GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 30, 2012

More Porkies?

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

This is a continuation from previous post and features another of the bogus council answers.

Q4 – In the past year council has laid hundreds of metres of ‘instant grass’ along the concrete path edges. How much did this cost? And how does council now justify the fact that the mulch covers this newly laid grass?

Answer – The total cost of the grass sods along sections of the new pathway trail was approximately $6,000. The sods stabilised the edge of the pathway, making the pathway safe for users of the path. Council arranged the mulching the following year and extended it to the edge of the path for ease of ongoing maintenance. This involved removing some of the sods. 

COMMENT: “Ease of ongoing maintenance”?!!!!!! Hardly. Over time mulch settles so that the edges of the pathway gain huge 3 to 4 inch drops – a perfect way to break an ankle, or come off a bicycle. Secondly, this will mean continual replenishing of mulch, the continual weeding, or worse, continual poisoning of these weeds. We already note that in one Record of Assembly Pilling enquired about the poisons so liberally used throughout our parks and their safety.

More importantly, the following photos reveal the truth about what occurred and the deliberately misleading response provided by Council. The hundreds of metres of grass sods planted were largely unnecessary. These photos reveal that after twice bringing in truckloads of earth in order to level out the sides of the path, that the grass had finally taken. The sods were not removed. The mulch was simply spread over the top of the existing sods without any regard for the allegedly $6000 already spent. The photos below showing the same positions in the trail provide clear evidence that:

  1. Vast areas of “stable” grass was needlessly ripped up at ratepayers’ expense
  2. Previous green ‘open space’ is now unusable

Ratepayers need to ask themselves whether this is really ‘best value’ for our money and how much faith to place in the responses to public questions.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

July 28, 2012

A Tale Of Porkies!

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

When residents ask public questions then they have every right to expect that the responses they receive and signed by the Mayor will constitute the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far too often, this is not the case. Our latest example concerns another public question from last week’s council meeting. We will break this down so that it is easier for readers to follow – ie. the question, followed by the response and then the photographic evidence which belies what council claims. This will occur over several posts and all relate to the Elster Creek Trail.

Question 1 –  Given the Noel Arnold recommendations on the handling of mulch materials, why have council employees not adhered to these recommendations when carting, laying, and spreading the mulch – especially the requirement to wear masks, gloves and goggles?

Answer – Staff and contractors are trained in the safe handling of mulch and use appropriate personal protective equipment for the nature of the works.

 

COMMENTS: The Noel Arnold report stated:”Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi….”. Please note: Council has admitted this mulch was ‘commercial’. It lay in huge piles fermenting and emitting steam prior to being spread. Further, the Arnold report made these recommendations: “To protect staff from potential risks, provide training, instructions, information and appropriate personal protective equipment to Council employees likely to come in contact with this material. The personal protective equipment that is recommended for Council employees handling the mulch material is: disposable dust mask; gloves; washing of hands after use”.

The photos clearly show that NONE of these safety precautions were employed. Who is responsible? What oversight was taken by those in charge? Why is the response to the question so dissembling if not a straight out porky? Note – as an admitted ‘commercial’ mulch, this comes under Australian Standards and hence is arguably more ‘dangerous’ than mere leaf and chip mulch! Not only has Council failed to adhere to the Arnold recommendations – they have ignored the Australian Standards thereby potentially putting their employees at risk.

If readers click on the image they will see the piles of mulch waiting to be spread. There are many other photos not included here.

 

July 26, 2012

Newton V’s Penhalluriack: $271,000 And Rising!

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

We’ve titled this post “Newton v’s Penhalluriack’ since this is the crux of what we believe to be at the heart of the entire matter. Whatever the personalities of these two individuals, whatever their differences of opinion, we do not consider the expenditure of $271,000 (and rising) on “legal advice” by this Council is justified under any circumstances. The amount that has been spent by council is nothing short of scandalous.

The running costs were revealed as a result of a public question, which we will present once the minutes come out – together with Council’s response and Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’. First however, the following facts need to be made clear:

  • When a councillor is sent to a Councillor Conduct Panel (CCP) the legislation states that there is to be no legal representation. It is intended to be ‘secret’ and ‘informal’. The findings of such a Panel are then to be included in Council Minutes. Ostensibly this sounds reasonable, except that in Glen Eira’s case ‘legal advice’ had already reached thousands and thousands of dollars (ie O’Neill Report and countless lawyers on forwarding the documentation to the CCP) prior to any actual hearing. The same privilege is not afforded to the defendant (respondent)
  • The members of such Panels are assigned from a list compiled by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). Many of these members, if not all, are former local government bureaucrats, including former CEOs. Hence it is plausible to suspect that the culture, mentality and ‘old boys system’ may be well entrenched. In a recent case at Hobson’s Bay that ended up at VCAT for example, the MAV selected member was challenged and had to remove himself from the case since it turns out he was the previous CEO of Hobson’s Bay!
  • When a CCP is held, the 2 MAV members are paid for by council. Their fees for a single day (in 2008) totalled over $1500. Again, such hearings may go for many days.
  • The CCP may do one of two things – order the case to VCAT for consideration of ‘serious misconduct’, or make its own findings. The defendant may request that the case goes immediately to VCAT. Legal representation is permitted at VCAT.
  • Under all jurisdictions, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘natural justice’ must apply. The current system has many flaws we believe, as outlined above – in particular the ability of council to enlist legal advice prior to any formal allegations yet not have the accused afforded the same resources. This goes against the fundamentals of our justice system. It should, if justice is to be seen as truly ‘even handed’.
  • Finally it’s worth questioning whether Council (and hence ratepayers) have actually received ‘value for money’ from all this legal advice? Allegation after allegation has been whittled down to just four. The main substance of the O’Neill report has bitten the dust big time and at the first VCAT hearing Council was ordered to go away and reduce its mess of allegations into something that was succinct, logical, and presentable. We assume that the lawyers were paid regardless of these deficiencies! Now we face the situation of more lawyers and the potential for a 7 day hearing at VCAT. How much will this cost? And for what?
  • Should any blame be assigned to councillors for their role in all this? Charged with dealing ‘prudently’ and ‘responsibly’ over council finances how on earth can they ever justify this kind of expenditure on a case that really boils down to Newton vs Penhalluriack?
 

July 26, 2012

Community (Dis)Satisfaction Survey!

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

Esakoff moved to accept ‘as printed’ with Pilling seconding.

ESAKOFF:  Began by stating that ‘it’s impossible’ to compare this set of figures with any previous results and read out several sections from the actual report to support this statement. ‘results appear to be very good’…….’overall performance rated at 91% which included very good, good and average’. Esakoff went on with other purported figures – ie higher than state average in many areas and in comparison to inner Melbourne councils ‘good or very good’. Claimed that satisfaction ratings were ‘generally higher’ for those areas ‘under Council’s control’ and lower for those areas that have ‘shared responsibility’ (with the State Government that includes) ‘parking…..high density development’. Said that council’s community forums on the Council Plan are ‘fully reflected here” with ‘waste management ….recreation facilities at 77%’. Went through other results such as footpaths, customer service – all these services which ‘rated very well, as usual’….’all in all a very good result for Glen Eira’ and need to improve areas that didn’t do so well and ‘maintain areas’ that did well.

PILLING: ‘good report’. Commented that Glen Eira does well against the other councils in the group. Thought that this was a ‘positive change in strategy’ (ie new methodology).

LIPSHUTZ: Thought that council needed ‘to look’ at the areas where they ‘weren’t so good’. Highlighted page 6 as the ‘areas where we can improve upon’ …’traffic and parking are two big ones….town planning…..communication….that comes through in our community consultation’. These things council has sought to ‘address in our community plan’….’those are the things that substantiate the direction that council is taking’….’within twelve months or more we will see further improvement’….

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Lipshutz in that the report ‘let’s us see the areas where the community would like us to improve’. Emphasised that only 6% of surveyed people said the council ‘was poor or very poor’ versus 64% who said it was ‘good or very good’. Claimed that a comparison could be made with previous years on ‘general direction’ and 20% claimed it had improved  ‘and only 7% said it had deteriorated’…..’outstanding result’….’anyone who seeks (to present this in any other light is) ‘simply being dishonest’…’does let us know where we do need to improve….take that on board’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We congratulate councillors (Hyams, Esakoff, and Lipshutz) once again on their incredible sleight of hand manoeuvrings. First, trot out all the supposed ‘positives’, then make minimal mention of the ‘negatives’ with the promise to ‘improve’. We take issue with:

  • Esakoff’s spurious and misleading statement that the areas where council scored lowest are those that comprise ‘shared responsibility’ with Government.  Apart from MAIN ROADS, Council is 100% responsible for all other roads in the municipality. Traffic management on these roads is totally Council’s domain. With planning Council has the ability to amend its Planning Scheme. Again we reiterate that this is a council without structure plans, without parking precincts, without height limits and has never even attempted to introduce any of these elements into its planning.
  • Lipshutz’s argument is equally fallacious. Yes, keep your eye on the components that need improvement. But then to go on and argue that since this survey “substantiates the direction that council is moving’ is quite laughable. There is ‘no direction’ whatsoever, except more of the same! The council plan fails dismally to address issues of parking, over development, etc. There’s also the simple fact that these major issues are nothing new. Council has been told over and over, year after year, that these are major resident concerns. To then claim that further improvement will be ‘in the next 12 months’ is quite remarkable.

Finally there is one very revealing set of figures in this survey. Respondents were asked to name areas/issues they thought were important and then to rate Council’s performance against these expectations. No councillor really highlighted, much less mentioned these results. We provide them for residents and emphasise that there is an incredible difference between what residents expect, value, and rate highly, with how they assess council’s actual performance in these areas. For us, this is the most telling result from the survey! (Full survey uploaded here)

“Services on which rated importance exceed performance include:  

– Planning & building permits: performance 53, importance 73 = -20 net differential

– Planning for population growth in the area: performance 53, importance 72 = -19 net differential

– Traffic management: performance 55, importance 72 = -17 net differential

– Community consultation and engagement: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential

– Council’s general town planning policy: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential

– Parking facilities: performance 56, importance 69 = -13 net differential

– Elderly support services: performance 67, importance 79 = –12 net differential

– Informing the community: performance 61, importance 73 = -12 net differential

– Lobbying on behalf of the community: performance 54, importance 64 = -10 net differential

– Disadvantaged support services: performance 64 , importance 73 = -9 net differential

– Environmental sustainability: performance 63, importance 72 = -9 net differential

– Condition of local streets and footpaths: performance 68, importance 75 = -7 net differential

– Family support services: performance 66, importance 71 = –5 net differential

– Enforcement of local laws: performance 65, importance 68 = -3 net differential

– Waste management: performance 79, importance 81 = -2 net differential

AND

It is recommended that Glen Eira City Council pay extra attention to areas where it is underperforming on a relative basis in comparison to the State-wide and Inner Melbourne Metropolitan groups such as Consultation and Advocacy……” 

AND

Glen Eira City Council should also pay particular attention to the service areas where importance exceeds performance by more than 10 points, including:

– Planning and building permits

– Planning for population growth in the area

– Traffic management

– Community consultation and engagement

– Council’s general town planning policy

– Parking facilities

– Elderly support services

– Informing the community  

 

July 25, 2012

The Dog’sTail Keeps Growing!

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

The fun and games began with several of the first items on last night’s agenda – a petition, committee minutes, records of assembly minutes, and the motions to accept them. This is what happened.

The petition was from a group of traders who queried why unnecessary footpath works were taking place outside their shops. They highlighted the impact this had on their businesses in these hard financial times as well as the fact that there had been no warning, no consultation, and no justification for the necessity of these works. We conclude: another perfect example of this council’s failure to consider, much less consult with residents prior to spending their money on arguable needless works! We also note that the names of the traders weren’t mentioned!

Pilling moved that the minutes of the Community Consultation committee and the Arts & Culture committee be adopted but that the minutes of the Environment Committee  be ‘deferred until next Council Meeting’. Esakoff seconded. Pilling’s argument for deferring one set of minutes was that the last Environment Committee meeting was ‘long’ and ‘a lot of issues’ were discussed. He stated that draft minutes had been circulated but 2 members were overseas and there was some ‘conjecture’ and that it was important to get ‘some different views’ on ‘what was recorded’. He therefore wanted to defer until everyone was back. Esakoff then reported on the other two committees. Motion was passed unanimously.

Next item was the Records of Assembly. Penhalluriack requested that one record be ‘treated separately’. The motion was then put by Magee that this occur. Penhalluriack then spoke about the minutes of 19th June and the references to himself in these minutes. He moved that the records be accepted except for the part which stated: “Cr Penhalluriack – raised a matter of rumours being circulated saying that he is costing the Council a lot of money by fighting the Ombudsman and Council. In relation to the recent media coverage aboutjk an illegal rooming house operating from a property he owns, Cr Penhalluriack said that backpackers were using the property and that he did not know who they were.” Penhalluriack wanted to amend this so that it read that he did raised the issue of rumours. He had ‘received an email from journalists’ and that he had said that ‘these rumours are malicious’…..’one councillor in particular had affected his reputation’….’backpackers had left a mess’….’he was not costing Council anything….as Council was taking action against him’…’it is tough being Cr Penhalluriack in this council’…..’Mayor reminded council’ that there’s independent ‘legal advice’. Forge seconded.

Penhalluriack then went on to speak to the amendment. He said that the original draft minutes had been ‘discussed around the table’ at the Assembly and the ‘majority said that should remain as is’….’for some reason….the minutes were changed’ and that’s why he was moving this motion.

PILLING then spoke against and said that he’s got a ‘bit of an issue’ with what Penhalluriack wants to put in the minutes.  He said that council wants ‘clarity’ in minutes and what Penhalluriack wants to put in represents a ‘discussion’ and not just ‘items’. It’s important to be ‘consistent’ …’irrespective of personalities’…’and conjecture’….(Penhalluriack is) ‘setting a precedent here and treating this issue in a different way to other issues’ so he’s voting against it.

MAGEE:  stated that he couldn’t see anything wrong with ‘having more detail’…..’takes anything away from the report’….’makes it clearer for people to understand’. Conceded that there is a ‘system where we’re consistent’….’but when a councillor decides that he wants more information’….’I would certainly find it difficult to vote against that’ since it’s really about the ‘transparency of the minutes’. More detail helps people who are reading it. ‘I do understand that over the years we do have a protocol…..is important to be consistent…..(overall being individuals that Council) ‘has to accommodate those issues’.

HYAMS: agreed with Pilling that ‘if we start putting in verbatim speeches by councillors’ that means that any councillor who thinks he’s got ‘anything good or popular to say’ that the argument would then be that this should go into the minutes. Referred to the Act that only demanded topics and conflict of interest disclosures so ‘we already go far above what’s required’ and therefore should ‘keep it to our usual practice’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he supports ‘minimalistic reporting’….’but unfortunately the author of these minutes does not’. Said that the records of assemblies for ‘week after week after week’ there is ‘Cr Penhalluriack verbatim’. Magee then raised a point of order that since Burke was absent it wasn’t fair what Penhalluriack was saying because the individual wasn’t present to defend himself. Hyams than warned Penhalluriack to ‘try and not say anything that might need to be defended’. Penhalluriack said he handed named anyone and that ‘the minutes as written’ have been ‘inconsistent’. He then referred to the immediate item above the one he read out which simply said ‘Cr Lipshutz –….. Statue’….’that means almost nothing to anybody’ (referred to a statue by Boyd that was in the front garden of council has now been removed and put outside GESAC) ‘Unless you have that information….that means nothing’…’what I’ve quoted to the meeting was in the original set of minutes….and let’s not forget he who writes the minutes writes history’…..’Ive been asking for a long time…whether we follow the Local Government Department’s recommendations (on minutes) or go along the path we’ve been going along for quite some time’.

Hyams put the motion to the vote. For – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge. Against Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling, Lobo. Motion defeated.

COMMENTS: Pilling’s inconsistency, if not straight out hypocrisy is quite unbelievable here. His argument for deferring the Environment Committee Meeting minutes was that it was a long meeting, many issues discussed and that people were overseas – so presumeably everyone should have a right to voice their opinion on the final set of minutes. According to Penhalluriack, the majority of councillors agreed to the draft version of the minutes, yet these were changed presumeably by Burke. How then can Pilling argue on the one hand that there should be consensus about minutes and then within a few nano-seconds basically disown this very same argument when it comes to Penhalluriack?

Interestingly, we have commented previously on how many of these Records Assembly feature (in far greater detail than for anyone else) every single utterance by Penhalluriack. We also commented at the time that we find it impossible to believe that Lipshutz sits there quietly without ever opening his mouth – judging by the number of times he is named in these minutes.

In the end, this entire episode is distasteful and further proof of the manipulations and how desperately there must be a complete overhaul of the way that minutes are drafted, presented, and doctored by this council. There simply is no consistency across any committee meetings or assemblies. Truth, transparency and governance are the inevitable victims in such shameful practices.

 

 

July 24, 2012

Academy Awards All Round!

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

Residents have nothing to fear. That is, if we want to elect actors, spin doctors and install administrators who cannot answer questions directly and instead rely on semantics and deliberately misleading statements – then look no further. The vast majority of the current crop of councillors and those officers who pen the responses to questions fit that bill to a tee! Or as Cr. Lipshutz has stated- all must belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda – say something often enough and even they may blissfully come to believe their own nonsense.

Tonight’s council meeting proved once and for all how orchestrated, rehearsed and unethical this entire council is. In what turned out to be a major talk fest of bubble and squeak, two important things were revealed:

  • Council’s legal advice in pursuing Penhalluriack now totals $147,000 PLUS another $120,000+ from early on. This will be paid by ratepayers and not council’s insurance company. We remind readers that the bill will escalate even further when the VCAT hearing gets underway in the second week of August. Certainly a very hefty price to pay in the attempt to silence one councillor!
  • The Ajax footy team will have their 1st September Anniversary celebration, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will now go to the bottom of the allocations listing. You simply can’t screw Burke and hope to get away with it unscathed in Glen Eira.

We will report on all this (and more) in detail in the days ahead. The performances overall were truly outstanding and gain our unqualified support for Academy awards.

 

July 22, 2012

Between A Rock & A Hard Place

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

In allowing officers to exercise full control over sensitive and community oriented issues such as sporting ground allocations, councillors have now found themselves literally between a rock and a hard place – do they support the community or the questionable decision making capacity of officers under delegation? First there was, and continues to be, the farce of the GESAC basketball allocations which resulted in ratepayer funds being wasted on legal advice upon legal advice, and the issue dragging on for 6 months or so. Now we have another instance of dictatorial decision making by the Sports Department (Linda Smith and her master Paul Burke) in their refusal to allow the Ajax footy club to hold a community event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the junior footy club on September 1st.

The outcome is a lengthy so called ‘report’ appearing in this week’s agenda. Once again, it  does not bear any officer’s name and basically seeks to justify the decision to deny Ajax the opportunity to celebrate this anniversary via dissembling, half truths and selective publication of correspondence. We’ve uploaded the report for all to read.

A few salient points need to be made regarding this ‘report’.

  • Much is made of seasonal allocation to sporting clubs and the need to submit an expression of interest each year for ground allocations. We question the mentality and efficacy of such a system. Surely all sporting clubs need more than a year’s notice to ensure the growth of their clubs and to facilitate proper planning? Contracts are surely written with caveats that would allow the suspension of leases because of anti-social behaviour so this shouldn’t be an issue?
  • Allegations were made at last council meeting that grounds are not for sale to the ‘highest bidder’. Ajax is now accused of entering into a private arrangement with the Caulfield Bears for a ground swap and a financial ‘incentive’ to improve the pavilion facilities. The report states that this disadvantages other clubs and that all pavilion redevelopments are funded by Council. Funnily enough, Council did not seem to have any problems in accepting close to $1,000,000 from Maccabi in order to allow this group to build the Leo Haskin Tennis Pavilion and associated courts. In fact, Maccabi proudly writes –

“Maccabi Victoria Sports Foundation oversaw the fundraising, planning and construction of the Leon Haskin Tennis Centre which opened in February 2008. This state-of-the-art home for the Maccabi Tennis Club features eight Plexicushion courts, a Pavilion and Club Room, providing a fantastic venue which will be a magnet for Jewish tennis players, and will serve the wider Maccabi community and the local community for many years.”

http://www.maccabi.com.au/VIC/Page/259/Sports-and-Social-Facilities.cfm

  • The report also goes to great lengths to drag up ancient history on the Caulfield Bears – going as far back as 1999. Apart from being totally irrelevant to what is happening today with this club, and the issue of a community event for one, single day, we just have to wonder: if the club has really been as bad as all this, then why has their tenancy been renewed year after year? Why haven’t they simply been chucked out?

There’s much more that could be said about this report. At the heart of this issue is the question of control. What stands out clearly is that the biggest crime committed by Ajax and the Caulfield Bears is the fact that they got together and worked out a mutually beneficial agreement to the exclusion of the power brokers. God forbid that clubs should be talking to each other and actually sidelining the bureaucrats. That is the ultimate threat to their power base.

We end with this letter received from Ajax which logically and sensibly reveals how slanted and totally irrelevant the officer’s report really is. Councillors, through their temerity and continued blind support of officers, show again and again how they fail to represent their constituents.

“Dear Councillors,

I have read the report supplied by the Council Officers in response to a previous request from an earlier Council Meeting.

Council at its last meeting was considering the reasons for rejection of the request for a Community Day-and the fact that those reasons were not relevant to the actual request for a one day use/hire of a public facility.(Paul Burke’s letter of 27/6/2012)

The Council then requested a report on:

1. The activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

I wish to make the following comments , so that you all have the opportunity to consider both sides, before you make an informed decision whether to allow the AJAX Football Club’s request or reject it.

I will restrict my comments to the only relevant matter- Ajax Football Club’s request to hold a Community Day,at Princes Park, including 2 games of VAFA senior AJAX football to celebrate the 40 years of the existence of the AJAX jnr Football Club, which is a tenant at that facility.

The Officers’ report begins with comments about the facilities at Princes Park-and elsewhere.ie the general aspects of open public space within the Glen Eira Municipality.

We agree that the upgrade of facilities at Princes Park are fantastic, and were done to allow football to be played there.

The Council’s own web site encourages the use and hiring by the public and sporting clubs, of Council-owned Public open spaces and parks-including Princes Park.

Local Parks

No matter what your age, our parks and reserves have something for everyone.

There are plenty of reasons to be out in one of the 67 parks in the municipality — from wide open spaces to shady hollows and playgrounds of all shapes and sizes to attract the young to barbecues that provide a meeting point for families and walking tracks for the more energetic.

Enjoy the flowers, marvel over the exotic trees, relax in a delightful rotunda or simply enjoy the fresh air.

With so much on offer, the recreation opportunities in Glen Eira are almost limitless. Take a look at these great parks and reserves.

The fact that the applicant is a tenant at Albert Park is irrelevant to the request to use/hire Princes Park for one day.Glen Eira Council allow anyone to hire public facilities. (our emphases)

The report then refers to an Agreement between Caulfield Bears and AJAX and then spends several pages on Caulfield Bears/Koornang Park/liquor licences etc etc

There is a financial agreement between two football clubs  One is the Ajax Senior Football Club Inc (“Ajax Seniors”). It has ground allocations at Albert Park, owned by the State Government, and located within the municipality of Port Phillip ……………………………

The agreement would appear to constitute a contingent liability on the part of one club and a contingent asset on the part of the other club and would need to be reflected in the clubs’ financial statements from the time that the agreement came into effect.

There are several other comments made in the report about the Agreement.But Council Officers have not seen the Agreement and it has nothing to do with the request to have a Community Day on 1/9/2012.There is no “contingent asset nor liability” and it is in fact totally irrelevant to the issue currently at hand for Councillors consideration and determination. (our emphases)

The Officers make many implications and assertions that are wrong and irrelevant about the Agreement.The Officers admit they have never seen the said Agreement.So it is wrong for Officers to make comments about an Agreement that :

1-they have not seen

2-that is irrelevant to the request for senior footy to be played on 1/9/2012.

It is critical that Council only considers the relevant matters as regards to 1/9/2012 and a Community Day with senior footy on Princes Park-on one day.Nothing else is at all relevant.Any Agreement between 3rd parties that do not concern Council I believe should not be raised at all nor considered.The officers’ report finally correctly states that the Agreement has no effect on Council processes and decisions.So why is it raised at all? (our emphases)

Princes Park is owned and controlled by Glen Eira Council for the general public.This Community Day request is not about seasonal ground allocations-this request is to have a one day community event to celebrate the 40 year anniversary of the AJAX junior football club, which is in fact a tenant of the Glen Eira Council at Princes Park.The AJAX junior players would have the best possible opportunity to see their senior teams play competitive footy at their own “home” ground on a Saturday, and they could aspire to play for that same club in future years.It is policy of Council to support and encourage junior and senior teams where possible to play from same ground to encourage that pathway.

The report rightly concludes:

5. Recommendations

That Council note that a financial agreement between a Glen Eira based club and a non-Glen Eira based club has not had any effect on Council’s systems of allocation of grounds or improvements to pavilions

So the Agreement does not effect Council’s allocations, systems and decisions.So the Agreement should be totally ignored.

In fact the report clearly does not set out ANY…..

……. activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

There are no activities nor functions displaced by the AJAX Football Club Community day on 1/9/2012 at Princes Park.The Council officers’ own report clearly answers the specific request by Councillors from the previous Council meeting.There are no reasons to reject the request for a Community Day.

So the request should not be rejected nor denied.In fact it should be actively encouraged and supported by Council.

Hence the only fair and reasonable conclusion is that the request to hold a Community Day on 1/9/2012 including 2 senior AJAX Football Club VAFA games should be allowed as no other Club, activity nor functions is displaced-on that day.In fact the majority of the local community would support and encourage this Community Day. (our emphases)

The fact that the proposed game is currently scheduled at Albert Park is irrelevant . Anyone can hire the open public spaces in Glen Eira.

AJAX jnr. Football Club is a tenant of Princes Park.

AJAX jnr.Football Club is celebrating 40 years since it began.

AJAX Football Club is the only Jewish football club.

A large proportion of rate payers in Glen Eira Municipality are Jewish and keenly follow the AJAX football club where their children, family, friends play footy.

The Jewish Orthodox community could walk to the game on Saturday.They can not do that at Albert Park.

The Council encourages the use and hiring of Public open space by any persons-there are no restrictions on hiring of open space for events and functions.There should be no discrimination.

This would be an event that the Jewish community would fully support.The Councillors would be seen by the voting community in a very positive way as Council would be facilitating the use of a state of the art facility, built and improved at substantial public expense for the specific use-football.

No one else is effected.no other activity or function is displaced.

The South Caulfield Cricket club does not need the centre pitch to Mid-October.There is ample time to have ground ready for the cricket season allocation.

This is a simple and straightforward request to celebrate a milestone event-40th anniversary of a tenanted club- on one day that does not effect anyone else.No one is displaced nor disadvantaged.It would be a great and memorable event for the Glen Eira Council.The Council would be paid for hiring of the facility.

We would ensure the facilities are properly cleaned after the event.

The Council web site sets out the guiding values.

Our Organisation

Our guiding values

Community focused, responsive and inclusive

We work to develop a tolerant and caring community, where everyone can feel they belong and participate in the decision-making that leads to achieving the best possible health, safety and lifestyle options within the City.

Accountable and relevant leadership

We consult, listen, and take note of community views to determine its priorities and needs and then acts through open, transparent processes that are financially and environmentally responsible and sustainable. We constantly work to find innovative ways of providing services measured against recognised benchmarks to improve services and set improved standards that will meet tomorrow’s increasing demands.

Community wellbeing

Glen Eira City Council, with an increasingly diverse community, treats all people with respect and dignity, providing equal access for all to services and resources. We operate to identify gaps and lift standards, currently not being met by other community providers or levels of government, within the constraints of its limited resources.

I hope and expect the Council will agree to approve the request as it would be consistent with, the Report provided by the Council Officers, and with the general policies of Council.

If any of the Councillors would like to meet with me to further discuss any matters about this request I am available to come to Council Chambers at mutually convenient times.

Thank you for taking the time to consider both sides.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

July 20, 2012

Unbridled Arrogance!

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

The agenda for next Tuesday night is out. It must go down in history as one of the most arrogant pieces of work ever to issue from this administration. When councillors pass resolutions and these resolutions are not carried out to the letter by council’s employees, then proper governance is truly dead in Glen Eira. Two important officer reports again have no names attached to them (rule by nobody!); specific requests are either overlooked or summarily dismissed in a tone that is condescending and totally unacceptable.

For this post, we will concentrate only one of these instances – the rest will follow once we’ve had time to properly digest the full implications of such arrogance.

At last council meeting, Lobo sent back the officers’ report on his request for the aboriginal flagpole. He specifically asked that the new report include ‘costs’. This second time around there is no ‘report’ as such, but an attachment from an Assembly of Councillors meeting dated the 17th July. We cite one paragraph from this in its entirety –

“The costs of these three options are not material. The issue is not so much cost but what is appropriate and what the community would prefer? Those are matters for judgement by elected representatives.”

What in effect this is saying is:

  • We will not answer your question
  • To hell with your council resolution for answers, and
  • Logically it is untenable. How can councillors decide on any option without knowing costs?

In the great scheme of things, this issue is trivial, inconsequential, and certainly doesn’t warrant the attention it’s been receiving. However, what it reveals about the workings of this council, its culture and mentality of administrators is priceless. It clearly indicates that for officers they will brook no opposition to their plans – even if that means not fully adhering to council resolutions. Councillors and their requests are mere flies in the ointment.

Over to you councillors. Will you accept this further slap in the face, or assert your legal rights and electoral responsibilities?

 

July 19, 2012

Just A ‘Little Help From My Friends’

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

This is a contentious post because it asks the most basic questions – how should a council support its residents? What is the best way for a council to ensure that it is protecting the amenity of its residents? How much money should be expended on defending council planning decisions and supporting resident objectors? Is it better for example, to spend half a million dollars on erecting concrete plinth curbing in Caulfield Park, or using this money for expert testimony at VCAT? How much money should a council spend in defending its decisions at VCAT?

Glen Eira spends practically zilch on outside ‘experts’ – except when it suits their agendas! We’ve taken the time to go through various councils’ VCAT appearances and to note how often they employ outside expertise. We draw no conclusions as to outcomes. We’ve simply gone through sequentially 20 decisions for each of Glen Eira, Kingston, and Bayside and ask readers to once again compare how Glen Eira operates, in stark contrast to these other councils. They do not appear to have too many qualms in hiring experts to defend their cases. They spend rate-payers’ money trying to defend council decisions and supporting residents. Glen Eira cannot claim the same.

Below are tables for each council. Please note that the 2 times that Glen Eira hired ‘outsiders’, these cases involved the MRC where council’s lawyer practically did all the work for the MRC, and its ‘valuer’ when a resident objected to increased valuation on their property. All the rest of the time council officers have presented the case. It then becomes highly questionable whether these same officers, who possibly recommended the permits or conditions, can actually then turn around and argue against the original recommendation!

VCAT   HEARING

COUNCIL   REPRESENTATION
Pascoe   v Glen Eira CC Officer
Younes   v Glen Eira Officer
Baxas   v Glen Eira CC Officer
Imperium   Design v Glen Eira C Officer
Furman   Construction (Vic) Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Fredman   Malina Planning v Glen Eira CC Officer
Chipp   v Glen Eira CC (Correction) Officer
Sharp   v Glen Eira CC Officer
Healy & Anor v Glen Eira CC &   Anor Mr I Pridgeon, solicitor, Russell   Kennedy
Mokro   Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Arch   10 Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Blue   Wolf Development Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Glenhawk   Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Cullity   v Glen Eira CC Officer
Delanex   Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer
Popov   v Glen Eira CC & Ors Officer
Elfman   v Glen Eira CC Officer
Stanjkiewicz   v Glen Eira CC & Ors Officer
Glavinic   v Glen Eira CC Mr John Kennedy, of Patel Dore Valuers Pty Ltd appeared for the   respondent municipality. (Note: this was about a resident contesting Council’s rate valuations!)

 
Gryngras   v Glen Eira CC & Ors Officer
Homes   v Glen EiraCC Officer
B   Central Development Group v Glen Eira CC Officer
McCabe   Architects Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC Officer

 

BAYSIDE

APPEAL

REPRESENTATION
Asmar v Bayside Mr B Mcilrath, Solicitor, of Maddocks

 
Roach v Bayside Officer

 
Premier   Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside Officer
Tan &   Anor v Bayside Officer
Haileybury   v Bayside Mr Jason Kane, Barrister by direct brief.

 
Hotel   Brighton Pty Ltd v                                                                       Bayside Ms Kim Piskuric, solicitor, of Maddocks

 
Baker v Bayside   CC Officer
Diecke v Bayside Officer
R K Tech   Studios v Bayside Officer
de Silva v   Bayside Officer
Gyopar   Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Officer
Spernat v Bayside Mr B McIlrath, Solicitor, Maddocks

 
Manotti   & Ors v Bayside Officer
RJL   Properties Pty Ltd v Bayside Mr Jason Kane, Barrister by direct brief.

 
Clarendon   Property v Bayside Mr Jason Kane by direct brief.

 
Chambolle   Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Mr J Kane of Counsel by direct brief, and Ms N O’Leary, Statutory   Planning Co-ordinator. Evidence was called from Mr B Raworth, Conservation   Consultant and Historian of Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd.

 
Peter   Wright & Associates Pty Ltd v Bayside Mr Darren Wong, Solicitor of of Maddocks.

 
Nates   Adams & Associates Pty Ltd v Bayside Officer
Foy v Bayside Mr J Kane, Barrister, Direct Brief

 
Abdou v Bayside Mr Jason Kane, barrister, direct brief

 

 

KINGSTON

APPEAL REPRESENTATION
Pace   Development Group Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 831 Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.
Takla   & Anor v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 820 Officer
Rodlink   Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 694 Mr Redmond McNamara, town planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.

Evidence was called from Mr Chris Coath, traffic engineer of GTA   Consultants

 
Transpacific   Waste Management Pty Ltd v Kingston CC & Ors Mr Ragu Appudurai, Solicitor, and Mr Stefan Fiedler, Solicitor, of   Russell Kennedy.

They called the following witness:

Robert Henry Amaral, Geotechnical Engineer
Fastnet   Consulting Pty Ltd v Kingston CC (Correction) Ms. Maggie Ene, Town Planning Consultant, Brown & Tomkinson

 
Frederick   Nudel & Associates v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 611 Officer

 
Tsganas v   Kingston CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 602 Mr R   McNamara, Planning Consultant, Hansen Partnership
Camelia   Woods Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 551 Mr Cameron Gentle of Hansen Consultants.

 
Guastella   v Kingston CC (Correction) [2009] VCAT 2015 Mr Peter Soding (planner) of Tixxis Pty Ltd

 
Di Cosmo v   Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 93 Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner of Hansen Partnership

 
ARPC   Consultants Pty Ltd V Kingston CC & Ors Mr Gary Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership

 
Pace   Development Group v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 38 Mr Stuart Morris QC, barrister, assisted by Mr J Dabscheck, solicitor,   Maddocks

He called the following witnesses:

  •   Mr Robert McGauran, architect and   urban designer, McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd
  •   Mr Craig Czarny, urban designer,   Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd
  •   Mr Chris Coath, traffic engineer, GTA   Consultants

 
Boxtel   Homes Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 3 Mr G Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership.

 
Boxtel   Homes v Kingston CC [2011] VCAT 2208 Mr Gary Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.

 
Rushworth   & Ors v Kingston Officer
Taylors   Development v Kingston Officer
PMC   Developments Pty Ltd v Kingston Ms Fiona   Slechten, planning consultant of Brown & Tomkinson Pty Ltd.
Bjbac Pty   Ltd v Kingston Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd

 
Murray v Kingston Mr Peter Soding, Town Planner of
  Tixxis Pty Ltd.

 
Salemi v Kingston Mr Redmond   McNamara of Hansen Partnership

 

 

 

 

July 18, 2012

When Minutes Aren’t Minutes!

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

Almost half of the 2010 Municipal Inspector’s report concerned itself with council ‘minutes’. Councillors were cautioned to ensure that an independent minute taker was present at councillor only meetings; that all minutes include resolutions. The drawback was that there was no ‘breach of the Act’ even though minutes were doctored, changed, amended repeatedly.

Two years later, nothing much has improved in this area. If anything it has got worse. Advisory committees now often come under the umbrella of ‘records of assembly’ so all that is legally required is noting those present, the subjects discussed and if there are any conflict of interest declarations. The Pools Steering Committee is the perfect example of this. Even worse is that a perusal of the records of assembly feature numerous ‘amendments’ and the deletion of phrases. The most frequent advocate for this is Hyams. The Sport & Rec meeting of several years ago is clear testimony to how much is censored and left out.

Then there’s the question of consistency of reporting. The Environment Committee has arguably the most ‘extensive’ minutes, although when a community rep on this committee lamented that the minutes needed to be far more expansive, she was told that minutes aren’t Hansard. In contrast, other committee minutes such as the Pools Steering Committee are lucky to consist of 100 words most of the time. There simply is no consistency, no procedures, and no mechanism within Council’s Local Law Meeting Procedures which ensures full transparency and accountability for all meetings.

One way of doing away with this problem of accurate reporting is simply not to hold any committee meetings. The Finance Committee has been allowed to evaporate, as has the Roads Special Committee, the Racecourse Advisory Committee, the Animal Management Committee, and so on and so on. The latter 2 have not met for over a year we believe.

Such is governance in Glen Eira. Secrecy is all and accountability the poor relation. What minutes are published admittedly do not have to be the equivalent of Hansard, but they must be a truthful and accurate account of what went on. We assert that this principle has been flagrantly abused.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »