The following post has appeared on Cr. Pilling’s blog.

“Earlier today sent this email thru to Crs ,CEO and admin on the need next year to review the whole Expression of Interest process that led to the present unfortunate situation where 1400+ local kids, families and clubs will most probably not be enjoying the brand new facilties at GESAC next year.
It was a case I feel of the wrong process for the wrong situation and an important part of any review will be acknowledging this. To conduct to what amounted as a quasi commercial tender process was to say the least misguided.
“In the aftermath of this years Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.
I feel there are real questions as to whether this was the right way to go from the start.It’s too simple and misses the point just to say that the MBA should have submitted a better bid.
There has to be a better way of determining the allocation – one that is more equitable and doesnt over emphasise ‘marketing business plans’ and court fees at the expense of real community need and the realities of local sport. Will do some research on similar situations for info on different allocation models. In my mind there are similarities to the childcare fees issues about getting the balance right.
In the end the current EOI process lead to a poor outcome that has caused anghst and outcry in our communities- For this reason alone we should work hard to ensure a fairer more community minded process is in place for the second twelve mths of GESAC” .

COMMENT

Whilst we applaud Cr. Pilling for his stance and making this public, we also believe that it is a case of too little, too late. We ask councillors the following questions and believe the public has a right to some honest answers:

• What role did councillors have in determining the selection criteria for the EoI’s? If none, why not?
• What feedback was provided to councillors throughout this entire process? Was it adequate, detailed, comprehensive?
• Did councillors ever get to read the formal applications? If not, why not?
• If read, were councillors ever asked for any formal feedback, suggestions, preferences?
• What was the legal advice? Since there were at least two legal opinions sought, did these opinions differ in any way?
• Were any figures on proposed budgets presented to councillors at any stage? Were they asked for?
• Were councillors derelict in their duties to oversee the allocation process?
• Was the administration derelict in its duties in not keeping councillors adequately informed of all stages, requirements, budgets, and progress?
• Why did councillors not move motions in council that would remove the ‘confidential’ status of the item?

We have repeatedly stated that transparency does not occur behind closed doors. If Cr. Pilling and others are dissatisfied with the outcome, then their objective should be to ensure that the processes are correct right from the start. If questions are asked and answers are not forthcoming, then a formal council resolution would put an end to any obstructionism that may be occuring.

It would also be of great interest to residents that councillors explain why they voted as they did. This is stated in the Local Law, yet we have no idea why Hyams, Lipshutz, Tang and Forge voted the way they did. This is not transparency and accountability. It reeks of more secrecy  and behind the scenes discussions. As with so many other issues at Glen Eira, the  pillars of good governance – transparency, accountability, – are non existent.

Exactly one year ago today (Dec. 19th) we posted the following:

“In many ways 2010 has been a tumultuous year for Glen Eira. We review the standouts and offer our reflections.

• The reappointment of Newton for a two year period highlighted the obvious divisions within council and, we suspect, led to the third Municipal Inspector’s investigation of the past 12 years. It has also led to the resignation of Whiteside. This is obviously not a ‘positive’. As far as we know, no other council in the state has undergone three interrogations in such a short space of time. And once again, no serious ‘breaches’ were uncovered. As has been pointed out numerous times, and by several commentators, the constant in all of these investigations has been Newton himself. Councillors’ decision to therefore reappoint him for a further two years has not resolved anything. As far as we can tell the mistrust between councillors and administration, and within the councillor group itself, still remains. If Glen Eira is to have a really ‘fresh start’ then this will only be achieved with a new CEO, and a new set of directors. We note again that Glen Eira is the only council in the area to have 5 individuals sitting on over $200,000pa! The ‘fat cat’ syndrome has been maintained.
• The C60, and planning issues in general, were dominant throughout the year. Glen Eira abdicated its responsibilities to its residents by conferring upon the MRC the power to create its own Master Plan. This should have been the role of council – not the MRC. The result is utter control to the MRC and the winky popping of several councillors and the sidelining of two others on the pretext of ‘conflict of interest’. When we consider that this ‘development’ involves over 100 hectares of land, and has the potential value of billions and billions, Council’s failure to adequately plan and advocate for the community is inexcusable.
• In general planning terms, local papers contained story after story of residents protesting about ‘inappropriate development’. Sadly, council has not done anything to ensure that residents are adequately protected. Unlike every other council in the state Glen Eira, following its appalling Planning Scheme Review, has again disowned structure plans, levies on development, height controls, and much more. In contrast to neighbouring municipalities there has been no concerted effort to oppose ten storey developments. Instead the consistent argument put forward by council has largely been ‘blame VCAT’, ‘blame the state Government’, blame anyone and everyone else, except their own planning scheme shortcomings. We have asked the same question over and over again: if other councils can do something about Melbourne 2030, if they can have mandatory height controls, if they can have structure plans, transport plans, public realm policies – then why is Glen Eira always the odd man out? Our conclusion has to be that Glen Eira is a pro-development council, rather than a pro community council.
• Community consultation and communication is still far from adequate, although there have been several signs of marginal improvement such as the ‘Have Your Say’ online options. Yet, even here the ‘consultation’ is skewed via the questions asked and the simple fact that residents still experience a top down approach in all issues. Instead of asking the community their thoughts about Packer Park, Marlborough Reserve, residents are presented with ‘concept plans’ that many feel have already been set in concrete – without prior discussion and debate. Another significant failure throughout this past year has been councillors’ refusal to open up its advisory committees to community representatives – or to publish agendas and insist that meetings be open to the public. Secrecy remains the dominant ethos of this council.”

Reading the above, we conclude that nothing has changed – except perhaps become far worse. Here are the lowlights of 2011:

• C60 decision
• Centre of Racecourse decision
• Heritage fiasco
• Repeated abuse of meeting procedures
• Bullying charges and gagging of councillors
• Increased ‘secrecy’ and decision making behind closed doors
• ‘legal advice’ costing ratepayers tens of thousands
• Planning and traffic chaos
• A clearly divided council and possibly the most retrograde step of all – the reappointment of Newton

All in all, a sad state of affairs. Add to this the confusion surrounding Cr. Lobo and it’s anyone’s guess as to what the repercussions will be. Will he resign? Will he stay? Will he continue to back his new found friends?

It is however an election year. Change in personnel must occur. Glen Eira Debates will continue to focus on administration and councillors and offer our views on their performance. What is gratifying is that we continue to smash record after record. Our hits for the past week were   5,344. With your continued help and support we will make a difference in the coming year!

PS: we forgot to list the secrecy over GESAC, the ‘liquidity crisis’, and of course, the ongoing basketball farce – all of which is sure to have a major impact on budgets and rates.

From the minutes of December 13th, 2011 

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That Council

1. Note that:

(a) As the result of a fair and proper Expression of Interest (EoI) process, the use of the GESAC indoor courts for basketball was allocated to the Warriors;

(b) In the interests of maximising the use of the GESAC indoor courts by the community, Council’s preferred position is that the basketball allocation be shared between the Warriors and the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA); and

(c) Notwithstanding the allocation referred to in (a), the Warriors have indicated a willingness to share that allocation with the MBA.

2. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Fridays from 6pm to 11pm and Sundays from 9am to 11pm.

3. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the MBA on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm subject to the MBA agreeing by January 15 2012 to provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors from 8am to 7pm on Saturdays to the reasonable satisfaction of the Warriors, or, if such agreement is not reached, or observed, allocate the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Saturdays from 8am to 7pm.

4. In all other respects, apply the terms and conditions of the allocation referred to in 1(a) to the use of the courts by the Warriors and, if applicable, to the MBA.

5. Authorise officers to give effect to this resolution.

6. Incorporate this resolution and this report in the public Minutes of this Meeting apart from Council’s legal advice at section 3.4 of this report and in the attachments.

DIVISION

Cr Magee called for a Division on voting of the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION

FOR                                        AGAINST

Cr Tang                                  Cr Magee

Cr Hyams                               Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lipshutz                             Cr Pilling

Cr Forge                                 Cr Esakoff

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED on the casting Vote of the Chairperson.

PS: The following is copied from Cr. Pilling’s blog –

Comment – Only a sucessful motion is recorded according to minutes guidelines. This means that motions voted down including those that myself and Cr.Magee had proposed are not recorded – We certainly did our best in this regard.

It would be fair to say that Cr. Esakoff was of the view that Council shouldn’t be involved at all at this stage of the process.

This is a very disappointing decision and a motion that I could not support as it effectively in my view hands the allocation to the Warriors and relies on their benevolance in accommodating the McKinnon Basketball Assoc, a situation that I can’t see happenning.

As such there will be over 1400 players and families not participating at GESAC this year. This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again

We’ve copied the latest post, plus a comment, from Cr Pilling’s blog and congratulate him on the initiative shown in this alternative motion.

“As reported widely and here in previous postings there has been an ongoing issue throughout the past six months of resolving the weekend allocation usage at our great new indoor court facilities at the soon to be opened Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre(GESAC) in Bentleigh.

This wonderful new $45m community facility,the largest ever built in the municipality, was primarily funded by local ratepayers with significant contributions from both the Federal and State govts. The original expression of interest offer to the Oakleigh Warriors effectively meant that in excess of 1400 local players in the Mckinnon Basketball Assoc would not be playing this season at GESAC- this situation I have consistantly stated is unacceptable.

This Tuesday night under item 12.8 GESAC MULTI-USE COURTS of the Council meeting agenda I will be supporting the following proposed alternative motion.

1.That council notes the report

2.That council sets the seasonal hire rate for basketball at GESAC at $40.00 per court per hour.

3.That council awards the Friday tenancy (6pm to 11pm) and Sunday (9am to 11pm) to The Oakleigh Garden State Warriors Basketball Association.

4.That council awards the Saturday (8am to 11pm) tenancy to the McKinnon Basketball Association.

5.That all court fees are payable regardless of court use. 6.That council requires a bond of $10,000.00 per court payable on signing of the lease agreement. 7.That if either association is unable to fill its allocated times, it must first offer that time to the other before it can be offered to any other association, body or individual. 8.That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting. (if in camera)

Will also support a division (a recording of how Councillors vote) on this item and the tabling of this item in the public (non-confidential) section of the meeting.

This is an equitable,reasonable and balanced proposal that caters for both associations and allows for all local kids, families and clubs to use our great new facilities at GESAC. It sensibly balances financial and community responsibilties. I will be encouraging all Councillors to support this motion”.

Reader’s comment: “Some questions – why should the Warriors get 19 hours of court time and the McKinnon basketballers only 15 hours – and this all on the same day? Why should this be held in camera? If Newton suggests this, then councillors should overturn the decision with a council resolution. Simple if councillors can get together 5 votes.”