Trustees have been appointed”. Why the existence or otherwise of this Committee should be ‘determined after Trustees have been appointed” is the real question. It couldn’t possibly be that if Newton doesn’t get his little select band chosen as trustees, then he’s better off going to a full council meeting where their votes will count? If, on the other hand, the gang are selected as trustees, then residents can bet their houses that the Committee will continue! It will be business as usual if this scenario eventuates.

3.  Next we have the Roads Special Committee. Suddenly this becomes ‘unwieldy’ if dealt in an ordinary council meeting! Strange that the same argument is not used for the Racecourse Special Committee. We also need to highlight that as a Special Committee, created under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, such committees are obliged to present both agendas and minutes of its meetings. To the best of our knowledge, no agenda or minutes have been presented from this committee for at least 3 years! So much for proper governance and adhering to the Local Government Act! Even better is that the CEO appointments Special Committee is yet to publish its minutes also dating back several months!

We further draw readers’ attention to the fact that in the Annual Report the Delegated Planning Committee is referred to as a ‘Special Committee’ (Page 81). It is NOT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE established under the Act. It is the creation of delegatory authority with no published agendas, minutes, or obligatory schedules. To term it a ‘Special Committee’ is deliberately misleading and mischievous. 

4. This sentence on advisory committees is also worthy of comment – “It is important, however, to ensure that decisions and priorities are set by those who have been elected ie Councillors.” What a nice way of saying that residents will not get a look in!

5.     There’s also the blanket statement that the CEO Contractual Arrangement Special Committee, the Animal Management advisory committee and the Racecourse advisory committee will all be abolished and that these functions will be ‘handled by Council’. Of course, since Penhalluriack is no longer there, the Contractual Committee doesn’t have to exclude anyone (at this point in time) and the Racecourse advisory committee which also included Penhalluriack can also disappear. Animal management of course hasn’t had a meeting for over a year and since it takes its order from the Rec department, it is also superfluous. Interestingly, the argument used for the Roads Committee (ie that matters are too ‘wieldy’ for ordinary council meetings) doesn’t appear to hold much water in these instances. The inconsistencies and spin are quite unbelievable.

Finally, we wish to point out a couple of other salient facts.

  • With the abolition of all these advisory committees, this council has the least number of advisory committees of any neighbouring council as far as we can tell.
  • Glen Eira has the least number of committees that include community reps in the metropolitan area
  • And what of the Pools Steering Committee? Not a word! Since GESAC is doing so brilliantly, it no longer needs ‘supervision’ we assume, even though it is costing ratepayers a fortune. All can now be left in the capable hands of the Audit Committee and administrators!

 

 

November 23, 2012

The Myth of 80/20 & Reporting Standards

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

Council resolutions and policy in Glen Eira are very flexible instruments depending on the individual issues they cover, and the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of these issues. Planning undoubtedly comes under the umbrella of ‘sensitive’. Hence, formal council resolutions, such as items from the Community/Council plan are repeatedly ignored, forgotten and distorted. The Community plan, repeated in the 2011/12 Annual Report under Strategic Planning, stated:

“Strategy: Ensure town planning controls and policies are as clear, concise, relevant and helpful as possible in deciding planning applications in a logical, repeatable and transparent manner.

Action: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas.

Measure: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly.”

Unless we are entirely deficient in our English Language Skills, ‘numbers’ does not mean PERCENTAGES, and ‘quarterly’ refers to the 4 times a year SERVICES REPORT. The last council meeting had the Services report (ending September 2012) as one of the items. Included in this report was the following:

“84% of dwellings approved for first quarter are in Housing Diversity Areas.”

That’s it! No numbers, no mention of Minimal Change statistics, and no real overview of what is happening in the municipality in terms of the success of failure of the 80/20 policy. We have to go to the Annual Report to glean some information on this vital question.

The Annual Report includes in very small font this statement for dwelling approvals– “Total for 2011–12 minimal change 345, housing diversity 830”. This means that the so called 80/20 division of Glen Eira is rapidly falling to bits since we do not believe that the majority of approvals in these areas would be the simple replacement of one dwelling for another single dwelling. Further, 345 approvals makes the ‘division’ of Glen Eira more like 60/40 instead of the touted 80/20. Amendment C25 claimed to “re-direct multi-unit housing into appropriate locations” and “within the minimal change areas, existing low intensity, low-rise character will be protected and enhanced.” It goes on to claim “For the majority of the City, single houses, extensions to existing houses and two dwelling developments are envisaged as the predominant types of dwellings. By limiting development to this level, existing neighbourhood character can be protected, while still promoting a range of housing through the City.” Is this really happening? How many developments in Minimal Change Areas are more than 2 units per block? How many protect ‘neighbourhood character’ given that there is no real mandatory Urban Design Framework in Glen Eira?

Again, we have to go back to the crucial questions of:

  • Where is the information that will reveal the true ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these objectives?
  • What’s the point of having Council Resolutions when these aren’t adhered to?
  • Why aren’t councillors insisting that their Resolutions are carried out to the letter?
  • Why are such vital statistics allowed to be buried, instead of highlighted?
  • How much longer will ‘transparency’ be merely a word, rather than the fundamental tenet underpinning all operations in Glen Eira?
 

November 21, 2012

Double-Speak Perfected!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Double-Speak Perfected! 

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

Port Phillip

Greater Geelong

Boroondara

Maribyrnong

Brimbank

Casey

Manningham

Frankston

Melton

Cardinia

Bayside

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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!
  3. 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!
  4. 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?
  5. 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 11th 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!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »