GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 3, 2012

What Is Safety Worth?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments

Community safety is supposed to be the bedrock of many Council policies – especially road and pedestrian safety. That’s why the following Leader article caught our eye. It says a lot about the gulf between rhetoric, spin, and public relations compared to the realities which confront residents on a daily basis. Council’s response is woeful. When safety is an issue it should not take 3 years for any responsible action. We remind readers that when it was deemed necessary (as an afterthought) to extend the GESAC carpark and relocate a playground, nearly $1 million dollars was found overnight! This tells us plenty about the priorities of this administration.

McKinnon residents’ fears over traffic black spot

3 Jul 12 @ 05:05am by Jessica Bennett

Andrew, who did not want to include his surname, and neighbours have been rallying council to improve safety at the corner of Lindsay St and Balmoral Ave.

He said there had been at least six incidents over the past eight years with drivers losing control around the sharp, narrow corner and smashing through residents’ fences – which happened again on June 6.

“This one is more serious in that the whole car came off the road, mounted the nature strip and smashed into a tree before driving away,” he said.

Resident Richard Kellaway said locals feared someone would be killed at the corner, a popular route for children walking to school, if council did not act.

In a letter to Andrew, council’s transport planning manager Matthew Harridge said a road safety auditor recommended resurfacing/reconstruction of Lindsay St within three years.

He also said the installation of a high-friction surface would be brought forward in the 2012/13 financial year.

PS: A reader has sent us the following. This Council’s ‘proactivity’ needs comparing with the innovation of others.

June 30, 2012

Snails Move Faster!

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

In August 2010, we had the mock Planning Scheme Review – allegedly based on “extensive consultation” . Funny how resident views via submissions were not published, but such views barely made it into the final “Action Plan”. We thought it would be interesting to go back and review the review. Specifically, we were looking at:

What was promised but has not been done in two years time – ie many of the following indicated a completion date of 2010/11. We are now just on two years down the track and there’s no movement at the station. What has been “completed” of course, are all those amendments which would allow more and more residential development!
The other completed amendments involve REMOVAL of such important sections as the Development Contributions Levy, Commercial Centres Policy, and this coming week the revamping of the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
We simply have to ask: are these really the most urgent, the most important components of the Planning Scheme? Or are they merely those components which will allow more and more open slather for developers and that’s why they receive priority treatment?

Below we list all the so called Action Items which are still to get a look in. They make for some impressive reading we think!

Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy
Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)
Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
Do not implement structure plans. Instead, complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
Review the Housing Diversity Area policy to provide prescriptive guidance.
Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements

June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

Lipshutz and Forge were absent
The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
Lobo did not utter a word
Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’. ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

June 25, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Traffic

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

We’ve repeatedly stated that where there’s a will, there’s a way. This is abundantly clear when it comes to traffic management, road safety, and parking innovation. Glen Eira’s approach has been, and remains, ad hoc and ineffective. We present below how other councils approach these issues and how they actually PLAN, fund, and develop strategies to deal with 21st century dilemmas. We ask readers to compare this approach to what our administrators and councillors come up with.

Such comparisons are even more important given that today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly features a news clip stating that Council is ‘advocating’ to the State Government for action on Carnegie Station since “long delays and associated traffic congestion may hamper a retail development being built north of the line.”!!!! Good to see that Council has its priorities right! More to the point, this identical “advocacy” features on Council’s homepage which hasn’t been updated since October 2008!

In stark contrast we present two documents: a Media Release and a Municipal Parking Strategy (uploaded here) from Moonee Valley Council.

Media Release

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Plan in place to review traffic and parking around the city

Last night, Moonee Valley Councillors adopted a long term plan to review and improve parking across the municipality.

The plan involves dividing the municipality up into 22 Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) precincts and rolling out a timeline of scheduled reviews for each one.

Moonee Valley Mayor Cr Jim Cusack said the LATM precincts were identified a few years ago.“Last year we incorporated them into our new Municipal Parking Strategy,” Cr Cusack said. “The Municipal Parking Strategy (MPS) adopted late last year provides a set of tools to effectively manage traffic and parking around the city now and in the future.

“The inclusion of the LATM precincts in the MPS will allow Council to develop a more strategic and proactive approach to managing traffic and parking in Moonee Valley.“Council is taking a local area approach when it comes to traffic and parking in order to help coordinate and integrate parking initiatives around the city.

“The use of LATM precincts allows Council to address specific neighbourhood needs, whilst keeping an eye on the wider parking and traffic trends and issues across the municipality such as through traffic. It also enables Council to have a systematic approach to particular traffic and parking challenges such as school zones, encourage parking demand to be spread throughout an area and plan for capital works associated with traffic and parking improvements more strategically.”

“Moonee Valley is a city in transition. As Melbourne grows, our population continues to increase and the level of usage of our road network changes. We want to meet local needs and also take into consideration the wider community and help our residents, workers and visitors move towards more sustainable travel practices.”

Portfolio holder for Traffic and Transportation Planning Cr Narelle Sharpe said Council decided to review two LATM precincts per financial year.“The review of each LATM precinct is a lengthy process as it entails traffic and parking analysis as well as consultation with the local community,” said Cr Sharpe. “With 22 LATM precincts, we needed a set of criteria to help us prioritise the review and implementation program of each area.

“The ranking system we adopted reflects our focus on safety. It is based on numerous criteria ranging from resident and community concerns, traffic volumes, traffic speed and accidents, to more proactive criteria such as the number of activity centres and number of facilities that generate a lot of pedestrian and car traffic like railway stations, schools and community centres.

“To ensure the ranking is fair, we adopted a weighting system so that LATM precincts with a larger number of streets are not artificially advantaged.

“The Fletcher and Newmarket LATM precincts were identified as the highest priority precincts and therefore will be the ones Council will review first.

“Traffic management projects have already been developed for the 2012/13 financial year and we will work towards completing these as soon as the budget is finalised and approved.”

A map of the LATM precincts as well as details of the criteria used, the weighting system and scores of each Precinct are available on request.”

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[25] Comments

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’ “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah! Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors. All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

June 16, 2012

The Bastardry Continues!

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

Below is an email which the journalist Keith Moor sent to Cr Penhalluriack prior to his article on the recent boarding house fines. We cite this email in full – apart from the journalist’s phone number.

“Dear Mr Penhalluriack, I am writing an article for tomorrow’s Herald Sun about an illegal backpacker hostel which is being run from 339 Hawthorn Rd and which the Glen Eira Council is attempting to have shut down or brought up to the fire safety standards required of a rooming house.

I have copies of letters written by the council to the property owner. I have done a property search on it and found the company K.I.Penhalluriack owns the property. I have done a company search and found you and your wife are the directors of that company.

Can you please call me at work on xxxxx so I can get some comment from you to include in the article.

Cheers

Keith Moor”

COMMENT:

Whether or not Moor contacted Council first, or whether Council contacted Moor over this issue palls into insignificance with the admission that Moor has ‘copies of letters written by council’. We believe that this is in breach of the Privacy Act and certainly unethical.
Who sent the documents to the Herald Sun? Why were these documents sent? One unavoidable conclusion has to be that this is just another shot in the long running smear campaign?
What faith should residents therefore have in any ‘private’ information that this council holds about them and the adherence to both ethical and legal practice?

For those readers unfamiliar with the Information Privacy Act, we cite the following sections and ask that the actions of this administration be seen in the light of these.

The Information Privacy Act states (in part) in relation to the disclosure of information to a third party –

“An organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless—

(a) both of the following apply—

(i) the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose of collection and, if the personal information is sensitive information, directly related to the primary purpose of collection;

(ii) the individual would reasonably expect the organisation to use or disclose the information for the secondary purpose;or

(b) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure; or

(c) if the use or disclosure is necessary for research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics, in the public interest, other than for publication in a form that identifies any particular individual—

(i) it is impracticable for the organisation to seek the individual’s consent before the use or disclosure”

Glen Eira Council’s Privacy Policy also states: “Council will only use personal information within Council, or disclose it outside Council, for the purpose for which it was collected or in accordance with the Act (eg where it has obtained consent or where the person would reasonably expect this to occur)”.

June 14, 2012

Community Plan Presentations

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

Speaker #1: assumed that councillors had read the submission. Began with Open Space contributions and wondered how this was being used since it did not appear to be clearly stated, “so I can only assume that it’s being used for operation costs” and not to purchase land. Suggested that the Audit committee might want to have a look at this if it has been an ongoing practice. Next comment related to inappropriate development and the speaker reinforced the significance of structure plans which can lead to ‘best quality development’. Urged council not to dismiss this strategy. Congratulated council on GESAC but said that we’re now in the ‘post GESAC era’ and need to move on because there are other important projects to consider. Called for a ‘fresh look’ at the plan because it didn’t appear to be very different from earlier plans. It needed more ‘visionary concepts’, more ‘innovative concepts’. Stated that the Steering committee should have consulted with the people who took part in the forums ‘before rushing’ and felt this was the real problem – everything was rushed. Claimed that the council website ‘crashed regularly’. A new website was needed ‘that encompassed more than’ information about administration but that it include information on businesses, sports groups and culture. Said that there should be more stories ‘about community groups’ and more for the ‘disconnected and alone’.

Didn’t think the chamber was particularly welcoming and suggested that councillor’s motions could be put up on a screen, as could the amendments, so that the gallery knows what is being discussed or debated. A strong plea to establish ‘permanent community reference panels’ which would be regularly consulted and would cover everything from church groups to social and sporting groups. Finished by saying that ‘the negativity which runs consistently’ through the submissions should be listened to and not disregarded as a simple minority voice. Said that ‘these are community members who care enough to listen’, read the documents and they should be heard.

SPEAKER#2: started by stating that after all the consultations, surveys and consultants’ reports overdevelopment, traffic, governance are issues that have been highlighted. These issues aren’t new and have been numerous times over the years. Stated that residents have been continually told that ‘council listens’, but it’s now past this listening phase and that it should be the time for action instead of merely listening. Didn’t think that the current draft plan tackled residents’ concerns. What was lacking were structure plans, height limits, parking plans, levies. Many of council’s policies go back over a decade and are ‘archaic’ and out of date. Concluded with the comment that the community plan provides what it calls ‘strategies’ but these aren’t strategies and ‘measures’ aren’t ‘measures’. Funding for things like drains has been cut, but this is what the community expects council to be doing. Action is what’s needed much more than listening.

SPEAKER #3: Agreed with the points made by earlier speakers. Stated that when council continually puts up rates there should also be a criteria and reporting on ‘productivity improvement’ which should match inflation. These should be reported on quarterly and with clear measures on how this has been achieved.

TANG then asked any of the presenters about one of the points made by GERA about parking permits in residential streets. Asked for examples and said that the ‘solution’ was not something he had been asked about before. One of the presenters responded by saying that currently residents can receive parking permits for adjacent streets regardless of how well these adjacent streets can meet demand. Resident requests for traffic counts have increased dramatically so parking and rat runs are a problem. Stonnington has a policy where new medium developments don’t get parking permits forcing developers to provide on site parking.

TANG asked the second speaker about developer contributions levies and that when Council removed it, it was because it was costing more to operate than the monies received. Said that the majority of councils had ‘got rid of it’ or don’t ‘administer it’. The speaker responded that the Government is probably going to introduce a ‘standardised one’. Another presenter stated that it would be about 8%.

TANG thanked submitters. Said that councillors now needed to go away and reflect on the submissions. Said that he didn’t think that the plan was ‘doing justice to the broader community consultation process’…’timeframe doesn’t allow us to take advantage’ (of committee and responses and that council should take some of community views) ‘on board’. There were also ‘ideological points’ that council would ‘have to grapple with’. Stated that all the requested changes couldn’t all happen at once and they would have to be staggered over time. That priorities such as changing footpath expenditure to drains, or the pavilion strategy…’tough decisions there….we can’t do them all….some by re-prioritising’.

MAGEE: also thanked submitters and stated that putting things in writing is time consuming and ‘commendable’. Said that reading the submissions he thought that some of the suggestions council was already doing and that Glen Eira is a ‘very, very good council’. Admitted that it’s only over the past 18 months that he’s learnt ‘what it is to be a councillor’ and that the submissions ‘mean more’ to him now than when he first started as councillor. Believed that ‘I do genuinely listen when I’m told what’s wrong’…’we do have structure plans’…’it’s not policy on the run’ (advice they get is)’good advice’. Some of the suggestions put forward ‘make sense’….’there’s some good stuff in here’. Said that residents shouldn’t wait for formal submissions but contact councillors directly at all times.

HYAMS: also thanked submitters and those involved in consultation. Said that ‘there certainly are improvements that can be made to the plan’. The steering committee would meet on Thursday night. Further discussions would happen and ‘hope to adopt it’ on 26^th June.

TANG: Said that the website update would hopefully address ‘some of the issues’ raised. Said he had some ideas that would be discussed with the committee.

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

“ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
“Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
“My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
“The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
“the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
“The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
“”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5^th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”

June 8, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

Several contentious planning applications
Several amendments
Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

Several contentious planning applications
Several amendments
Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining sites in Minimal Change Areas”. Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement. However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.

Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates