GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 21, 2012

A Really Transparent Council!

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

Several items on the agenda for Monday night’s council meeting provide further evidence as to why there must be radical change in Glen Eira. We will deal with these chronologically.

‘Retrospective’ Planning Permit

Not for the first time we discover that individuals, or organisations, have gone ahead and erected structures WITHOUT THE REQUISITE PLANNING PERMIT. What does Council do? Nothing! – except grant them what they want after the event! Residents should be asking:

  • Why wasn’t the original permit enforced?
  • What penalties, if any, did Council attempt to impose?
  • Why is unlawful behaviour so often ‘rewarded’ by this Council?

Even more disturbing in regard to this item is the fact that at the Delegated Planning Committee meeting, a somewhat strange event occurred. We quote from an email received from an objector: “The Chair declared a potential conflict of interest in that he had had many dealings in council with one of the proposers present but did not feel that this disqualified him. They knew each other by first names”.

What’s good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander. When councillors have to declare conflicts of interest at the drop of a hat, leave the room and not participate in any debate, it would seem that officers have no such strictures placed on them!

Then there are plenty of questions to ask about how Councillor led Planning Conferences are run and whether Planning Officers and councillors are in fact representing everyone impartially. Numerous reports have surfaced (ie. Mahvo St) about how residents are basically gagged and the stated purpose of ‘mediation’ is nothing more than another public relations exercise. If Council was fair dinkum then they should provide and publish all ‘satisfaction surveys’ that result from each of such meetings. Of course, the actual questions need to be carefully vetted first of all.  Such surveys used to appear in the minutes, but we guess it was becoming too ‘transparent’ and possibly too critical of the process so it was ditched. 

C93 Amendment

A paltry few  officers’ report pagesaccompanies this important policy change. Only ONE SENTENCE FROM THE PANEL REPORT is included. The Panel report itself is not attached, and thus residents who may want to read the objections and the recommendations for themselves have to either physically front up to council offices and MAYBE given access instead of this being placed on the website and in the agenda/minutes. We wonder how on earth councillors can be expected to make important policy decisions when we doubt that many of them would have read the Panel Report either.

Then we have this wonderful paragraph: “The State Government has recently released draft zones: Industrial, Residential, Commercial and Rural. It is recommended that this amendment proceed whether or not the new zones are approved as it removes duplication in the scheme”. Please note that no justification is given for this ‘recommendation’. Why the rush then? Why not wait and see what eventuates?

GESAC: pedestrian safety 

A 2 page report only. Again, no facts, no figures, no costings, no nothing. Another report will be forthcoming in the future it seems. As for the current state of affairs, we’re simply told: “The audit provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented. Five recommendations specifically related to disability access.

It follows that the car park complies with relevant traffic safety standards.” 

Financial Report: Hansen & Yuncken & Liquidated Damages

Not a shred of new information is forthcoming as to what is going on with this ‘adjudication’ nor why council had to hand back $3 million dollars! Watch this space is the ongoing message!

Tenders

3 seems to be the magical number in Glen Eira when it comes to tenders. We’ve noted before that many other councils publish their tender assessments, and the officers who sit on these panels. Not so in Glen Eira. Other councils also have many, many more criteria by which to evaluate their tenders. Not so in Glen Eira – 3 is the usual number even though the ensuing contracts may be worth millions of dollars! Nor are these criteria ever published. Long live transparency and accountability!

Finally, it is worth pointing out that as per usual every possible obstacle and delaying tactic is placed in the way of residents actually knowing what is going on. We highlight the following examples:

  • Even though the upcoming council meeting is scheduled A DAY EARLIER THAN NORMAL, the agenda items didn’t go up until well after 1pm on Friday afternoon on the website. That leaves the weekend and half of Monday for residents to familiarise themselves with the agenda and submit appropriate questions. There is absolutely no logical reason why the agenda could not have been put up on Thursday at the latest.
  • No sign of the Panel Reports for Amendments C87 and C93 to accompany the officers’ report and recommendations. Again, residents have to hunt through the Department’s website if they actually want to read what the Panels had to say. Why aren’t these important documents made accessible to residents? Or is this again part of the overall strategy to keep residents in the dark – as well as councillors perhaps? When the nonsense about this being an open and transparent council is continually trotted out, then it is obvious that there is absolutely no intention of ensuring that actions match words.
  • Woeful editing of agenda in that it is stated that records of assembly and committee meeting minutes be noted and recommendations accepted. The problem is that THERE ARE NO MINUTES OF ANY MEETINGS INCLUDED!!!!!!!
 

September 19, 2012

MRC: Money, Money, Money – But Not For Residents!

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

At last Council Meeting the MRC was sold just under 100 square metres of land for a song – as we stated in a previous post. Poor MRC! Our wonderful councillor gang took pity on this organisation and instead of getting some real returns for the community sold it at bargain basement prices of $140,000.

PS: We need to correct the above paragraph. The land has not been ‘sold’ as yet. There has to be the official advertisement and the call for submissions under the Local Govt Act requirements. We remind residents that they therefore have the opportunity to lodge an objection to the sale.

PPS: We’ve checked this week’s Caulfield and Moorabbin Leader as well as the ‘Public Notices’ section on council’s website and THERE IS NO ADVERTISEMENT APPEARING ANYWHERE CALLING FOR SUBMISSIONS ON THE SALE. Given that administrators have had a week to place the advertisement or put it up on their website, is this another instance of keeping the public ignorant, and therefore silent? Cloak and daggers, but deliberately orchestrated? Make up your own minds – plain ineptitude/incompetence or more sinister dirty tricks?

It’s therefore with great irony we read the following two notices. One is from yesterday’s Herald Sun, and the other is today’s Media Release from the Minister for Racing.

The Herald Sun article was about free entry to race meetings. Speaking about the MRC, Dale Monteith said” The MRC has something like 800 poker machines yielding about $50,000 per machine to fund its business model, we have $108…..The bottom line is no club other than the MRC can make proposals like this because we simply don’t have that revenue stream.”  Yes, Lipshutz & co took real pity on this cash-strapped organisation and sold out for a measly $140,000!

Next there’s this official Media Release:

New Caulfield facility to help grow racehorse ownership

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

A bright and big new lounge facility is to be constructed at Caulfield Racecourse to greatly encourage racehorse ownership and help grow the racing industry.

Minister for Racing Denis Napthine said the new indoor/outdoor lounge facility, to be located in the former outdoor betting ring, will be open to racehorse owners and their guests, regardless of whether their horse is running on the day.

“There are 55,000 thoroughbred racehorse owners in Victoria. It is important to look after these investors in the industry and, most importantly, encourage new owners,” Dr Napthine said.

“The new venue will showcase the benefits of racehorse ownership and feature marquees, food and beverage stalls, racing vision and a stage for entertainment,” Dr Napthine said.

“The new owners’ lounge, a step up from the current cramped facilities, will make a major difference to the raceday experience to those who make an investment – small or large – in Victorian racing by buying and owning a racehorse.

“It is hoped that this new area will also entice owners to attend more race meetings and entice their guests to consider racehorse ownership, which helps to build on the economic benefits generated by the racing industry.”

Melbourne Racing Club Chief Executive Officer, Alasdair Robertson said the club is pleased to be partnering with the Victorian Coalition Government on this important project.

“Racehorse owners are so vital to the racing industry and its ongoing prosperity, so we are thrilled to be able to boost our level of service to owners through the development of a new facility at Caulfield,” Mr Robertson said.

Thoroughbred Racehorse Owners’ Association (TROA) Chairman Jonathan Munz welcomed the recognition of the role of racehorse owners across Victoria.

“Owners put on the show and need to be given the best possible raceday experience. We commend the Melbourne Racing Club and Coalition Government on acknowledging that and showing the initiative to introduce this new owners’ facility at Caulfield,” Mr Munz said.

As a further incentive, the club intends on expanding its hospitality package for Victorian Thoroughbred Owner Gold Card holders, by providing:

  • owners with free access to non-feature meetings and half-price entry to feature meetings;
  • half-price entry to guests to non-feature and feature meetings;
  • free barbeque, beverage package and race book for owners and trainers on the day; and
  • a selection of free finger food after the last race.Costs for this project have been shared between the Coalition Government, providing $120,000 from its Victorian Racing Industry Fund and the Melbourne Racing Club, contributing $136,285.

The MRC, in conjunction with TROA, will also contribute $100,000 per year to operate and maintain the new facility.

 

September 18, 2012

More Muck-Raking And Investigations!

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

We present a series of emails from the Municipal Inspectorate. This is the result of a complaint to the Inspectorate to investigate a potential ‘leak’ (presumably by a councillor). The catalyst for this investigation was a public question asking whether more than one firm of lawyers was involved in the O’Neill affair and whether council had hired a consulting firm in its CEO appointment process. Of concern were the costs involved if either of these events took place.

The first email from the Inspectorate read in part as follows:

“I am an Inspector of Municipal Administration appointed pursuant to section 223A of the Local Government Act 1989.  I am currently making some inquiries into a complaint from the Glen Eira councillors, which allege that public questions you asked of the ordinary council meeting of  xxxxx referred to matters which had been earlier deemed confidential by Council.

I am making inquiries to ascertain whether there is any evidence to support a misuse of position breach by any of the councillors.”

Months later, there was another email, the most important paragraph reading:

“The Inspectorate has ascertained that the matters which were subject to your public questions were not deemed confidential by a resolution of Council. The Inspectorate has concluded its inquiries into this complaint as there was insufficient evidence to support a misuse of position breach under the Local Government Act 1989 by any of the councillors. Council has been advised of the outcome of these inquiries.”

Unsure of what the opening sentence actually meant, the resident contacted the Inspectorate seeking clarification. The response was: “Even if a council meeting is closed to the public, whilst the content discussed may be confidential, any resolution made at that meeting does not automatically become confidential unless a resolution is passed declaring it as such. Council meeting minutes usually provide the topics discussed in camera and these minutes are made publicly available.  This was the case in this instance, therefore the Inspectorate was satisfied that there was enough publicly available information in relation to the questions you put to Council.”



COMMENT


These remarks and the events themselves are indeed extraordinary:


    

  • Does this mean that Council has been operating ‘illegally’ for eons since NO RESOLUTION to maintain confidentiality has ever been recorded in the minutes of council meetings?
    • 

  • Is this what we elected councillors for – to spend all their time complaining to ‘integrity’ agencies when residents are merely trying to get answers that should be freely available?
    • 

  • Paranoia does not enhance good governance!
    • 

  • Secrecy, as continually practised in Glen Eira is abhorrent and on the basis of the Inspectorate’s comments, highly suspect, if not in actual breach of the Local Government Act!
    • 

  • How many complaints about Glen Eira City Council has the Inspectorate had to handle in the past ten years? We would not be at all surprised if it constitutes a world record!
    • 

  • We note that Council has again retained the veil of secrecy since it has made no announcement regarding this investigation, nor its findings!
    • 

  • Finally, we note that the scheduled CEO Special Committee of July 31st has still not made its minutes available. Maybe they are hoping that people will forget it ever took place!
    • 


	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 18, 2012



	

			Letters To The Editor
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[15] Comments 


	

		
Hyams selective with facts


Re Cr Hyams’ letter (“VCAT will make decision”, September 4), Cr Hyams says the matter was referred to VCAT following the report of a legal expert. He does not mention that neither he nor then-mayor Esakoff made any effort to require the CEO to go through mediation (normally the case) before engaging the expert.


Cr Hyams does not say he and other councillors have refused to provide me a copy of that expert’s report nor that only one incident of bullying is not alleged against me – comments I made in a private letter to Cr Esakoff.


Secondly, Cr Hyams says legal costs will be determined by VCAT. Whatever the VCAT decision, council will have to pay its legal costs, and most likely my legal costs as well.


Thirdly, Cr Hyams refers to the minister as saying councillor conduct panels are the appropriate place for matters to be dealt with. But they do not give parties the opportunity to properly test the evidence. Once the 40 or so allegations against me were subjected to the VCAT spotlight, they were reduced to four.


Glen Eira ratepayers require explanations from the mayor as to:


    

  • Why he and Cr Esakoff did not require the CEO to go through mediation?
    • 

  • Why he continues to assert I am responsible for the waste of ratepayers’ money?
    • 



I am confident voters will have faith in my integrity, and return me to council office.


Cr Frank Penhalluriack


 +++++++++


The Hyams’ Letter from September 4th


VCAT Will Make Decision


Regarding “Council coffers take hit” (Leader, August 22) some points need to be made clear to understand Glen Eira Council’s action against Cr Penhalluriack at VCAT.


The council made applications to the Councillor Conduct Panel alleging misconduct by Cr Penhalluriack, following recommendations by an independent legal expert on workplace behaviour and by the Ombudsman after lengthy investigations. The council chief executive took no part in any council discussion or decision on the referral of Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel.


Cr Penhalluriack exercised his right to refer the case from a Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.


Whether the council or Cr Penhalluriack will ultimately be responsible for payment of legal costs will be decided by VCAT. The council’s directors and offer’s insurance may also cover a claim for costs.


There is now a Bill before Parliament that will require councillors to pay their own costs if they refer a conduct matter to VCAT.


The Minister has stated that a Councillor Conduct Panel is the appropriate place for matters of this kind to be heard.


Cr Jamie Hyams


Mayor, City of Glen Eira.


COMMENT


Our view has consistently been that it is high time that the machinations that are endemic in Glen Eira be brought out into the open. That can only occur under cross examination and in public. When we have an administration that has been involved in investigation after investigation, when charges of bullying rear their ugly head time and time again without ever being truly substantiated, then there’s obviously something drastically wrong with the workings of this council.


Recent events, such as the testimony of Jones and Burke, are indicative we believe why the so called evidence must be tested in the public domain. Councillor Conduct Panels are secret. Our view is that they are nothing more than an ‘old boys’ club’. When Hyams and his cohorts have no regard for public monies and can throw away up to half a million dollars, then they should also be called to account.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 17, 2012



	

			Time For A Change – #2
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[4] Comments 


	

		
The June 26th 2012 Special Council Meeting  to consider the budget and the community plan listed the term ‘open space’ 73 times in the minutes of this meeting. Time and time again lip service has been paid to the importance of ‘open space’ – how to acquire more, how to use this to enhance liveability and recreation, and how ‘open space’ is important for all residents. That’s the spin. The reality is far different.


We’ve commented in the past on how little this council has done in regards to open space levies and how out of step they are with the current thinking of many other councils. On the one hand, they bemoan the fact of how little open space is available in Glen Eira and how much it would cost to purchase. Yet, in the same breath, this council imposes minimal financial costs on developers who seek to subdivide land and erect anything from 3 to 4 to 20 storey high density dwellings! They can’t have it both ways!


Even more telling is that these councillors have again turned a blind eye to the inadequacies of the Planning Scheme. Instead of ensuring that subdivisions bring in some real money to pay for open space, our woeful lot have allowed the current rates to stand from at least January, 2006. If the following isn’t an enticement for more and more development, then we don’t know what is! The current levies are:








CRITERIA




PERCENTAGE   OF CONTRIBUTION






The   number of lots in the subdivision capable of containing a   dwelling.


3   lots – 2%


4   lots – 2.5%


5   lots – 3%


6 or more lots –   3.5%






The   site is in McKinnon, East Brighton, Ormond or Bentleigh.


0%






The   site is in Carnegie, Murrumbeena or East Bentleigh.


0.25%






The   site is in Caulfield, Caulfield North, Caulfield South, Caulfield   East, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick or St Kilda East.


0.5%






The   site is not within 300 metres (walking distance) of a park listed in Table   2.


0.25%






Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   less than 40 square metres of private open space, not including   the area in the front setback.


0.25%






Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   more than two bedrooms (a study is regarded as a bedroom).


0.25%






A   six or more lot subdivision which does not provide useable   communal open space that has a minimum of 4   metres and provides a minimum area of 60 square metres,   and is not part of the front setback, service area or   driveway.


0.25%








Compare this to:


KINGSTON: about to introduce 5% and 8% in Major Activity Centres


CARDINIA – in all residential Zone 1 – 8%


PORT PHILLIP – all municipality 5%


GREATER DANDENONG – “Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south (except for Lot 2, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 885 and Lot1, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 884). 20%”. Other residential zones – 5%


KNOX – “Subdivision of land into lots having an area of 725 square metres or greater in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 5% of the total land to be subdivided.


Subdivision of land which includes lots having an area of less than 725 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 8.5% of the total land to be subdivided.


MANNINGHAM – 5%


MAROONDAH – “All subdivisions 5 per cent. Land at the south west corner of Canterbury Road and Dorset Road, Bayswater North 8 per cent”,


MOONEE VALLEY – “Subdivisions of greater than 10 lots 5 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land 5 per cent or greater subject to negotiation of the density and layout of the development where provided as land. All other land 5 per cent”.


MORELAND – Location as defined by Plan 1:


1. Brunswick East / North Fitzroy 2.8%


2. Brunswick 3.1%


3. Brunswick West 2.5%


4. Coburg 6.8%


5. Pascoe Vale South 3.4%


6. Coburg North 4.3%


7. Pascoe Vale 3.7%


8. Oak Park 3.1%


9. Fawkner 5.7%


10. Hadfield 4.3%


11. Glenroy 4.0%


12. Gowanbrae / Tullamarine 4.7%


We could go on and on! Suffice to say that the hypocrisy of Glen Eira council is mind blowing. Residents are on the one hand fed the tripe about halting overdevelopment in such areas as Bentleigh and Carnegie, yet every possible enticement has been offered for more and more development in these areas. We can only speculate as to the stupidity and/or ignorance of our councillors, or their complicity in the Newton and Akehurst pro-development vision.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 15, 2012



	

			Super Indecent Haste!
		


	Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[4] Comments 


	

		
Geoff Akehurst’s benign ‘interpretation’ of Matthew Guy’s proposed planning reforms (which we’ve already commented on) is clearly out of step with other councils. Several motions that are to go before the MAV board meeting illustrate this. (See motions 21-23 under ‘State Council Business Papers’ at: http://www.mav.asn.au/publications/bulletins/mav/Pages/issue-898.aspx).


Then yesterday we get this Media Release from Guy. Of further concern is the composition of the ‘expert advisory committee’ all from the gung ho, pro-development lobby, and the helter skelter intent to rush through legislation that will create mayhem for residents whilst denying them most of their objection rights.


Final step for Victoria’s zone reform 


Friday, 14 September 2012


From the Minister for Planning


Planning Minister Matthew Guy has today announced the final step in ensuring the Victorian Coalition Government’s zone reform package delivers productivity growth and drives investment and liveability outcomes for Victorians.


An expert advisory committee consisting of Ministerial Advisory Committee Chairman Geoff Underwood, Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will review all submissions and provide advice back to the Coalition Government.


With the ten week consultation closing on 21 September the expert advisory committee will report back to the Coalition Government by 30 November 2012, ensuring that zone reform will be in place early next year.


“Having council and industry representatives provide thorough advice back to the Coalition Government and a fair and reasonable review of submissions will ensure that zone reform reflects the views of all Victorians,” Mr Guy said.


“This is a marked departure from Labor’s sham consultation processes,” Mr Guy said.


Earlier this year, the Coalition Government introduced a package of sweeping reforms to planning zones.


Proposed reforms to Victoria’s residential, commercial, industrial and rural planning zones include:


    

  • The introduction of a new Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a new      General Residential Zone and a new Residential Growth Zone;
    • 

  • Improvements to the existing Mixed Use Zone, Comprehensive      Development Zone and Activity Centre Zone;
    • 

  • New and more flexible Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 Zones replacing      five existing Business zones;
    • 

  • Reform to support tourism activities in Farming Zones, the Rural      Conservation Zone and the Green Wedge Zones; and
    • 

  • Significant reforms to rural zones to promote the growth of      agricultural activity.”The Coalition Government considers planning      zone reform as a key part of its planning reform agenda and an important      step to provide greater certainty to residents, councils and      investors,” Mr Guy said.
    • 



“Modernising Victoria’s planning system is not optional; it is a vital plank of social and economic reform for our state’s long term future.”


 

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 13, 2012



	

			Setting The Record Straight!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[8] Comments 


	

		
We’ve received the following comment, which we believe deserves to be featured as a separate post.


“I know the objector and the lengths she has gone to in order to try and ensure that residents get a fair deal. Unlike so many of us who are prepared to sit back and whinge, this lady has put her money where her mouth is. At the vcat hearing on the subdivision she hired a barrister which probably cost her thousands of dollars. She didn’t have to do this, and god knows, she’s not flush with funds. But she was determined to at least try and get some justice and a decent hearing. She lost of course.


Then there was the centre of the racecourse. I’ve seen her objection and to me it made plenty of sense. She did her homework, running all over Melbourne to see how other councils dealt with pathways. She took photos of these alternate tracks, costed them, and backed this up with medical journal articles that showed how jogging on hard concrete injures people. She met with the MRC, and they were supposed to get back to her and organise another meeting. Of course they didn’t but literally ploughed ahead, with the acquiescence of this council to create their yellow concrete monstrosities throughout an area that is supposed to be a recreation and park land.


It’s incredibly easy to blame one individual as Hyams, Esakoff and now Southwick have done. Just because there is only one objection, doesn’t mean that the rest of the municipality accepts what is happening. I certainly don’t. But I was too lazy, and despondent, to write up a formal objection.


Ultimately she did withdraw her objection. Not because she thought she was wrong, or because the fire had left the belly. I suspect it was simply that the threat of paying out the mrc’s legal costs, which I’ve no doubt they would have tried, was a risk too great to take. Idealism and a social conscience can come at a great cost when you’re fighting unscrupulous councils and a mega industry who don’t care one little bit about who they want to crush and how much it will cost. For council, they simply put their hands into our pockets. For the mrc, well they got Napthine and the whole damn government supporting them.


Southwick’s, Hyams and Esakoff’s attacks are totally without foundation and tell us more about them and their dirty tactics, than they do about the objector. She should be awarded the Citizen of The Year!”

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 13, 2012



	

			The Danby Letter
		


	Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[9] Comments 


	

		
Dear Mr Xxxxxxx,


Many Caulfield Residents have written to me to express their disappointment at the Caulfield Village Development given approval by the Glen Eira City Council. Last month the Melbourne Racing Club awared the lucrative Caulfield Village development contract to the Beck Probuild Consortium.


The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve should benefit all local residents through the provision of a racecourse, public, recreation ground and public park. My office has been in contact with you recently to express my personal disappointment at the size of the development which will take more than 15 years to build, create an additional 1,500 dwellings, including a 15 story (sic) complex, over 5 hectares of land. This will affect all residents in our local area, decrease our local amenity, increase traffic congestion and more parking pressures, overcrowd the area and disrupt the local area with increased commercial activity. The actions of the Council and the State Government in approving this oversized project will cause nothing but future problems for local residents.


This development was strongly opposed before the 3010 State Election by the newly-elected Member for Caulfield David Southwick and the (then Shadow) Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Mr Southwick called it a ‘monstrosity’ and vowed to stop it. Contrary to their stance, then both have since reversed their opinions following election and now support this over intensive development.


VCAT has unfortunately approved the MRC State government grandiose plans for this massive development on land at Station Street and Normandy Road that is now grassed car parks. However, Councillor Jim Magee is the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve’s new board Chairman. He is seeking to change the trust’s oversight making it more independent. He has asked Ted Ballieu to take action by implementing a governance review. I add my support for increased transparency and scrutiny of the actions of the board to ensure the Trust’s purposes are met and amenity of the local area is maintained for all Caulfield residents.


Not all Councillors are supportive of this massive development. On 27th October, you will have the opportunity to cast your vote in the Glen Eira City elections. I encourage you to consider current Councillors standing for re-election and their stance with regards to this monstrous development. The candidates standing in your ward against this development include Frank Penhalluriack and Mary Delahunty and their respective teams.


If you, like many of your fellow residents, share my anger at this development, I encourage you to contact the Glen Eira City Council to register your disapproval for this development on (03) 9524 3333 and email mail@gleneira.vic.gov.au to express your concerns at the size of this development in our local area.


Yours sincerely,


Michael Danby MP


Federal Member for Melbourne Ports

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 11, 2012



	

			Time For Change!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[27] Comments 


	

		
In just on two weeks the deadline for nomination for council elections will be upon us. It is therefore time for reflection and for answers to the following questions:


    

  • Has this crop of councillors ‘delivered’?
    • 

  • Have they made major progress on such vital issues as planning, traffic management and consultation processes?
    • 

  • Have they really and truly delivered the best outcomes for the vast majority of residents?
    • 



Our answers to the above have to be a resounding ‘No’. What we have witnessed over the past 4 years is simply more of the same. And that ‘same’ is anathema to the hopes and aspirations of this community. Put simply, we sum up the past few years as:


    

  • Higher and higher rates
    • 

  • More and more investigations and waste of public monies
    • 

  • Horrendous decisions (C60; 10 storey developments; centre of the racecourse; no notice of motion; continued gagging of councillors – to name but a few)
    • 

  • Governance at an all time low with no transparency, no accountability, and too much secrecy
    • 

  • A dysfunctional council run by a ruling clique (the ‘gang’) that far too often ignores community concerns and favours hidden administrative agendas
    • 

  • A pro-development council with no sign of even attempting to control and rein in inappropriate development – ie. low open space levy; dropping development contributions, dropping of commercial policy, removing childcare from non residential uses in residential areas policy and amendments galore that favour developers
    • 



These are just some of the perennial problems that Glen Eira has faced for more than a decade. Many of these councillors have simply been there too long and even the ‘newbies’ have been seen to flounder and lose their way..


We urge all readers to think carefully about their votes and the significance of this upcoming election. Glen Eira desperately requires reform. It desperately requires a change in corporate culture, where it is councillors who lead and officers simply follow. Under Newton, this has never been the case. It is time for long overdue change! This can only happen if most of the current incumbents are denied your vote.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 9, 2012



	

			Consultation Glen Eira Style!
		


	Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance 	

	[2] Comments 


	

		
One item on the agenda at last council meeting was the Centenary Park Pavilion and the vote for the go ahead in building the facility. Worthy of note is the ‘consultation’ which accompanied this decision and the manner in which it was conducted. The officers report tells us that ‘consultation’ consisted of:


“Following a joint meeting with pavilion tenants submissions were received from:


 St Peters Junior Football Club


 Bentleigh United Cricket Club”.


If officers had their way then this would be the end of the story. Their recommendation was: “That this project continues to the next stage – development of concept plans, costing, works schedule and further consultation with tenant clubs”. It took an amendment from Tang to get the words ‘and community’ added.


In stark contrast to this approach there’s a similar proposal for a pavilion redevelopment in Port Phillip. We simply highlight how they go about their ‘consultation’ –


“Consultation on the proposed redevelopment was undertaken from the 30 April for three weeks.


3.10 Consultation included a letter box drop to local residents, signage on site and opportunity to comment on the Have Your Say website. Key stakeholders including the sports clubs and schools were also directly consulted.


3.11 In addition a Project Page for the project has been maintained on the Port Phillip website”. (http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_Alma_Park_Pavilion.pdf)


Not hard if the inclination is there! But if the objective is to exclude community input, then Glen Eira wins hands down each time!

	

			

	
 



									

						
« Previous Page — Next Page »