GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 27, 2012

Prudent Financial Management? – Duncan McKinnon

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

The saga of the Duncan McKinnon grandstand and pavilion ‘redevelopment’ continues. Council minutes now reveal that the tender has finally been awarded and that the contract price is $9,744,651.52.  

We’re astounded at the apparent inflation rate. All along residents have been sold different versions of what this will cost. The 2011/12 budget stated –“$5.5m for Duncan Mackinnon in 2011-2012 and $1.8m in 2012- 2013”. This year’s budget tells us : “Duncan Mackinnon – $1.09m for Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion construction in 2012-2013 (plus carry forward from 2011-12)”. As for total costs, these are anybody’s guess – something that is surely reminiscent of the increasing costs associated with GESAC. Public pronouncements started off at about $7 million. Then in June last year, the price was announced as being $8.8 million. Now it’s just under ten million and this doesn’t include ‘design’, road restructuring, car park extensions, and so on.

Questions:

  • How can there be a million dollar jump in the space of less than one year?
  • How can there be a several million dollar jump in cost in the space of 2 years?
  • Have residents and councillors been told furphies as to cost all the way along?
  • Where’s the extra money coming from since council can’t borrow anymore?
  • How much has already been spent on ‘design’?
  • Has the delay and subsequent price increase been the direct result of financial blowouts over GESAC? Are we heading down the same path with Duncan McKinnon?
  • Are other services being cut in order to fund Duncan McKinnon?
 

May 24, 2012

Sloppy, Shoddy & Unforgiveable

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

Budget papers are supposed to be an accurate representation of a council’s financial status, its assets, and forward planning. Budgets are also submitted to Ministers, the public, and Auditor Generals. We imagine that they would go through countless hands before they are made public; that they would be checked and double checked for accuracy and consistency. How the following then occurs is simply incomprehensible. This is only one example of what we consider to be totally unprofessional and sloppy performance.

We have followed through on 3 separate budgets at basically two year intervals – 2007, 2009 and the current 2012 budget. The focus is on the stated number of DRAINAGE PITS.

In 2007 it is stated that Council has 16,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 15th 2007, page 5 of the budget)

In 2009 we’re told that Council has 17,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 12th, 2009 – page 17 of the budget)

Perhaps there has been a magical increase of 1,000 in 2 years. However, the piece de resistance comes in this year’s budget.

On Page 32 of the Community Plan Glen Eira suddenly possesses 22,000 drainage pits! Amazing! Then on page 32 of the budget we suddenly are back to 16,000 drainage pits!!!!!!!! Which is it? Does this administration even know? Or are figures simply plucked from the air and any number will do? Who checked these papers? Who is responsible for the inconsistencies and spin?

PS: Some more very questionable figures –

2007 – 5,953 registered business providing 32,750 jobs

2009 –13,521 registered businesses providing 29,000 jobs

2012 –13,521 registered businesses providing  29,000 jobs

2007 – 57,7007 rateable properties

2009 – 58,609 rateable properties

 

 

May 20, 2012

GESAC: How Open & Transparent?

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

We’re not accountants. We’re just ordinary citizens looking for answers and wondering why so much secrecy surrounds the financial dealings and details of GESAC. The latest items to raise eyebrows stem from the budget and the lack of detail as to rates and charges.

The Regulations (2004) define the mandatory ‘standard statement of cash flows’ as ‘a statement which shows all cash inflows and cash outflows from all activities of a Council during a financial year’. GESAC is now open. Charges for everything should certainly be known, and known in advance, if an adequate Business Plan exists. Yet GESAC does not feature in the ‘rates and charges’ section of the draft budget. Carnegie Swim Centre does, as does every other ‘service’ – even to the extent of booking rotundas and open space. GESAC, the largest financial unit,  is certainly conspicuous by its absence.

The ‘get out of jail card’ appears to be this vague and repeated paragraph:

“The 2012-2013 budget reflects user fees for GESAC of $6.9m. GESAC will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council”

This is surely an astounding statement for several reasons:

  • It flies in the face of accountability and transparency. With no itemised figures as to income how can anyone determine the veracity of anything? Is $6.9 million simply plucked from the air?
  • It provides carte blanche to officers – again without councillor knowledge as to precise details. Delegating such authority to officers as happened with the basketball allocations is simply another example of why full transparency is required
  • What does this reveal about Business Plans – do they in fact exist?

Our argument is that throughout the entire GESAC saga the public and probably most councillors have been kept in the dark. All we have ever had are vague statements of totals – without detail, without explanation and without real justification. Below are several more statements taken directly from the budget. We ask readers to consider them carefully and to ask themselves, several fundamental questions:

  • Do the figures really add up?
  • How are they derived?
  • Are you be satisfied that this explains fully what is going on with GESAC?

“The Centre is expected to generate income of $7.07m and incur costs of $6.77m. The financial impact of the Centre in 2012-13 is an estimated operating surplus of $297k”.

“The largest additional cost increases (over and above the 2011-12 forecast figures) are as follows:  Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.7m”.

When this Council has basically ensured that the next generation of residents will have a financial millstone around their necks, then it is even more incumbent on them to provide full and transparent financial details. Otherwise residents are fully entitled to believe that secrecy is the means for covering up a gaping black financial hole and that the reported figures belong to the land of fairy tales.

 

May 19, 2012

A Very Expensive Exercise!

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

Lawyer loses bully claim

Steve Butcher

May 19, 2012

A FORMER partner of a big Melbourne law firm has lost her claim for about $2.8 million damages after a judge rejected the claim she had been systematically bullied.

Fiona Brown had alleged a long-time friend and colleague at Maurice Blackburn Cashman had undermined, harassed and humiliated her and that the managing partner did nothing about it.

Ms Brown, a mother of three, who was head of the firm’s family law department, told the County Court she had been unable to work since November 2003 and had suffered psychiatric injury.

She claimed damages for pain and suffering of about $300,000 and total pecuniary loss damages of about $2.5 million.

But, in his decision yesterday, Judge John Carmody found she had not established that Lee Formica had ”unjustifiably abused, belittled, humiliated, threatened, undermined or bullied” Ms Brown in 2003.

Judge Carmody also rejected ”any suggestion” the evidence supported the allegation of conspiracy between Ms Formica and the managing partner, Michael Brett-Young.

Ms Brown recruited Ms Formica in 2000 and she was made acting head while Ms Brown was on maternity leave.

Judge Carmody concluded from an exchange of emails and evidence given by the ”protagonists” that each was under considerable personal and professional pressure.

They had exchanged ”regrettable” emails, but he did not accept that a reasonable person would classify them as communications that would victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten Ms Brown, he said.

A later exchange of emails and related conversations he regarded as a ”classic storm in a teacup”.

Judge Carmody concluded, after examination of extensive medical opinion, that Ms Brown ”is suffering from significant depression with associated anxiety features”.

He did not find she had tried to ”deliberately mislead” the court but that at times her evidence was exaggerated and at others she ”downplayed the significance of events”.

”In short, [she] had focused completely all of her difficulties on what she perceived to be the injustice meted out to her whilst being employed at the defendant’s law firm,” he said.

He ordered costs, likely to run into six figures, against Ms Brown.

Her solicitor later told The Saturday Age they were reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyer-loses-bully-claim-20120518-1yw4q.html#ixzz1vGX1t02F

 

May 18, 2012

Keeping The Bastards Honest!

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

Despite all the protestations that no-one at Council follows Glen Eira Debates it is amazing how often our posts have engendered some kind of verbal ‘feedback’ to our criticisms in actual council meetings. Words have also, at times, given way to real action. The latest example features in the agenda items for next Tuesday night.

We recently pointed out how the ‘measures’ included in the Council Plan for the past 4 years have NEVER been implemented as required. Whilst the measures promised to report on the NUMBERS of permits granted for Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas, this was never done. Instead there was the wonderful waffle of vague percentages. Well, we are very pleased to report that for the very first time that we are aware of, the Quarterly Report in relation to this objective actually does what is supposed to be done ie. “247 dwellings approved in minimal change area and 628 in housing diversity to the end of March (figures updated quarterly)”. This stands in contrast to the nonsense that was previously stated – ie. ‘75% of dwellings approved occurred in housing diversity area’. For this belated ‘improvement’, we unashamedly take some credit.

We haven’t been all that successful when it comes to delegations. The same old ceding of power to unelected officials continues unabated. We simply repeat here something that we wrote a year ago –

“We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin,   Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have  a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such  committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that      agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide  ‘advice’. This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen      Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report      which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We   doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to  the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

There are many other differences as well –

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip).”

Nothing like this of course, happens in Glen Eira

Item 9.1: GESAC

This report bears Newton’s name. We simply marvel at the sheer audacity of the following sentence and what it could possibly imply about the intelligence of residents?

“Government grants constituted 35% of the construction contract. Glen Eira ratepayers enjoy 100% of the facility after contributing 65% of the cost.”

Surely the ‘cost’ must include $2.5 million per year in interest for the next 10 or 15 years, plus running and maintainence costs; plus staff costs; plus insurance costs; plus setting up costs; plus lost income costs; plus tendering costs; plus more car park costs; plus road changes, traffic light installation costs; plus power supply costs. At a rough estimate just on interest alone the alleged $45-47 million project balloons out to between $70 – 80 million dollars. Does this then equal ‘65% of the cost’ or are residents just being fed more and more spin?

 

PS: CORRECTION. We’ve double checked the Quarterly Reports and despite the long standing requirement to report NUMBERS for dwellings in Minimal Change/Housing Diversity this did not happen until the Quarterly Report of November, 2011.

 

May 17, 2012

Good Or Bad?

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

Announcement from the Local Govt Minister –

Administration to continue at Brimbank City Council

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Victorian Government will introduce legislation next week to extend the Administration of the Brimbank City Council through until March 2015.

The decision to extend the period of Administration was recommended by two independent reports, has considerable community support and will help to ensure a return to stable, effective representative government at Brimbank City Council.

“The weight of advice provided by independent reports was such that the best course of action was to maintain Administration while work was finalised,” Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said.

“Both reports identified that the premature return to an elected council carries the very real risk of a return to the discredited and damaging practices of the past and the derailing of numerous important projects commenced under Administration.

“Subject to the passage of the legislation a rotation and refocusing will occur amongst the team of administrators at Brimbank.

“Jo Anderson and Meredith Sussex will step down at the end of October this year, roughly in line with the general Local Council elections.

“Peter Lewinsky will relinquish his role as Chief Administrator but remain a member of the Administration team.

“It is important to put on the record my personal thanks to the current Administrators for the outstanding job they have done at the council and acknowledge the role the former Minister Richard Wynne played in the decision to appoint them.

“The community of Brimbank have been fortunate to have the skills and dedication of Jo and Meredith working for them during this difficult period,” Mrs Powell said.

“The final phase of administration will feature a comprehensive community engagement strategy to prepare for the return of an elected council.

“I have asked the current Chair Peter Lewinsky to stay on as an administrator, thereby giving the team important continuity.

“John Watson, the current Executive Director of Local Government Victoria, will retire in October and will then assume the role of Chief Administrator at Brimbank.

“John Watson is highly respected for his skills and abilities throughout the sector and by both sides of politics.

“Upon learning of his intention to retire from LGV, I asked him to take on the role of Chair of the Brimbank Administrators.

“I can think of no-one better qualified to build on the work of the current Administrators and prepare the council for elections in March 2015,” Mrs Powell said.

The third administrator’s position will go to an individual with strong qualifications in community engagement.

 

 

May 16, 2012

Can We Trust Them?

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

Every year at budget time the spin doctors at Glen Eira trumpet how low their rates are in comparison to benchmark councils. We’re also informed as to how generous Glen Eira is in terms of Pensioner Rebates. Neat little graphs are included in the budget papers that purport to prove these claims. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that these tables do not represent reality. In short, the figures are manipulated, or simply, wrong. Whether this is deliberate, or another ‘clerical error’ we leave to the reader’s judgement.

The table below is an edited version of what appears on page 6 of the current draft budget – “Council Advertised Draft Budget 2001- 2012”. We’ve copied the relevant figures only.

Description

 Glen Eira

Stonnington

Port   Phillip

Bayside

Kingston

Monash

Boroondara

Yarra
Rate Increase 2011/12

6.5%

 5.10% 7.44% 6.4% 6.69% 7.4% 6.00%

4.9%
Council Pensioner Rebate

$270

 $193 $290 $193 $273 $243 $193

$323

 

Our concern is that many of these figures are incorrect AND that when it comes to providing the figures for Glen Eira the TOTAL increase is only calculated on the rate increase and does not include the charges increase. Last year’s total rate increase would have been closer to 7.5% than the 6% ultimately voted on had garbage and other increases been included in the publicised figures. Yet, when presenting data from other councils, this appears to have been added into the total. We are thus comparing apples with oranges – to the advantage of Glen Eira of course!

Hence, we believe that these figures present a totally distorted version of reality. Here is our evidence, cited directly from some of these council’s publications for last year.

  • Stonnington we’re told has a rate increase of 5.10%. Their budget however states: – “In the2011/2012 financial year the increase in general rate is 4.2 percent and garbage charges is 6.0 percent”
  • Port Phillip – The Budget proposes an increase of 7.32% ($6.037 million) in rates revenue for the 2011/2012 year.This increase comprises two components, price (6.50%) which represents the increase in the rate in the dollar and volume (0.94%) which represents new properties or assessments that were created during 2010/2011. This has been partially reduced by the increase of $90K in the pensioner rate rebate of (0.12%)”.
  • Bayside tells us: “The rates and charges increase of 5.9percent for the 2011/12….”
  • Kingston’s media release says – “The Draft Budget proposes a modest 4.95% rate rise which is one of the lowest in Melbourne’s south eastern region. Residents will also be asked to pay a separate additional 1.09% for an increase in rubbish going to landfills and the State Government’s landfill levy. (http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=2894)
  • Monash is more expansive – “To achieve the goals for maintenance and renewal of the City‟s infrastructure, as well as ensure the continued high levels of service delivery and response to external cost pressures, the SRP reflects a rate increase of 6% in 2011/12. In addition it is expected that $800K of supplementary rates from new developments will be collected. As some Statutory Fees set by other tiers of Government have not increased, or have increased by less than 3%, this has required Council to increase some fees and charges by greater than 4% to overcome the shortfall”.
  • Boroondara’s figures are: “The rate rise of 5% is a reduction on last year’s 5.25% and below the average for other Victorian councils “ http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/council-adopts-budget-council-

But the story doesn’t end there. When we look at Council Pensioner Rebates, Glen Eira can’t even get these figures right. Here’s Port Phillip’s figures for an example – “Council offers a pensioner rate rebate of $136.00 in addition to the current State Government rebate of $193.40.” That’s $329.40 and not the $290 claimed by Glen Eira.

CONCLUSION

Council is obviously free to manipulate figures any way it likes. However, it is surely incumbent upon them to ensure that comparisons are made on a ‘level playing field’ so that residents receive an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Whether these examples indicate a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, or reveal again simple incompetence, is for readers to judge.

 

May 15, 2012

More Smoke & Mirrors: Booran Rd Reservoir

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

The so called ‘consultation’ announcement went up on council’s website today together with the usual indecipherable ‘design’. What’s remarkable about this announcement is:

  • The 2012/13 budget does not assign any funding to this project until years down the track – ie “$4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019”.
  • Why then is public consultation being held now – 5 years at least before anything will be done?

Here is our interpretation of these events. You have a mock consultation and get council to ratify one particular (predetermined?) plan. It is then set in concrete regardless of the fact that a new council will be coming in next year which may have a different vision. The argument of course will be –“oh we’ve already got a master plan and spent so much money on this that we can’t really change things now”. This is typical administration tactics that we observe time and time again. The identical thing happened with the Caulfield Park Pavilion and Princes Park. Master plans sit there for at least a decade before anything happens.

Please note: we do not object to master plans per se. But when funding is not available for another 5 years at least, and this council is facing a major cash crisis, why has at least $60,000 (according to last year’s budget) been spent on a design that simply might be ‘old hat’ in 5 years time? What, after all, is the rush for a decision now when the money is simply not available? Why can’t the new council make such an important decision? Or is this just another means of hog-tying any recalcitrant new councillor?

 

May 15, 2012

Allegation #4

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

ALLEGATION  4

That Councillor Penhalluriack victimised the CEO for making a complaint against him. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO and his staff in their employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

30 Nov   2010 At an  audio taped Council Meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack criticised the CEO for not accepting mediation. This was in respect of informal complaints made by the CEO to the then Mayor. The CEO referred to the obligations of his employer and that if he wanted to raise the issue he would do so with his employer, the Council.
2 April   2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises the CEO, Peter Jones, the MRC and the CRRT. With respect to the allegations of inappropriate conduct made against him by the CEO, he refers to the allegations as “something manufactured by the CEO” and “we need to take his concerns seriously, but this is the third time he has cried wolf, and I’m pleased we decided to leave him alone in the forest”.
 

May 12, 2012

Newton & O’Neill

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

Our previous post concerned the Racecourse and Council. It is therefore opportune to publish the following allegation made by Newton against Penhalluriack. We remind readers that:

  • Newton never put these allegations in writing
  • They were compiled/constructed by O’Neill based on the ‘discussions’ and documents provided to her by Newton
  • The following is a verbatim copy of the O’Neill compiled ‘evidence’ pertaining to Allegation 2 and presumably what Penhalluriack was expected to respond to.

ALLEGATION 2

That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings and to the CEO directly and to other Councillors in correspondence concerning the CEO’s dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club (“MRC”), the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees (“CRRT”) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (“DSE”) and Minister’s Office. These statements have been made without supporting evidence or other factual basis for making the statements.  These statements have damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermine the CEO in his employment and have caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

Early Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack distributes letter (later dated 12 October 2009) to Councillors and lobbies for support   against the CEO with respect to meetings held with MRC and the CRRT
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack attends the CEO’s office to hand him the letter referred to below. The letter does not   disclose that copies were provided to a number of recipients and not just the CEO.  The CEO reads the letter from Councillor Penhalluriack and tells him that the letter is inaccurate and he will respond in writing. The CEO declines to discuss the matter until after he has responded in writing.
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack (as Chairman of the Racecourse Committee) writes a letter to the CEO. The letter   suggests that the CEO has acted inappropriately with respect to the MRC and CRRT and makes the following allegations:

  • that the CEO met with the CRRT without telling Council first and that the CEO should have sought specific direction from his Council since “obviously more was to be discussed than a simple report on Council’s current racecourse policy”;
  • that he and other Councillors do not know why he was invited or what happened at the meeting and a full and frank report of the meeting and any other meetings with the CRRT, MPs or members of the MRC should be provided to Council.
12 Oct 2009 The CEO responds by email to Councillor Penhalluriack explaining that there was nothing inappropriate.  The letter refers to the invitation and provides a copy, the invitation request that the CEO attend the meeting to “explain your deliberations regarding the amendment to the Joint Communiqué’ and “A report on the amended plans for the Centre of the course would also be appreciated”.   The CEO confirms that he informed the Mayor and the two councillors who were also Trustees (Councillor Whiteside, and Councillor Tang) and that these   Councillors were present during the time that the CEO spoke and for the remainder of the meeting.  The CEO   explains that the Communiqué had been the subject of Council resolutions on 1 July 2008 and 21 July 2009 and was a formal decision of Council, which under section 94A of the Local Government Act 1989 he was required to implement without delay. The CEO confirms that he has only attended meetings with MPs in support of the Mayor and/or Councillors.  The only discussions with the MRC have been to get the Council approved   Communiqué implemented.
12 Oct 2009 Email exchange between Councillor Penhalluriack and the CEO alleging that the CEO had acted in a   threatening manner and lost his temper in their meeting on 12 October 2010.  Councillor Penhalluriack accuses the CEO of being over sensitive to matters that only require a “civil and respectful response. Good and   regular communication keeps working relationships much more pleasant.”   The CEO denies the allegation in his email. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the CEO is not comfortable with his election.  The CEO states that he has no difficulty with Councillor Penhalluriack’s election, but that Councillor Penhalluriack should not commit himself to “written accusations before finding out the facts.”
12 Oct 2010 Councillor Penhalluriack moved a motion (that was passed) that the CEO report on each meeting between   Council Officers and the MRC in the preceding 12 months. This was done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC.
3 Nov 2010 The CEO provides the report required by the motion proposed by Councillor Penhalluriack on 12 October   2010.  The report sets out each meeting and its content.  The report shows that the CEO met with the MRC on three matters (the upgrade of the centre, C60 and ANZAC Day) and that the CEO has declined all offers of hospitality.  The report was unanimously approved.  Councillor Penhalluriack was at the meeting.
23 Feb 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack sends an email to Councillor Magee, Councillor Pilling, Councillor Lobo and Councillor Forge. In that email he makes the following statements:

  • “…after years of mumbling and bumbling we now have Council’s policy unanimously formalized”
  • “What a fight in the pre-meeting though, as predicted. It was a bitter pill for Andrew to swallow.”
  • “Now we have to ask Andrew to give us a detailed report on all meeting which he has concerning the Caulfield   Racecourse Reserve…but they must be reported.”

At the pre-meeting, Councillors strongly disagreed between themselves, but the CEO did not speak.  Council had previously persuaded the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Land Development to tackle the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land – this was based on submissions drafted by the CEO.
28 March 2011 Email from Kerry Henningsen of DSE to the CEO requesting that Council provide a list of nominations rather   than one nomination so that the Minister can select the person to replace Helen Whiteside.  This was the first   contact that the CEO had with the Minister’s Office and he had no contact with Mr Thomas or with the Minister for Crown Lands concerning this or other matters. The CEO was also unaware that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack were meeting with Mr Thomas.
28 Mar 2011 CEO tries to call Councillor  Forge on her mobile to inform her of the email referred to above.  He leaves a message for her to call him.  Councillor Forge does not return the call. When he cannot speak to her he sends an email detailing the request made by DSE.
2 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises, the CEO, Peter Jones, DSE, MRC and the CRRT.  With respect to the CEO and his interactions with the MRC, CRRT and the DSE. He   states:

  • “The grossest example of behind our backs wheeling and dealing are the so called negotiations with the MRC.  The CEO has admitted many regular meetings between Council and the MRC, but we never receive details of what was discussed. When I asked for details I was given superficial gobbledegook” (our emphases)
  • He alleges that the CRRT is sexist “females are acceptable as typist-secretaries …”notwithstanding the fact that Councillor Forge would be replacing Councillor Helen Whiteside and there  are/have been other females on the CCRT from time to time;
  • He alleges that the CEO interfered with Councillor Forge’s appointment as a Trustee of the CRRT “… Openness and transparency is urged upon us, but as soon as Cheryl informs Council of our meeting with Hugh Thomas, senior advisor to Minister Ryan Smith, Andrew phones to interfere. Likely Hugh phoned Andrew before the meeting.”
7 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes to the CEO to raise the following matters. The letter alleges unnecessary haste in bringing forward meeting concerning Caulfield Racecourse and alleges that this is poor governance as this was done “without any discussion with Councillors”. (our emphases) He further alleges that “your Communiqué failed” as the Council had been lead to believe that training would be gone in the medium term and MRC are saying 10 years. He states that “we had better accept that we are dealing with devious fibbers”. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the public consultation is incomplete and written submissions are required with one-on one dialogue with those who actively support or reject the proposal. (our emphases)
8 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack raises two matters with the CEO in a memo received on 8 April 2011.  In this memo, Councillor Penhalluriack queries why the documents were marked confidential.  He also requests a copy of all associated documents between the CRRT and/or the MRC and or other parties. He asserts that the previous requests had been “denied  on the grounds that in your opinion they were not relevant to my role as a Councillor” he goes on to assert that this is incorrect.
8 April 2011 The CEO responds to the email  received from Councillor Penhalluriack on 8 April 2011. The CEO first explains the terminology used, the reasons for it and the need for Confidentiality.  The CEO informs Councillor Penhalluriack that the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack’s email will be responded to separately.
11 April 2011 Donna Graham, Legal Counsel, replies to the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham’s refers to the fact that she has previously provided this advice to Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham also advises that in her legal opinion the documents are not subject to any councillor entitlement to inspect and for the same reason would not be subject to a Freedom of Information application. Ms Graham also states that as Councillor Penhalluriack cannot participate in any debate on these matters on the basis of the Winky Popdecision, Officers cannot accede to his request.If Council disagrees it could seek an independent legal advice on the issue, Councillor Penhalluriack does not seek this resolution from Council. (our emphases)
11 April 2011 The CEO responds to the letter sent by Councillor Penhalluriack on 7 April 2011. The CEO refers to the   meeting on the 13 December 2010 of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee where it resolved that public consultation (or oral submissions) would take place on a date to be fixed.  The date was fixed and it was carried out on 4 April 2011.  The CEO reminds Councillor Penhalluriack that the Communiqué was authorised by Council Resolution on 21 July 2009 not by the CEO. Finally, the CEO states that the Amendment C60 is before the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee not any Officers, it originated in 2007, was exhibited in 2009 and was the subject of an independent panel in 2010 with 6 days of hearing and a 147 page report.  That Committee will decide whether to adopt  the recommendations, modify them, abandon it or take some other action.
27 April 2011 Council Meeting –Councillor Penhalluriack moved for a report on each meeting that Andrew Newton had with   the MRC or CRRT.  He referred publicly to the CEO acting inappropriately.  He states:

  • that the CEO has said that he has reported to Council on all meetings that he has had with the MRC and that he does not believe that this is the case;
  • that in the last report they got dates only;
  • that he wants the report so that “we also know what discussions and negotiations have actually been held behind Councillors backs”;
  • Councillor Hyams makes a point of order that this allegation should only be made if Councillor Penhalluriack has proof.  This point of order was not ruled on by the Mayor, instead she asked   Councillor Penhalluriack to withdraw part of the statement to the extent that “negotiations” was replaced with “meetings” and “behind our backs” was replaced with “without our knowledge”
  • Councillor Forge states that she can bear witness to the fact that the President of the MRC told her that he had met with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO and Council did not know about it. (our emphases)
28 April 2011 Local blog reports on the  request (inaccurately) with respect to the Councillor Penhalluriack’s allegation that the CEO was meeting with the MRC behind the Council’s backs. The CEO is referred to in an unflattering manner by the Blog

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »