GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 7, 2012

GESAC: April, May, June…..?

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

At last Tuesday’s council meeting the magical word APRIL was used by Lipshutz for the very first time as to the potential opening of GESAC. The usual spin featured in his report on the Pools Steering Committee. We were again told that everything is ‘on budget’ and ‘progressing well’. Council is of course, ‘disappointed’ that the opening is now at least 4 months late, but as usual that’s ‘no fault of ours’ only the builder’s but Council is ‘taking action’ via its liquidated damages. Lipshutz ended by hoping that the pool will be open ‘for the basketball season’.

Again we highlight the lack of substance in this so called ‘report’; the staggering claim that GESAC is ‘on budget’ despite no income for 4 months – just expenses. We also maintain that such spin is an insult to the intelligence of ratepayers since only the most gullible or imbecilic would believe a single word of this propaganda. When oh when will this council actually come clean and provide residents with the truth as to the full financials of this project?

One thing however has been successfully completed – the chopping in half of Bailey Reserve for the car park extension and the relocation of the playground. Extra unbudgeted cost – just under $1,000,000. The image below captures the full horror as of February 15th.

March 6, 2012

Common Sense: Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Lash out on Bentleigh bike lanes

6 Mar 12 @ 05:00am by Donna Carton

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON

GLEN Eira Council has spent $65,000 painting bike lanes on roads with legal kerbside parking. The 4.5km of new lanes in Bentleigh have been branded a joke by some cyclists who can’t ride in them because parked cars block their way.

The council said it had no plans to make the lanes on McKinnon and Brewer roads clearways for riders.

Carolyn Atkinson, whose husband and son-in-law are regular cyclists, said Glen Eira council had wasted ratepayers’ money on the project. “I saw them painting the line and at first thought it was a parking bay. “Then they painted in the little bike symbol and I just laughed,” Ms Atkinson said. “There is no room to cycle around the parked cars. Why did they bother?”

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the lanes were recommended as high priorities in the Glen Eira Bicycle Strategy 2010. “The recommendations noted that where there is limited road width, bicycle lanes which can be parked over may be necessary and are probably the most feasible option,” Mr Burke said.

Glen Eira Bicycle Users Group member Carolyn Priest believes the lanes are “better than nothing”. “On stretches where no-one is parked (cyclists) can move back into the lane,” she said.

Jason den Hollander, of Bicycle Network Victoria, said while Glen Eira council’s money could have been better used in this instance. “They should have put a cycle lane on both sides of the road, and allowed parking on one side,” he said.”

COMMENT: Identical problems occur on McKinnon Rd where, apart from bicycle lanes, three sets of rubberised speed humps have been installed over a distance of 400 metres. Residents were first informed of the creation of the bicycle lanes via letter. This obviously constituted ‘consultation’. One elderly resident took the time and trouble to write back claiming that McKinnon Rd was entirely unsuitable because of width and gradient. The response was that Council had determined that McKinnon Rd was ‘perfect’ since it was ‘flat’. So that’s why this section is called McKINNON HILL!

As a consequence of such ‘improvements’, we wonder if Council has bothered to investigate the new RAT RUNS that have now been created by motorists attempting to bypass McKinnon and Brewer Rds via the quiet residential streets running off these major roads? With the imminent prospect of Centre Rd adopting the 40k speed limit, Bentleigh and McKinnon residents have much to look forward to!

March 5, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer II

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

Above is the belated (4 month!) response from Transport Planning signed (illegible) on behalf of Cr. Forge. Residents should carefully note the range of ‘excuses’ for doing absolutely nothing and the validity/credibility of such responses. In particular:

Opening paragraph does not address the issue at all, although it does emphasise the importance of ‘safety’ – but this is only relevant it seems for Glen Huntly Rd. and not the side streets leading off the arterial road.
There is no quantification of anything. The inclusion of the phrase ‘even if an increase in traffic volume’ is remarkable. In other words, Council has got absolutely no idea about the impact of their decision making. Further, exactly what does ‘relatively low’ mean? Relative to what?
What does ‘based on current conditions’ mean? Is the classification of Rowan St. at 421^st on the ‘priority list’ the figure determined PRIOR to the introduction of the 40k zone in Glen Huntly Rd, or following the introduction of this speed limit?
It’s extremely kind of council to reiterate what the current speed laws and limits are – but the conclusion that there are ‘no plans’ to do anything certainly does not follow logically from this opening sentence. Further, just because the ‘vast majority’ of cars are travelling below the legal speed limit, means that a sizeable minority ARE NOT and therefore constitute a safety issue.
The offer of a ‘detection trailer’ is indeed magnanimous, but what does it achieve? Has council ever bothered to find out whether these trailers in fact achieve their stated objective? Do they result in decreased speed limits? Where is the evidence?
The removal of two concrete lids is irrelevant to the complaint. Is this supposed to suggest ‘hey look, we’re at least doing something’? All it’s confirming is that the concrete lids have been smashed time and time again so council are now finally not relying on concrete but attempting some remedial and long overdue action. But it’s got nothing to do with the central issue and nor has ‘road patching’. In fact, perhaps the best solution to this problem would be do nothing – if the road isn’t patched and is full of pot holes this could well be the most effective deterrent for both speeding traffic and traffic in general. Surely such an idea should appeal to a ‘do nothing’ council!

March 4, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer!

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

In this big bad ugly world of bureaucracy, it’s incredibly difficult to know what and whom to believe – especially if contradictory advice is given by the same source! We just have to wonder why one individual is told ‘no it can’t be done’ and another individual is given an official order to do exactly what individual one wanted done! Are great big porkies being told? – or is this just another example of sheer bureaucratic bastardry, or we simply can’t be bothered doing anything about your case? What’s particularly disappointing about this whole set of circumstances is that poor old Neil Pilling, and Forge in recent times, have had their names attached to these formal letters without we presume any questioning. Here’s what we’ve learnt.

A resident from a local walking group wrote off to council complaining about fences on a property that obscured sightlines and hence were unsafe for pedestrians and traffic. The response from council with Pilling’s name attached said in part: “Following an inspection of the subject site, it was noted that sightlines for motorists exiting the ROW are obscured by the high fence at (address deleted)….In order to substantially improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians, the subject fence needs to be splayed. However, as this property is already developed, Council cannot require the owners of this property to lower their fence at this stage”.

So, we’re told that there’s nothing that good ol’ Glen Eira Council can do until there is another ‘redevelopment’. Tough luck for pedestrians, kids riding cycles, and motorists. It’s very strange then, that ON THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, we have another letter, signed by John Bordignon and written to a different resident. In this case, after years of the house being completed, the resident was officially ordered to:

“demolish and remove the illegal building work, being the section of fencing from the eastern and western timber paling fences, within three metres of the street alignment to a maximum height of 1.5 metres from natural ground level in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006”.

They were given 30 days to comply with this order! We also note that the Building Act, 1993 at Section 106(d) states: “the building, land or place or building work on the building, land or place is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or of any person using the building, land or place or to any property” then an order may be issued. This surely belies the advice given to Resident 1 and is more reprehensible since there is an admission that ‘sightlines’ are obscured and hence logically, create an unsafe environment.

COMMENT

How on earth can two contradictory statements be made about an identical issue? Is this nothing more than an attempt by this council to fob off a resident’s legitimate concerns by resorting to what can only be interpreted as a blatant untruth? Or again, is this just mere incompetence or plain old sloth – we just can’t be bothered? Perhaps it’s even bureaucracy deciding to flex its muscles because the second resident decided to seek legal advice? As we’ve stated before, such incidents do nothing to endear this bureaucracy to residents and certainly destroy any faith that anyone should have in their pronouncements, professionalism and actions. In permitting their names to be attached to such letters, councillors are complicit in these untruths and they are the ones who end up carrying the can – not those who are, and should be held responsible.

March 3, 2012

Another Happy Customer!

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

We’ve received the following email:

“Hi- I’ve perused your GE Debates website & noted that while all the topics are very pertinent to residents, I noticed that there seems to be little discussion of Council’s non existent traffic management in the City of Glen Eira particuarly in and around local streets surrounding main shopping strip roads (particularly in Elsternwick, Glenhuntly Road shopping strip).

Since the introduction in 2011 of 40kmph speed limit Mon to Sat (reduced from 60kmph) in Glenhuntly Road, the local side streets have been inundated with cars trying to escape the slower speed limit, creating RAT RUNS & creating danger for pedestrians, kids & pets. In fact there have been 2 cats killed (our beloved pets) by speeding cars on Rowan street in 2011.

A recent traffic survey conducted by Council at my request in Rowan Street Elsternwick showed the traffic volumes had increased from 900 to 1400 per week & approx 20% of these cars were speeding (above the required 50kmph). Council however has refused to take any action to implement safety measures…(anything would do- e.g. speed limit signage (50kmph), no left turn at certain designated peak AM & PM times, one speed hump, etc).

I have an FOI currently with Council seeking data & information and criteria for setting of priorities & decision making, as well as budget & expenditure over the past 3 years on local street road safety measures implemented.

I have sought the assistance of my local councillor Cheryl Forge, who has been inept completely & instead of remaining independent & helping her constituents, seems to have sided with the Council traffic engineering department, as I have received (only 4 months late) a response she signed that is almost word for word the same as the Council traffic department’s initial response. How disappointing!!!!

I think the traffic management issues are seriously neglected in the city & Council is not complying with good traffic management practices legislation or keeping up with practices seen in comparable inner city councils (e./g. Stonnington, Port Phillip, etc)

There is a definite problem in the local streets. I’m sending you photos of ‘Keep left give way sign on the roundabout) that was driven over last weekend, (by a 4 wheel drive no doubt).

I’m wondering if you could post this comment (in its entirety or edited if deemed too long) on your website & invite comments from other residents. I’d be interested in their views and also what action we residents could collectively take to pressure this incompetent Council to take action to make our local streets safer. At the very least, the speed limit should be reduced in local streets to 40kmph to align with the main roads! How illogical is it to have higher speed limits in local residential streets than in the main roads!!!

Thanks in advance

March 2, 2012

What Very, Very, VERY Expensive Games We Play!

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

From the minutes of 28th February 2012.

OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Item 10 Urgent Business

Crs Hyams/Tang

That a matter relating to the VCAT matter between Council and Cr Penhalluriack be considered as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

(a) Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

1. That Council place on the public record the resolution for Item 12.5 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 2, 2011, relating to a Councillor Conduct Panel, other than paragraph 5 which relates to legal advice, and all attachments.

2. That the following facts be placed on the public record:

As a result of concerns that some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff may cause Council to be in breach of its occupational health and safety obligations to provide a safe work place, Council unanimously resolved to engage a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety to investigate these concerns.
As a summary of the investigation report records, some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate. The summary recommended, among other things, that Councillor Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality and his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.12 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
Councillor Penhalluriack participated in various Council discussions and determinations in relation to the above matters. Councillors believed that this conduct breached the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act. Those councillors present therefore unanimously resolved, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2011, to make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel and to seek a finding of misconduct against Councillor Penhalluriack for these alleged breaches.
Councillor Penhalluriack denies these allegations and exercised his right to refer the matter to VCAT for determination. While Councillor Esakoff, as then mayor, was appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the Councillor Conduct Panel and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a councillor or councillors, once the matter was referred to VCAT, it was possible, and therefore appropriate, that Glen Eira City Council be named as the applicant.

That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.

9.45pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 2011

Item 12.5

LEGAL ADVICE COUNCILLOR CONDUCT PANEL

Enquiries: Peter Jones

Director Community Services

This item is confidential pursuant to s 89(2) (f) “legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” of the Local Government Act 1989.

10.45PM The CEO and Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel under section 81B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the conduct of Councillor Penhalluriack for alleged breaches of Councils code of Conduct and the Local Government Act in the form generally of the attached application. (Attachment 1 Application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel)

2. That Council seek a finding of misconduct against Cr. Penhalluriack.

3. That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally.

4. That Councillor Margaret Esakoff be appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the application to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

5. REDACTED.

REDACTED

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Forge

Except that all references to a failure to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the mulch facility be removed from the application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

That Council:

i) Note the Elster Creek Trail, including part of the shared path, encroaches onto the title of properties at 14 and 16 Hopkins Street, McKinnon.

ii) Note that the owners of 14 Hopkins Street intend to erect a new fence on the rear title boundary of this property.

iii) Note the owners of 16 Hopkins Street have applied to Council for a Town Planning Permit to subdivide this property into three lots including a lot along the rear. Further, that the owner agrees to gift the rear lot to Council to create a 1.5 metre buffer between the shared path and private property.

iv) Subject to approving the Town Planning Permit for the subdivision of 16 Hopkins Street, agrees to pay the owner all reasonable costs to prepare necessary plans and transfer the rear lot to Council.

v) Advise the owners of 14 and 16 Hopkins Street of Council’s decision including thanking the owners of 16 Hopkins Street for agreeing to gift the rear lot to Council.

vi) Incorporate this resolution in the public section of these minutes.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

March 2, 2012

Definitely An Election Year!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

Below is part of the transcript from yesterday’s parliamentary sitting.

Caulfield electorate: open space

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak on the adjournment tonight and address a matter to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. The matter I seek to raise relates to the important issue of open space and sporting facilities in my electorate of Caulfield. I ask the minister to investigate whether his department can provide some support for my local councils to investigate improving and increasing the available open space in my electorate. This is a great problem within our community because we have so many young up-and-coming people who want to play sport, including juniors who are coming through the clubs, and they are in desperate need of grounds to play on.

Open space is a real concern in the community, and it is an issue I have raised on countless occasions in this chamber. I have noted that the city of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne, with only about 6 per cent of the city’s 230 hectares classified as public land.

There is open space in our neighbouring areas that many of our constituents use. Elsternwick Park in the Brighton electorate is an area that is used, and the member for Brighton has also been advocating for some time for the upgrade of the facilities in the park.

The park is a great facility, but it is in desperate need of an upgrade. Given the growing population of Melbourne and the importance of local people being able to utilise open space, we need something to be done about it. Access to open space is as important as roads and infrastructure, and it provides the much-needed heart that breathes life into a city. There is no question that in our case we are in desperate need of a heart transplant.

We need to look at ways to get more open space. I have looked into this issue, and it was back in the 1990s that work was last done within the council to look at how open space could be utilised. We have a number of areas within my electorate that could be further utilised, such as the former reservoir on the corner of Glen Huntly and Booran roads, which is currently fenced and not used. It has been fenced for some time. Whether it be passive space or whether it be active space for sporting clubs such as football, cricket or soccer, which has experienced increased participation rates right across Victoria, there is a desperate need to do something about this issue. We have a number of people using open space passively, including for dog walking, and we have recently done some work on the five precincts of open space at Caulfield Racecourse.

That also needs to be factored in as part of a review. I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to provide some much-needed funds to conduct research into how we could better utilise our open space and come up with a better plan for the city

…………..

MS. ASHER

I am delighted to inform the member for Bentleigh that the coalition government, through Tourism Victoria’s events program, has allocated $10 000 to help market the games. The idea is to encourage spectators, competitors and their accompanying family members and friends to stay on and explore Melbourne and regional Victoria. As the Deputy Speaker knows, Victoria is a very compact state and people can get around very easily. I know the member for Bentleigh will be forcefully advocating this event amongst 2014 games.

The funding will be used for website development and for advertising in agency journals, magazines and newsletters as well as for posters, postcards, brochures and promotional activities at the upcoming 2012 games to be held in New Zealand next month. I am sure the Victoria Police members from the Moorabbin and Caulfield police stations who service the member for Bentleigh’s electorate will be very involved in promotional activities for a very good purpose rather than for purposes that have nothing to do with the economic development of the state of Victoria.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MR DELAHANTY

I am also pleased to inform the member for Caulfield, who is here tonight, that the Glen Eira City Council has been provided with $30 000 for its open space strategy. The member for Caulfield spoke about the fact that we cannot create any more open space; it is about how we use the space we have. It is important that we plan for its use and all those types of things. One of the things that was brought to my attention when I was the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation was people’s concern about access to sporting facilities, whether that be for passive or active recreation. As we know, Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world and Victoria is the sporting state. We need to plan for the further use of our sporting facilities.

I am also pleased to announce that the Bayside City Council has been awarded $22 500 for the Elsternwick Park precinct. I know that the member for Caulfield raised this matter, but the member for Brighton, who is in the house, also spoke to me about it; it is in her electorate. I had a brother who used to live not far from there, and I know the park very well. This funding will enable options to be investigated for providing new and upgraded sporting facilities at Elsternwick Park.

The Victorian government is committed to helping communities stay active, enjoy their sport and recreation facilities and lead healthier lives. The first step in achieving this is to identify opportunities and priorities through strategic planning.

This funding will support a strategic approach through community working with councils in the provision of sport and recreation facilities and programs. We want to see people stay more active more often, and this planning will allow that to happen

+++++++++++++++++++++++

This latest funding is on top of the $80,000 announced on Tuesday for lighting at the Packer Park vel0drome.

February 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball: The Saga Continues…..

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

GESAC Update 26-Feb-2012
As reported previously, Council awarded use of GESAC to Oakleigh Warriors but made provision for McKinnon to use the courts on Saturdays in exchange for providing two of our existing courts to Oakleigh. Oakleigh advised us that they would only be interested in Bentleigh or Brighton under such an arrangement. We approached the principals of both schools to see whether they would be prepared to entertain a sub-lease arrangement with Oakleigh. Unfortunately, in each case the schools rejected the proposal as they prefer to continue to deal with one organisation.

We now expect to have discussions with Council about using any surplus capacity which Warriors are unable to utilise. As you may be aware, the mayor and other councillors have advised that any space which Warriors are unable to occupy will first be offered to McKinnon and that Oakleigh cannot be allowed to sublet the space. We will be asking the council how we can have access to the surplus space.
Kind regards
MBA Executive Committee

February 27, 2012

Agendas & More Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment

In the overall scheme of things, this is probably a very minor issue. However, we believe it illustrates much about both the continual bungling by this council and then the abuse of the ‘in camera’ component of the legislation in order to cover up and avoid real scrutiny of such bungled operations. We refer to Item 12.1 of the ‘in camera’ items: “12.1 under s89(2)(e) “proposed development” which relates to the gifting of land to Council (Hopkins St, McKinnon).” It looks like we were again dead right!

Readers may recall that several weeks ago we highlighted the fact that owners along the Elster Creek trail were reclaiming their rightful land by moving their fences out into the trail proper. We also queried how council had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yellow brick road without doing the necessary homework first. It is now obvious that the path was potentially under threat by the realignment of property fencing. We concluded that council should have known what was likely to happen given past history of this area, and that they were literally caught with their pants down. We now conclude that this in camera item relates to this bungled issue for the following reasons:

Hopkins St. backs onto the Trail
Why would anyone ‘gift’ valuable land to the council unless there was a special need to do so?
Why would council go through the expense of ‘accepting’ such land unless there was a special need to do so?
Why is this item in camera? Surely when someone is so very generous and magnanimous as to ‘gift’ thousands of dollars of private property away, they deserve to be applauded, lauded, thanked. It isn’t every day that someone ‘gifts’ land – especially with the price of land these days?

We connect the dots and make the following observations. The reason that this item is secret is because it would draw attention to another bungled Council operation. Council did not take into account the fact that its new path was either directly encroaching upon, or too close to residents’ properties to make for a viable shared path. The only solution was to either buy, or have land ‘gifted’ to them to avoid embarrassment and disclosure. Further, the fact that there is a plaque stuck in the middle of the trail at present acknowledging previous title transfers (2008) is further evidence that council should have known that there were numerous private parcels of land within the trail. This only raises the question of why these earlier land transfers are publically applauded and this one very generous act by a resident is conducted in secret. Our answer? To cover up what is another example of poor planning, poor decision making and a waste of residents’ money. All of this of course begs the question of how many other properties are entitled to move out and thus endanger the viability of the path? Will someone else suddenly ‘gift’ land to council? Or will they exercise their legal rights to claim what is their land?

February 25, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors II

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

Agenda Item 9.7 features a report presumably written by Paul Burke on the possibility of redeveloping the Victory Park pavilion. In November 2007 there was also a report which included a ‘Pavilion Priority Listing’. Victory Park was ranked 6th in 2007 for redevelopment. In this latest report on Victory Park we find the usual tactics employed – need to adhere to the strategic resource plan and budget, as well as providing 4 options, two of which will cost the earth and a third which recommends ‘do nothing’. Option A is of course the cheapest, so if councillors are really adamant they’ll opt for this far from ideal solution. Memories of the GESAC car park extension argument resonates strongly here. Apart from all this history, there is one vital sentence in the current Burke report:

“A recent review in August 2011 of the report ranked the Victory Park Pavilion seventh in priority list.”

We point out that such a ‘review’ has never made it into the public domain. Further, if such a review was conducted in August 2011, then why on the 20th September 2011 was this August ‘review’ never mentioned? Instead there was a vote on the redevelopment of the Centenary Park pavilion and the $500,000 grant received from the State Government? If councillors were aware of this August ‘review’ then the following debate from the chamber is superfluous, if not ridiculous. However, if they were not aware of the review and its sudden reassignment of Victory Park to category 7, then what does this say about information dissemination within council? Or is such a ‘review’ only for the eyes of Mr Burke and the Sports Department? Or the other possibility of course is does such a ‘review’ even exist?

Below is part of the post we put up following the September council debate. Please note carefully the interchange between Hyams and Tang.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

COMMENT

In September councillors are still referring to the November 2007 priority list. No mention of Burke’s review of August 2011!
The magical appearance of grants for Centenary, and now Marlborough even though these are out of order according to the priority listing from November 2007
If priority listings have changed then to quote Tang, ‘council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’!!!!!!!
What is the real truth and how much of this report is just more smoke and mirrors? Does this report even exist? If it does, then it must be in the public domain and the criteria and rationale for changes also published!
Finally, we mustn’t forget to mention that the Audit Committee Annual Report still hasn’t appeared! Why?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates