GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 30, 2012

Mulch: The Acid Test

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

One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY. Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:

The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks

Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.

Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?

Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?

We should remember that:

In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.

The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.

At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.

This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?

March 30, 2012

The Ombudsman’s Report: A Resident’s View

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

Based on a careful reading of the report, the public should be concerned about the role of Ombudsman in investigating people as distinct from government organisations, practices, and legislation. I’d be furious if a report was written as maliciously about me. As for the timing, designed to prejudice a matter before VCAT, one good thing to emerge so far from VCAT is that it criticized the lack of specifics in Council’s case. The Ombudsman makes the same mistakes, and adds several of his own. The overall impression is that the Ombudsman is not a reasonable person, is incapable of critically analysing information, and is prepared to use his incredible coercive powers to assist (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of a fellow bureaucrat.

Analyzing the report properly would take a similar amount of space to that of the Ombudsman’s, which would be about as tedious as his own report. For the moment I’ll just make the following general comments.

The report is not about conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council. The report makes that claim, but the contents reveal that the report is only concerned with Cr Penhalluriack. No investigation of poor governance or bullying by other members of council or council staff has been done.

Although Worksafe appears in a list of reports done by the Ombudsman, there is no appearance of Worksafe with respect to various accusations made about bullying, harrassment, humiliation. Its almost as if Council is aware that should Worksafe be involved, the behaviour of other individuals, include the Mayor and CEO, would be examined. Maybe they have received legal advice warning them not to involve Worksafe. I have previously pointed out some behaviours that constitute bullying according to examples provided by Worksafe. Incidentally, there is only one piece of evidence in the report concerning harrassment, and the victim was Cr Penhalluriack.

The expression “conflict of interest” is bandied about in the report carelessly. “Conflict of Interest” is defined in Local Government Act, which also places limitations on what is conflict of interest. Both Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman are aware of LGA 77A(4). The Ombudsman sneeringly dismisses it (“irrelevant”), but doesn’t say why. Quite simply, the Ombudsman despite *all* the evidence available to him concerning the mulch heap, doesn’t see it as a health issue. Even the CEO did though, taking some actions to soften the criticism when it emerged that the facility was a health risk and was poorly operated. The CEO, as the driving force for the relocation, is embarrassed about his failure to do due diligence about the site and its operation.

The interpretation of 77A(4) is critical to much that is at stake here–whether a perceived conflict (as defined) can “reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter”. The Ombudsman has revealed elsewhere his belief that $20 is sufficient to be capable of influencing an officer. [Unless they’re Musical Viva tickets.] The trouble with being a martinet and expecting others to follow is that it leads to poor governance. Few of us were happy that a Gang of Four (GoF) were given delegated authority for matters as important as C60. It came about because of the interpretation some councillors placed on matters as trivial as having a drink with a member of MRC executive. (MODERATORS: Sentence deleted).

There is a particularly telling section in the report, #151, in which the Ombudsman quotes uncritically a Council resolution to make certain matters public. From the resolution: “and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a Councillor or Councillors”. Of course, the legislation doesn’t state that. The legislation very clearly provides 81B(1)(a), meaning Council can apply. It is symptomatic of the carelessness plaguing both investigations and Council’s efforts, in which honesty and integrity have been sacrificed.

The Ombudsman claims repeatedly that council officers have been diverted by Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour and not focusing on what they should be. He didn’t provide any evidence or justification for saying this, although the lack of structure plans, open space, openness in decision-making does support the view that council and officers haven’t been doing what they should.

The Ombudsman also makes the extraordinary claim, without evidence, that Cr Penhalluriack’s “services on the council have not been of assistance to the good government of the City of Glen Eira”. This is an unforgivable abuse of his powers. Cr Penhalluriack has been prepared to ask questions and to analyze critically Council reports, and at least made a token effort to resist the culture of secrecy that pervades our council. Accountability is so important, it appears multiple times in the Preamble, the very *first* section, of LGA. The Ombudsman has not been elected to his office and is not accountable to the people of Victoria. If he doesn’t like elected representatives then he should advocate shorter terms for Council like we once had.

In several places the Ombudsman refers to carefully selected past incidents in an attempt to use prejudice to strengthen the case against Cr Penhalluriack. The Ombudsman should have known, given his extraordinary coercive powers, of the long history of ill-feeling between the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). He should also have known of the matter between the CEO and Cr Grossbard previously, of the sacking of Council in 2005, the members of that council who are currently councillors, of the manner in which Andrew contributed to (some may say engineered) the downfall of a previous CEO, of the embarrassing “apology” issued by Cr Esakoff to the CEO concerning the seeking of the reasons why a long list of requested reports had not been published in Council Minutes, the hissy fit he threw in public when Cr Penhalluriack asked his reasonable question. This should have been either stated or acknowledged when attaching weight to the statements he accepted uncritically and the ones he rejected when statements conflicted.

And so it goes. Instead of improving governance in Glen Eira, such as by tackling the excessive use of secrecy, the Ombudsman has chosen to add to the problem. Only he knows why.

March 27, 2012

Grattan Institute: Social Cities

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

The Grattan Institute yesterday released its insightful report Social Cities. We’ve selected a few extracts and ask readers to contemplate what can be done and how well our councillors and planners are moving in this direction – if at all? The full report is available from: http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/137_report_social_cities.pdf

“…quality of open space is just as important as the quantity. A small park that is well maintained and watered, with established trees to provide shade, vibrant flower gardens for visual pleasure, quality seating and creative playgrounds, will be used far more actively than a park that is far larger but less inviting. In fact without appropriate design, parks can be too big for comfort. In his pioneering work William H Whyte demonstrated that people prefer to congregate on the edges of public spaces (see Figure 18). So if seating and play equipment are stranded in the middle of large open areas they will not get much use, because people will feel exposed and vulnerable. This is particularly true when a park is bounded by busy roads, blank walls and fences or vacant and derelict land.

Some of the most successful parks are intimate mini-parks or ‘pocket parks’. Pocket parks are often created on irregular-shaped patches of land that are too small for building, or on vacant lots between other developments. Sometimes the developers of major projects are required to include pocket parks as part of their planning approval. In response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the City of Los Angeles is transforming foreclosed properties into pocket parks with the aim of adding amenity and raising the value of surrounding houses and neighbourhoods at the same time.

In the 1980s in the UK, Northamptonshire planner Alan Teulon pioneered the idea of pocket parks by involving local residents in identifying, creating and maintaining small, local parks. This evolved into the Doorstep Greens program that, for a small investment, has transformed more than 100 neglected public areas into popular green spaces. Strong public engagement and volunteering has helped to keep costs and vandalism down. The process of developing these pocket parks has brought local residents together and helped to foster social connection.(p.23)

Traffic

In his pioneering work on streets, Donald Appleyard showed that residents in a street with light traffic flow (2,000 vehicles per day) had three times more friends living in the street (and twice as many acquaintances) than residents on a street with heavy traffic flow (16,000 vehicles per day).

The heavily trafficked street had little or no sidewalk activity while on the street with light traffic, front steps were frequently used for sitting and chatting, and there was play and casual conversation on the pavement.

More recent studies confirm the impact that traffic has on the time people spend on the street. In New York, 44% of people who live on streets with heavy traffic say they respond by going out less often. This compares to only 7% of people who live in medium traffic areas, and 3% of people in light traffic areas. (p.36-7)

There are many ways to shift the role of streets from the car dominated default. The first and most obvious is to reduce speed limits in residential streets. In recent years the default speed limit in built-up areas in many Australian cities has been reduced from 60 to 50km/h. Road safety experts say Australia should follow the Swedish example and further reduce residential speed limits to 30km/h, a speed below which pedestrians have dramatically improved chances of surviving the impact of being hit by a car.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, a significant reduction in speed limits is predicted to have only a minor impact on average travel times (p.38)

March 27, 2012

Scraping The Bottom Of The Barrel

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

After being sent packing by VCAT to redo their allegations against Cr Penhalluriack, Council’s lawyers (Maddocks) have come up with the following gem in their long list of complaints. We quote:

“it is alleged that the Respondent acted unreasonably towards the Applicant’s Director Assets and Facilities by criticising him at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010, by: referring to a project in respect of stormwater harvesting in Boyd Park, Murrumbeena as a ‘ridiculous project’ and a ‘waste of money”.

We’ve double checked what occurred at this meeting and in our post of the 15^th December 2010 we reported:

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed”.

COMMENT

Councillors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most efficient and responsible manner. Councillors also have the right to demand complete and full information prior to their decision making. Debates are part of the political process. What occurred on December 14^th 2010 is exactly what should happen – 4 councillors questioning the lack of detail in an officer’s report. Yet, only Penhalluriack is accused of ‘acting inappropriately’ and ‘criticising’ Peter Waite. If this is representative of the quality and substance of Council’s allegations then a full inquiry is necessary to determine how and why tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in an orchestrated witch hunt against Penhalluriack. As for Waite’s ‘embarrassment’ we leave this up to readers to determine.

March 23, 2012

GESAC & Lost Revenue & Secrecy

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

True to form, GESAC barely rated a mention at Tuesday night’s council meeting. No Pools Steering Committee report, nothing in the Audit Committee ‘minutes’. But buried in the Financial Report, there are the following statements:

“Please note that GESAC forecast income has been reduced by $520K in order to more accurately reflect the timing of opening the Centre. This reduction in income has been offset by a reduction in employee benefits expenditure of $220K”.

“Unfavourable variance in User Fees and Charges $1.12M (includes delay in income expected from GESAC $1.33M)”.

The listed ‘income’ from GESAC is the princely sum of $3,000 and expenditure of $1,187,000. The black hole of lost income is turning into the Grand Canyon, especially when there could be further ratepayers’ subsidies that cover up for the basketball allocation fiasco. Here’s a public question that was asked on Tuesday night and the typical non-answer –

1. Will all the existing basketball courts be fully utilised by the Warriors each week from the opening date?

2. If some courts stand empty, will the Warriors be paying for any courts they do not use?

3. If unused courts are not paid for by the Warriors, what is the expected revenue loss to Council?

4. What is the anticipated duration of any ‘under booking’?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “The Warriors will be utilising the indoor courts in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. All Councillors have previously received copies of the EOI which is confidential.”

March 20, 2012

A Mountain Of ‘Clerical Errors’?

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

We’ve received some emails from a reader in relation to the recent Planning Audit Report for 2010/11 published by the Department and which we highlighted several posts ago. The emails reveal that all the figures and graphs have been compiled on the basis of the data submitted to the Department – ie Councils have provided the stats. We are left to ponder once again whether the Glen Eira figures represent another ‘clerical error’?!! Our focus is the stated increase in the car parking waivers. The bar graph shows that for this category in 2009/10 Glen Eira had 8 applications and in 2010/11 the claim is that they had 25 applications.

We cannot agree with these figures. The Department’s definition of this category is: “An application which requires consent for a waiver or reduction in car parking requirements” (page 201 from the full report). They have also written:

Put simply, any application for a planning permit received by Council (be it for a new permit, or an amendment to an existing permit) that includes a waiver/reduction of car parking should be marked as such. Be aware that whether the permit is issued/refused or winds up at VCAT should have no bearing on this number, as it is when the application is first received at Council that we count it.

Glen Eira claims that they have received approximately 1200 applications. Of these, only 25 included the request for a reduction/waiver in car parking schedules for the financial year of 2010/11.

We’ve therefore gone to the trouble of double checking all the VCAT reports contained in council minutes for the period under consideration. We’ve looked at all the scheduled hearings and their descriptions of the actual applications. Readers should note that the VCAT appeals represent applications that have already been decided – not simply applications that have been ‘received’. Even on these reduced figures we find that nothing tallies. VCAT appeals that contain car parking waivers tally over 30 and not the 25 that presumably council provided to the department. We emphasise that we have no way of knowing how many other applications that did not go to appeal and were simply decided via delegation also included the request for car parking waivers. It could tally hundreds and not merely 25 as claimed.

Listed below are the addresses that we’ve found of the VCAT appeals for 2010/11 that contain such waiver components. Even if not all of these were decided in the 2010/11 period, it would still not cover the countless decisions made under delegation, or by the full Council.

1032 Dandenong Road, Carnegie
439 and Lot S4 441-495 Inkerman Road St Kilda East
82 Hotham Street, St Kilda East
326-328 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield
36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North
619 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield
9 Morton Ave, Carnegie
763 Centre Road, Bentleigh East
261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
356-364 Orrong Road Caulfield North
SUITE 1-2G, 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
1 & 1A Albany Court, Caulfield North
142 McKinnon Road, McKinnon
285-305 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 12-14 Ripon Grove, Elsternwick.
15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East
111-113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena.
36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.
107-109 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
888-890 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South
389-395 Neerim Road & 10 Emily Street, Carnegie.
2-4 Station Street, Caulfield North.
47 Kooyong Road, Caulfield.
5 Dudley St & 1 Gibson St, Carnegie.
183-189 Booran Road, Caulfield South (waiver of loading bay)
715-727 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East
31-32 Leamington Street, Caulfield East.
354 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick
443-457 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield East.
251 Koornang Road, Carnegie
633 Centre Road, Bentleigh
4 Maple Street Caulfield

GRAND TOTAL – 32

This of course leaves open to question how many other ‘clerical errors’ might be contained in the data that council sent off to the Department?

March 18, 2012

VCAT: Penhalluriack Vs Glen Eira

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

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?!!!!!

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

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

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

March 17, 2012

There’s Glen Eira & Then There Are Others

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

Audit Committee – Expressions of interest

Kingston City Council is seeking an independent, suitably qualified member of its Audit Committee for a 3 year term. The Audit Committee meets on a quarterly basis and is an independent advisory committee to Council operating in accordance with an adopted Audit Committee Charter.
Council welcomes expressions of interest from individuals with finance and accounting skills, legal compliance and risk management backgrounds. Additionally, applicants must be able to demonstrate a well developed ability to apply appropriate analytical and strategic management skills.

Further details on the requirements and a copy of the Audit Committee Charter can be downloaded here. Written expressions of interest close at 5pm on Friday, 13 April 2012 and should be forwarded to Sharon Banks, Kingston City Council, PO Box 1000, Mentone 3194 or emailed to sharon.banks@kingston.vic.gov.au.

Links

Download Files Information Package – Member Audit Committee 2012

March 14, 2012

Money, Mulch & Bloody Mindedness

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

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates