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.

The minutes from last week’s CEO Special Committee have been published. The relevant motion reads:

Crs Magee/Pilling

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider Agenda Item 6.1 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and is confidential pursuant to section 89(2)(a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Forge and Lipshutz were absent and Penhalluriack obviously excluded. Several observations are necessary:

• Newton’s latest contract officially began in April 2012. Hence less than three months into this new contract we have a performance review? Why? Local Government Victoria recommends one performance appraisal per year. Even if Newton’s contract varies these terms, it is still most unusual to conduct this appraisal so early into a new contract. We surmise that these tactics are due to the upcoming election and the real possibility of a different group of councillors. It would thus make sense to bank some brownie points whilst the gang is still in office.
• It should also be asked why the meeting went ahead when two councillors were absent – leaving only 6 to adjudicate. Surely no catastrophe would have occurred if the meeting was several weeks later when all councillors were present?
• The continued secrecy of this council in all matters dealing with the CEO is unacceptable. Other councils appear to have no problem with making public the performance criteria that is used to assess their CEOs. In Glen Eira, nothing is public. The following links provide clear examples of how other councils choose to operate –

http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Files/CEOPerformanceReviewCriteriaAppointmentReappointment2011.pdf

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13_-_Chief_Executive_Officer_Annual_Review.pdf  AND http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13-_Attachment_1_-_Achievements_Against_2010-11_Council_Plan.pdf

When salaries of well over $300,000 (PLUS POSSIBLE BONUSES) are paid to individuals, it behoves organisations to ensure full transparency and accountability. Note, we are not suggesting that performance reviews be done under the full glare of public scrutiny. What we are suggesting is that it is imperative that residents know precisely HOW and against what targets performance is assessed.

Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.

TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1^st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.

Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t  take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.

MAGEE:  Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it?  And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…

LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.

ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?

BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’

HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers

TANG:  Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.

COMMENTS

We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14^th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!

Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.

This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?

PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.