GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 9, 2012

GESAC: Traffic & Parking Mayhem

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

Today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly –

Sporting chance for parkers  

bridget.fitzgerald@fairfaxmedia.com.au  

A SHORTAGE of car park space at the new Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is causing problems for users of a neighbouring sports ground.

Soccer club members who use Bailey Reserve, on East Boundary Road, are being forced to park in neighbouring streets because of a lack of spaces.

Glen Eira Moorabbin Softball Association president Ian Bahn believes the problem will worsen when the softball season starts in October. “Our season hasn’t started yet, but we have been down to Bailey Reserve to have meetings, and seen that it [parking] is going to be a problem,” Mr Bahn said. “Come summer, when it gets busier with people using the pool and the ground, it’s going to be very interesting.”

GESAC opened on May 7. Despite opening four months late because of building delays it reached a membership of 4000 on its first day. Glen Eira council spokesman Paul Burke said limited parking was proving to be an issue. “We now have about 5700 members. The problem is that these members are still getting used to how they use the facility and are still creating a routine,” Mr Burke said.

Adding to the shortage, some Bailey Reserve car park spaces were lost during construction of the new facility. East Bentleigh Soccer Club is the primary winter tenant of the ground. Club secretary Chris Loose said parking was an issue. “We have had members of our club making other arrangements, parking in surrounding streets, on East Boundary Road, or walking – but that is obviously not so desirable in winter,” he said. Mr Loose said the club had notified the council of the issue and believed GESAC and Bailey Reserve tenants could work together to find a solution.

 

July 5, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #3

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

The third ‘whiff of revolution’ concerns a request for a report originally moved by Lobo and Pilling concerning the flying of the aboriginal flag atop the council building. Paul Burke’s name is attached to the report. The Lobo motion in part, asked for: “What would be the cost for an additional pole and how do we go about achieving this”. Like so many other officer reports, this part was totally ignored and the stock answer of ‘no’ provided.

It was therefore somewhat surprising that the following occurred at Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOBO:  wanted the item ‘deferred’ until the next council meeting and that ‘further information be provided in relation to costs and options’. Pilling seconded.

Lobo thanked officers but also said that the report ‘outlines mainly the policies’ of council ‘but as I earlier requested it would be great to see’ whether there could be a second pole and its cost.

PILLING: said it was a ‘fair and reasonable ask for more information in line with the original motion’ about costs.

Motion was put and accepted unanimously.

COMMENT

What the catalyst was for this sudden flexing of muscles by Lobo and the other councillors we can only guess at. The item itself is arguably innocuous. But it does represent a definite chastisement of Burke and his colleagues. The great pity, as we have previously remarked, is that this does not happen often enough in council. Shoddy reports that lack detail, do not answer the requests, and basically tell councillors ‘no it can’t be done’ are accepted without blinking. Perhaps in this case political mileage for the upcoming election may have been a factor? Or again, given that a public question had been asked, the issue was up front and in the public domain. We’ve copied the question and the response below.

““Is Council satisfied that having requested a report by a resolution of Council and having specifically asked that a cost be provided for an additional flagpole at this building, that not only were no costs provided in Item 9.7, but that Officers are recommending not to erect a second pole at Glen Eira’s Town Hall? Furthermore is the Glen Eira Council satisfied that when requested by government offices, such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet-Victoria, to fly the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders flag, (for days such as National Sorry Day May 26th and National Reconciliation week 27th May to 3rd June), Council is only able to do so by fixing such flags below a portico? If flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags is seen “by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive”, they can be directed to the Premiers Office who has sought Council’s assistance. And finally does this Council consider it is time to review its Policy 1.7 “Australian National Flag” and consider perhaps the erection of a second and third pole to be located at an appropriate site on the ground? This will enable Council to fly the National Flag on number one pole atop the clock in addition to occasionally flying the Aboriginal Flag and Torres Strait Islander Flag or the State of Victoria Flag at grade.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “This item was listed on tonight’s Council Agenda as Item 9.7 so it has not been possible to provide a response prior to the debate. However, you will be able to read Council’s resolution on this matter in the Minutes of the Council Meeting which will be available on Council’s website later this week and which show that this item was deferred and more information was requested. I would, however, point out by way of clarification that the report does not say that flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is ‘seen by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive’. It states that flying those flags may lead to requests from members of the community for Council to fly flags that would be seen in this way.”

 

July 4, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #2

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

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 1st 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 40th 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 14th 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.

 

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

MCKINNON residents fear someone will be killed if Glen Eira Council does not act on a traffic black spot.

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)”.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »