GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 5, 2012

Council & The MRC: What Price Safety?

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

Council would like residents to believe that ‘safety’ is top of the priority list when it comes to all manner of things. The photos below of Queen’s Avenue reveal a different story:

the failure of council and the MRC to provide a safe environment via regular pruning of branches
bike riders who have to veer into the path of cars in order to avoid these branches.
joggers who would have to veer onto the road because of failure to regularly prune back trees and shrubbery
It’s quite bizarre that there’s an entry to the Racecourse precinct from Queens Av but you can’t get there safely on foot.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

August 2, 2012

The Ethics Of Planning

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

We raise an issue that has important ethical implications about the interdependence of developers and council planners. Two questions stand out:

How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
To what extent should officers’ reports to council be an almost verbatim transcript of the developer’s proposal or, if not verbatim, then a very close paraphrasing of the application?
To what extent do officers rely completely on developers’ reports and to what extent to they do their own homework and investigations?

We focus here on two documents related to the proposed C80 amendment which seeks to rezone parts of Glen Huntly Rd in order to create a 5 storey, 62 unit dwelling with car parking waiver. Part of this site also featured in this week’s Leader, since there is another application in to create a recycling facility on a section of this proposed rezoned land. (See our previous post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)

We’ve located the Urbis ‘Planning Permit Report’ (104 pages) and compared this with the five and a half page officer report presented to councillors. It’s important to note that of this five and a half pages, more than two are taken up with the usual preliminaries and protocols – ie the processes involved in seeking amendments, and an opening page which outlines the proposal, plus the aerial view of the site. That leaves roughly 3 pages upon which councillors have to make their decision. Hardly adequate we believe! And especially inadequate when justification for recommending the proposal rests on such nebulous language as ‘appropriate’, “consistent”, “adequately cater”, etc. This is the part that is important. The rest of the item consists of architect drawings and a ten page draft Permit Application. We doubt that any councillor actually read this ‘permit’!

We’ve extracted some paragraphs from the Urbis report and compared this with the council planner’s effort. The selective plagiarism should be obvious to everyone and makes us seriously question not only the ethics of this, but also whether council planners by quoting, or paraphrasing so liberally can be seen as impartial adjudicators?

THE URBIS REPORT	COUNCIL OFFICER’S REPORT
“The proposed amendment provides opportunities for new economic growth and additional housing supply within the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. The existing N3Z applied to the subject land is designed to encourage the development of industries and associated uses which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises within the subject land. The rezoning of the land to B2Z allows for a different mix of possible land use outcomes that would be consistent with the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.”	The existing Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) applied to 1232-1258 Glen Huntly Road, supports industries and associated uses, which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises and nonindustrial uses operating with the area. Also the industrial zoning currently prohibits any residential use/development on the land (other than a caretaker’s dwelling). Therefore the rezoning has the potential to create opportunities for economic growth and additional housing supply consistent with the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre.
“The majority of the subject land is currently zoned for industrial use. A Site Assessment Report, prepared by Douglas Partners has indicated that a number of the sites have had past and current land uses that are considered to be of medium to high potential for contamination, including 122 Grange Road, Carnegie. Therefore the amendment seeks to implement an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land to ensure that it is suitable for any future sensitive uses.	A chronological land use history of all the sites has been undertaken to identify whether the land is potentially contaminated. Based on these findings it is considered that there is medium to high potential for contamination. Therefore the application of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to all of the land is required, to ensure that the land is suitable for any sensitive use, such as residential, in the future.
“The Framework Plan identifies the land as being located within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). It is important to note, that the activity centre designation of the Glen Huntly is different from (sic) State Government’s perspective under Melbourne 2030. The B2Z encourages a range of office and associated commercial uses, which complement the core retail uses of the centre and achieve the desired strategic outcomes for an activity centre of this level.”	The rezoning of 122 Grange Road from Residential 1 to Business 2 is considered appropriate and will reflect the long term commercial use that has operated on the land since the 1950s. It will also facilitate future mixed use redevelopment opportunity of this prominent corner location. It is important to note that there currently is a discrepancy between State and Local Planning Policy in regards to the identification of the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. State Planning Policy identifies Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre (MAC). Council’s Local Planning Policy identifies this area as a Neighbourhood Centre.

August 2, 2012

How Not To Answer Public Questions!

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

The following stems from another public question asked at last council meeting. Whilst the original question is admittedly long and not numbered, we have attempted to organise the question and answer along some logical lines. This proved to be a most difficult task given that there is no real connection between what is asked and the response! All the questions relate to parking and traffic management in an upcoming Murrumbeena development.

Why hasn’t the council been pro active knowing that post development there will be traffic and parking issues?

Answer – William Street, Murrumbeena is situated within Council’s Housing Diversity Area. A key reason for this designation is the good access to public transport (including Hughesdale Railway Station) which provides opportunities for residents and their visitors not to use private vehicles. Development is therefore directed towards these areas.

What are councils plans regarding parking and traffic flow in and out of William st knowing that reports are already available.?

Answer – It is acknowledged that some additional vehicle movements will be experienced in William Street as a result of the new development however State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.

Why does the council continue to fail the residents and stakeholders regarding this development?

Answer: Council annually receives many requests for traffic management works but resources for works of this type are finite requiring prioritisation of resources. Resources are directed to those streets in greatest need of attention (not where new rateable homes are provided). Council operates a warrants system whereby streets are prioritised for attention on the basis of objective criteria including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, reported crashes, peak hour traffic volumes and land uses (activity generators).

Why cant the the council be proactive and involve the residents and stakeholders with and open forum to appease concerns regarding access in and out of William st let alone parking post development?

Answer: Traffic counts will be undertaken following the occupation of the new apartments to determine the number of vehicles using William Street.

It is obvious that there will be traffic issues in William st post development, imagine 50 cars trying to get in and out of Poath rd in peak hour. keeing in mind cars parked in the street.

Answer: It is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable.

The resources are available as there is 41 new rateable homes, The information regarding traffic management is available and already supplied.

What is the councils plans to assit and appease the residents and stakeholders concerns regarding traffic and parking in William St Murrumbeena?”

Answer: Once data is collected in William Street, it will be added to this list to determine its priority for traffic management works.

July 30, 2012

Your Rates At Work!

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

In the interests of presenting the truth, we will conclude with the following slideshow. Please note:

the weeds
the mould/fungii
and the water logged and dead trees. We have plenty of photos of more dead trees. We estimate that each tree would have cost at least $50 given their size. More money literally down the drain!
We have to ask: do these people really know what they are doing?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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:

Vast areas of “stable” grass was needlessly ripped up at ratepayers’ expense
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 19^th 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 1^st 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates