Glen Eira Debates

The lunacy continued at VCAT last week with a Council entourage of 7 individuals showing up to defend the Penhalluriack application for FOI release of documents pertaining to the mulch facility. Apart from the council barrister presenting council’s case, plus his instructing barrister or solicitor,  present were also Mr. Hayes (barrister) from Maddocks, Mr Peter Jones, Mr Mark Saunders,(as witnesses); Ms Rachel Kenyon and another council officer. In all, 7 very highly paid people, sitting around all day. How much this has cost ratepayers is anyone’s guess. Penhalluriack had his barrister presenting his case and the instructing barrister.

Council’s arguments focused on two facets of the Information Privacy Act – the 6 requested documents were ‘exempt’ since they constituted ‘working documents’, were ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ and that the public interest would not be served via their release. They were also labelled ‘personal affairs’ and if released would create public ‘speculation’. The following words arguing against the FOI application featured frequently in Council’s arguments – ‘misinformation’, ‘confusion’, ‘mischief’ etc. In other words, if the documents were to be released then the poor old public would be confused and ‘harmed’! Council’s barrister also highlighted that fact that it was only Penhalluriack who wasn’t ‘satisfied’ with the consultant’s ‘advice’. Case law supporting these contentions were  cited.

When discussion focused on the actual documents the room was cleared – since these were ‘confidential’ documents. However, the gallery did get the opportunity to witness the early part of Peter Jones in the witness stand. Asked by council’s barrister if he would like to change anything in his written statement, Jones asked for one sentence in a paragraph to be deleted. The barrister then had to remind him about several other paragraphs that contained identical sentences! Mr Jones also appeared very confused as to the YEAR of audit committee meetings, first stating 2010 and then (with prompting) from the barrister, changing this to 2011. Coaching of the witness was clearly evident, but it did not prevent Mr Jones from blushing bright red at his errors and apologising! When cross examination was about to begin, the gallery was cleared and during this time (over one hour) Mr Saunders was also cross examined.

Upon returning to the ‘chamber’ Penhalluriack was called to testify. Neither his, nor Council’s lawyer asked any questions!

Throughout this morning session it was made clear that the scientific consultant’s report had contained many more recommendations that did not make it into the public version of the report. The requested documents, we presume, pertain to these sections.

Following the lunch break, Penhalluriack’s lawyer presented the arguments for document release stating that this was a special case and earlier precedents of ‘working documents’ did not apply since (a) health and therefore the public interest was at stake and (b) since council had asked for ‘independent’ advice one should expect that consultants are in fact ‘independent’ and not regarded as council officers.

The decision will probably be handed down in a few weeks. A most expensive way to haggle over six pieces of paper!

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE MUNICIPAL INSPECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT CR PENHALLURIACK HAS NO ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF THE GLEN HUNTLY MULCH FACILITY. The 64 dollar question is: Will the Leader publish this latest news?!!!!!

VCAT LAW LIST FOR 15^TH MARCH

Room 1.3 – Senior Member J. Smithers
11:00 AM G657/2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack v Glen Eira CC

Tomorrow will feature Cr Penhalluriack’s FOI application to VCAT for documents related to the closure of the mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. From previous articles in the Leader we understand that the basis of this FOI application is to gain access to some incredibly important materials related to the scientific consultant’s report – such as, the very first version of their report that went to Senior Officers, rather than councillors. Readers will remember that the final public document was not the first version of the report, but subsequent ones.

This entire saga has done nothing except cost ratepayers money and will continue to do so. We ask:

• Why is this administration denying a councillor documents which are integral to councillors’ decision making
• Why is council willing to spend mega-bucks on barristers/lawyers to fight this application?
• Why is council running the risk of having all costs awarded against them?
• By not producing these documents is there possibly a major cover up?
• If released would such documents reveal ‘interference’ by administrators?
• Is it mere coincidence that the Leader has just this week run another story on the mulch facility?
• By not dismantling the mulch shed immediately following the 7 to 2 council resolution how much has the hire of steel fencing for nearly one year cost residents?

We conclude that this issue is far broader than a mere mulch heap. It again goes to the heart of good governance. Councillors are elected to make decisions based on the information provided to them. If this information is skewed, incomplete, ‘doctored’, or simply withheld, then the decisions must inevitably also be flawed. Administrators should be nothing more than a conduit for such information. We also maintain that councillors have every right to ask for documents that pertain to issues that they are required to decide upon. It is extraordinary that an elected councillor has to go through an FOI process in an attempt to secure the complete information. The refusal by administrators to accede to this request, and to fight it at ratepayers’ expense is simply beyond belief. If there’s absolutely nothing to hide then why take up the cudgels as this administration has so obviously done? In the public interest it is essential that all versions of this report, as well as other documents, are available for close scrutiny.

We freely admit to a growing sense of frustration every time Lipshutz states that GESAC is ‘progressing well’ and ‘on budget’. It’s laughable because the ‘budget’ has undoubtedly been blown out of the water countless times already. We also freely admit that the following is mere supposition. It has to be, given that this Council has steadfastly refused to provide real facts and figures on GESAC. We know so very little about the expenses, about the costs, about revenue losses. The bottom line in all of this is a mystery. However, we like mysteries and present the following figures – simply as a guide. We stand to be corrected and we’ve undoubtedly left out much simply because Council has left out much in its disclosures to the most important people – us – the ones who are paying all the bills.

Here’s what we do know:

• Vic Roads demanded that ALL the costs for the installation of the traffic lights in East Boundary Rd., plus all the necessary re-routing be paid for by Council. We estimate on very old figures that traffic lights are in the vicinity of $150,000. Add to this roads, pavements, landscaping, etc. and it’s feasible to suggest another $300,000 to $400,000. We are also willing to bet, that this figures isn’t included under GESAC CONSTRUCTION. Rather it is more likely to be camouflaged under ‘roads, drains’ etc. We maintain however that if this council was fair dinkum, that the cost should be directly attributed and counted into the GESAC BUDGET.
• $450,000  for car park extension
• $391,000 for playground ‘relocation’
• $1,820,000 on interest repayments for one year
• $330,000 for outfitting a café
• Speed humps galore along neighbouring streets. Estimated at $16,000 per speed hump which would equal close to another $50,000 – should also be included under GESAC construction
• 50 additional staff. Let’s be conservative and say that most would be part time and hence around $20,000p.a. That’s another million at least!
• $760,000 hire purchase agreement for 4 years – making it $190,000 per year
• Cardio equipment at $277,000 for 4 years – thus approx. $70,000 per year
• $100,000 ‘promotional materials’
• $60,000 chemical costs
• $47,000 printing and stationery
• $72,000 ‘referee’ payments
• $95,000 GESAC software
• $1,653,000 furniture & fittings
• $49,000 – Pool vacuum and two way radios

These are just some of the things that we do know from the proposed budget and recent events. What still has not surfaced are the following facts and figures:

• How much will heating/cooling cost?
• How much will cleaning cost?
• How much will lawyers ultimately cost – especially if Hansen & Yuncken don’t play ball?
• How much will general maintenance cost?
• How much will water cost?
• How much revenue has been lost due to delay in opening?
• How much revenue has been lost if basketball courts are not fully utilised by Warriors? And for how long will this continue and will ratepayers fork out the bills?
• How much will lighting cost?
• How much did relocation of electric power station cost?
• How much did consultants cost, not to mention staff time?
• How much did relocation of historical society cost?
• Will tenants sue for lost revenue? How much will this cost?
• Will tenants’ rent really cover costs?
• What’s the cost of insurance?

There are probably scores of other items that we’ve neglected to list. This is only a start! It’s definitely time that Council stopped calling this a $41.2 million dollar project. That sum is ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION. It does not account for anything else! The total amount is astronomical. Now if this Council was a true believer in transparency, residents would have all of these figures at their finger tips. Councillors probably would as well – which we doubt they have!

The most crucial question though is: If projects had gone ahead on time (ie McKinnon grandstand/pavilion as previously noted on Neil Pilling’s blog) what would this do to cash flow and liquidity base? Maybe that’s our answer as to why so many things are so delayed? No wonder the Auditor General declared that Glen Eira is ‘high risk’.