GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 9, 2011

‘We Are Not Amused’….She Said

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

Paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2220.html

The hearing of this case extended over two days. On the first day of hearing the responsible authority and the objectors presented their cases. The case was part heard with the evidence and submissions on behalf of the applicant company remaining to be heard. During the interim suggestions of possible problems with this proposal attributed to council engineers were raised. I am not impressed. This case had, in any event, been complicated by incorrect advice offered by the council and its engineers in relation to drainage questions. Apparently, there was once a drainage pipe that ran across this site. At some stage this arrangement was reconsidered when a two metre wide easement down the eastern side boundary was proposed. Provision was made for there to be an agreement under s 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for a two metre easement in that location. This agreement was executed but never registered at the Titles Office. That omission is the responsibility of the responsible authority.

The company was told that there is no pipe or drainage works in the easement so that it could be built over. This occasioned a redesign to make use of that area. Then the council informed the company that there was, after all, a pipe in this locality so that the area could not be built over. The applicant company redesigned its proposal. 

Another aspect, arising between the hearings, is that the council engineers have apparently, and belatedly, decided that they would like to acquire control over a further one metre wide strip along the two metres wide easement. The suggestion is that there should be no building over a three metre wide strip. This is said to be on account of a “local law”. Perusal of the local law shows that it makes no such provision. The only basis for it is some adopted council resolution or policy in relation to this one metre wide acquisition of control. There is no proposal to acquire such a right on any basis that would involve just compensation to the land owner. In my opinion, there is no legal basis for the claim to an extra metre width along that two metre strip. At least none was suggested. I note that the local law and the “policy” are not part of planning laws. I do not think that they create any legal requirement in real property law that detracts from the property rights of the owner of the land.

 

December 8, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Mayoral Speeches

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

From Port Phillip Council minutes – 5th December 2011

ADDRESS BY THE NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR OF THE PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL

The Mayor, Cr Powning assumed the Chair, and addressed the gallery as follows:

Good evening all and thank you for coming along tonight. I’d like to acknowledge the presence of parliamentary representative Sue Pennicuik.

Thank you Councillors for your support.

So we now find ourselves in the last year of our four year term, feeling weary no doubt. And though we have achieved much over the past 3 years, I know you all have a strong desire to achieve much more and of course faster.

But on this occasion I think it’s important that we pause and look at what we have achieved over the past year, which is a great deal. We have continued with our commitment to the principles of good governance – maximum transparency (no confidential matters), extensive consultation (so much time and energy, but of course worth it) and have encouraged local participation through our numerous reference committees, again which take enormous amounts of councillor time and energy but so important.

We entered the year with a new State government to work with, and in the interests of Council and our community as a whole, we have struck a respectful and I hope effective working relationship with this new State government, despite some clear differences at times on our respective views of the world.

This has been much supported by a number of our Liberal local members, and we have been impressed by their professionalism and keenness to work with us to achieve the best for our communities.

At this point I must also comment on the vigour and passion shown by Martin Foley in his new role as Labor opposition member – Martin has made the transition from government to opposition with the greatest of skill, and I can only imagine it must be a very difficult transition to make. Your commitment to achieving the best for our community and your long term vision for Albert Park is as clear as ever.

Councillors this third year of our term has seen us achieve some significant milestones, and though its tempting to read through them all, but for the benefit of you and the gallery, I will resist and focus on the highlights.

This year has seen Council adopt a Responsible Gambling Policy and a Social Justice Charter for the first time ever. These critical pieces of policy express this Council’s long standing and fundamental support for the principles of social equity, and also our willingness to challenge those social factors which we know create disadvantage and injustice.

We have made some real progress in the area of climate change, and have adopted several important strategies, which will drive our response to this critical issue, including the Walk Plan, the Cycling Plan and our Greenhouse Action Plan.

Our last budget saw us increase our expenditure on climate change to $8.5 million. Although there is more we can and will do Councillors, money talks and we are now starting to shout.

2011 also saw Council continue down the path with many critical infrastructure projects, including the development of our two children’s hubs in St Kilda and Port Melbourne, and when completed these centres will mean new childcare places for hundreds of our local families.

We have also achieved much in Emerald Hill, with the Emerald Hill Vision project, and as early as next week we hope to be ready to start the detailed design of the new Emerald Hill Library and Heritage Centre.

We are of course all excited by the possibility of a skatepark for Port Phillip being finished in 2012, and we have made more progress on the Triangle with the release of a new vision and principles document, which reflects what our community want for this important site.

We will soon see the design process for a new aged care facility in Port Phillip, again a great outcome for our community and one which Council has made a significant contribution to.

Next week we will release the draft urban design framework for the critically important Port Melbourne precinct, and of course I can’t resist gloating about our advocacy skills Councillors which resulted in the bi-partisan commitment to fund the upgrade of the Balaclava Station – which was a real win for this community.

There’s so much more I would like to highlight Councillors, not because it’s a chance to brag, but because I think it’s so important that all here understand how hard you have all worked to achieve these things on their behalf. Being a councillor at Port Phillip is a really very tough job, often unacknowledged, and I have been consistently impressed by the level of energy and enthusiasm each councillor has brought to their role, it is a fortunate community indeed which has this level of dedication from its local representatives. We are a great Council and we are doing great things.

Over this final year of our term, we will work hard to continue to deliver our vision for Port Phillip as detailed in our four year plan.

Naturally we will be presented with new challenges as we head into the election year – we will be subject to more criticism than usual, especially from potential candidates, as we all know one doesn’t get elected to council by saying what a great job the current council is doing.

So during the year ahead Councillors I urge you to continue to treat one another with the respect of which I have been so impressed again and again. The local government model of governing means we can only be effective if we work together – not one of us can achieve anything much alone.

And speaking of working together, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of our CEO Kay Rundle and Council’s executive management team. We Councillors know that you all put in a huge amount of time and energy to your roles, and I think I speak for all when I say we have been impressed by the unfailing respect you have shown us as the elected representatives of this fine municipality.

To my good friends, some of you here tonight, – can I ask you to hang in there – hopefully one day I’ll be able to go out and just have fun again for a change, instead of just inviting you to events where I give yet another wretched speech.

And in closing can I thank my family for their unfailing support. To Michael and Bridget, I know that you are both proud of my work but it doesn’t make it any easier when I am out for four nights of the week, or working all day on the weekends. Without your encouragement of course I wouldn’t be able to do this job. And by this time next year our new little Tommy rocket will be running around this chamber and creating total chaos at home, so plenty more challenges ahead.

But as one political leader once said, life wasn’t meant to be easy, (we all know who that was), and as another said more recently, when presented with 2 paths to choose from, always take the more challenging – (which is what we’ve done for sure). I’ll buy a drink for the first person to guess who said that.

Thank you.

 

December 5, 2011

The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’

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

Numerous angry residents have contacted us in regards to another event held today at the Caulfield Racecourse. This time it was the CFMEU (construction workers) annual picnic. By all reports traffic was mayhem, noise unbelievable, and of course, cars parked in the racecourse itself. Entrance for union members was $30!

We raise this issue since events at the racecourse are proliferating at an incredible rate. In fact the Glen Eira News itself is featuring a large advertisement for a ‘food’ spectacular early next year.

Residents were lead to believe that an ‘agreement’ exists between Council and the MRC as to the number of events permissible per year outside of racing. But what has never been made clear is WHEN this agreement is supposed to actually start! There’s up to a 5 year leeway for removal of fences. Again, when does 5 years start – in three years’ time? All appears to be in favour of the MRC and council sits silently by and allows public amenity to be abused time and time again. Either there is an agreement with a specific starting date or there isn’t. It’s about time that this Council fessed up to what is really going on.

 

December 4, 2011

How Long Is Too Long?

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

Change management and succession planning are some of the buzz words found in the corporate world. Those at the top generally recognise that they have time limits on their tenure and for the company to flourish and advance new blood must be continually groomed, sought and introduced. This is also true of local government. In order to attract all the new bright things, people with talent and ambition and who thrive on challenges, the old must make way for the new. With no chance of advancement anyone worth a cracker from within the organisation will seek positions elsewhere whilst attracting outside talent is a forlorn task – especially if they perceive there is no room for advancement.

In Glen Eira, as opposed to numerous other councils, we seem to be stuck with the old. There just isn’t any space at the top. Some might argue this means “stability”. Others may see this as stagnation and a detriment to the organisation. It all depends on results and point of view. Bayside obviously welcomes new blood – in droves. According to their website, the most senior officers have ALL been at the council for less than 3 years – that is, not just in their current positions, but newly arrived at Bayside. They are listed as:

Heather Johnson – Director community services – arrived 2008

Shiran Wickramasinghe – Director City Strategy –  arrived 2010

Guy Wilson-Browne – Director Infrastructure Services –  arrived 2008

Sharon Pearsons – Director Corporate Services – arrived  2008 –

Andrew Robb CEO – 2008

Glen Eira’s story stands in stark contrast. Note that the following years DO NOT NECESSARILY SIGNIFY WHEN THESE INDIVIDUALS FIRST ARRIVED AT COUNCIL – ONLY WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THEIR CURRENT ROLES.

Paul Burke –2001

Peter Jones – 2003

Peter Waite –2006

Jeff Akehurst – 1996

Peter Swabey –2004

Andrew Newton – 2000

Gibbs & McLean (Audit Committee) – at least since 1998!

So we can only ask: How long is too long? – especially when it is the CEO alone who has control over his lieutenants!

 

December 2, 2011

Council Leads The Way – As Most Expensive!

Posted by gleneira under GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Hefty price rises hit family hard

  • by: Susie O’Brien
  • From: Herald Sun
  • December 02, 2011 12:00AMTudor
Tasman and Brigid Tudor with Jasper, 2, and Maddison, 10 months. Picture: Jason Sammon Source: Herald Sun

DAD Tasman Tudor is furious that Carnegie Childcare Centre is about to become one of the state’s most expensive.

Run by Glen Eira Council, it will charge parents of children under two $116 a day before government subsidies. Mr Tudor’s children Jasper, 2, and Maddison, 1, both attend the centre, which will have two price increases after changes to government regulations.

The daily fee increased in July from $85 to $91 and will go up again next month to $116 for babies and younger children.

“The council is clearly profiteering from this centre and covering costs at head office,” he said. But council director of community relations Paul Burke said it had put in a $100,000 subsidy to keep the centre operating. “The simple fact is that an increase in standards has led to an increase in costs,” he said.

Parents from the two Bayside Council-run centres due to close by the end of 2013 are also angry. “It’s very sad for parents and staff … there’s just shock and disbelief,” Hampton East mother of two Sheri Haby said.

 

December 1, 2011

Once More With Feeling Mr Burke!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Public Relations 

Service profile:

Public Relations provide a consistent, cohesive, positive and professional image of the Council to the community. It also imparts key messages about Council services and activities to the community.

Review outcomes:

Quality and cost standards

The quality and cost standards identified for Public Relations relate to customer satisfaction, communication effectiveness and responsiveness.

• Internal communications survey revealed that most clients felt the service had improved vastly in the past 12 months in terms of accessibility, approachability and responsiveness.

• Annual customer satisfaction survey indicated a high level of satisfaction.

Other standards met during 20010–11 include:

• Providing an annual report to the Minister for Local Government by 30 September.

• Issuing a minimum of one press release per week.

• Publishing 11 issues of Glen Eira News annually.

• Per hour service provision lower than external suppliers.

• Applying three quote processes to external project work valued at more than $3,000 to ensure best value service.

• Increasing printing on recycled and FSC approved paper stock, which is cost-comparable to non-recycled paper stocks.

Responsive:

Through consultation, the current needs of the community and service users are identified and, where appropriate, we make suggested changes to the service to ensure best ongoing use.

Accessible

The service is accessible to the community by:

• Regular communication including Glen Eira News, website updates, community resource guide and a fortnightly information column in local newspapers.

• Publishing materials in printed format and alternate formats where appropriate and promoting the availability of alternate formats in languages other than English.

• Providing appropriate distribution of communication materials.

• Promoting contact details in Glen Eira News, on the website and on all media releases.

Continuous improvement

Public Relations ensure continuous improvement of its services by:

• Testing the website for accessibility and useability, to ensure it meets community needs.

• Regularly reviewing Glen Eira News and other Council publications to ensure they deliver key messages to the community correctly and on time.

• Increasing the number of publications printed on recycled or FSC approved stock to make Council publications more environmentally friendly.

Regular consultation

Regular consultation includes periodic external stakeholder satisfaction surveys on key communication tools; ongoing internal consultation and formal feedback processes after major projects are completed; regular feedback from the senior management group and through PR staff appraisals; strategy meetings, weekly team meetings and service reviews.

Quality   and Cost Standards Target Performance
High quality Annual Report. An award Gold Australasian  Reporting Award.
Publications delivered to budget. 100% 100%
Glen Eira News produced on time and to budget, 11 editions per year. 100% 100%
 

December 1, 2011

How Good Is ‘Best Value’ Reporting?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

From the Local Government Act: 208B. Best Value Principles

The Best Value Principles are-

(a)  all services provided by a Council must meet the quality and cost standards required by section 208D;

(b)  subject to sections 3C(2)(b) and 3C(2)(e), all services provided by a Council must be responsive to the needs of its community; 

(c)  each service provided by a Council must be accessible to those members of the community for whom the service is intended;

(d)  a Council must achieve continuous improvement in the provision of services for its community;

(e)  a Council must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides; 

   (f)  a Council must report regularly to its community on its achievements in relation to the principles set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

208G. Report on Best Value Principles compliance – At least once every year a Council must report to its community on what it has done to ensure that it has given effect to the Best Value Principles.”

Thus sayeth the law! How Council responds to the law via its compulsory ‘Best Value Report’ is another matter. We’ve uploaded the full document here and note that it is again well hidden on council’s website – so much for ‘reporting to the community’!!!

There are many services included. We’ve decided to highlight the ‘Traffic Management’ section and ask readers to contemplate whether the intent of the Local Government Act is indeed fulfilled via the following –

Service profile:

The Traffic Management Unit manages the Council’s traffic and parking responsibilities. This includes developing policies/strategies on traffic management planning; investigating concerns/issues relating to road safety, traffic efficiency, parking allocation, etc. and managing the capital works program.

Review outcomes:

Quality and cost standards    

The major quality standard set for the service is customer satisfaction, in accordance with the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey conducted by the State Government.

  • The service achieved a rating of 58%. Whilst this result is lower than last year, it is in the top bracket of scores for “all Councils”, which ranged from 53% to 61%.
  • All capital works projects completed improved identified safety issues.
  • The service has met all cost standards except for the amount for the Traffic Engineering contract which was reflective of extra resources being employed for projects such as the C60 Amendment (MRC), and the preparation of Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport Strategy.  

Responsive

The Service has been responsive to community needs by:

  • Meeting with external stakeholders e.g. Municipal Association Victoria, Department of Justice, Department of Transport and Department of Planning and Community Development.
  • Implementing the Road Safety Strategy to achieve safety outcomes.
  • Implementing the capital works program to achieve safety outcomes.
  • Conducting regular meetings with internal and external stakeholders to respond to emerging issues.
  • Reviewing the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey conducted by the State Government to understand community views.
  • Efficiently  responding to complaints and enquiries.
  • Involvement  with Metropolitan Transport Forum to tackle transport issues.
  • Preparing Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport Strategy.

The above measures enhanced service delivery in the following ways:

  • Improved residential amenity and safety in local streets.
  • Educating drivers about speeding, by using the speed advisory trailer.
  • Improved shopping centre safety (Elsternwick).
  • Improved  school safety through the employment of 63 school crossing supervisors assisting approximately 15,000 school children per day.
  • Improved  road safety under the capital works program.
  • Application of Council policy restricting the issue of residential parking permits to residents in new developments in high parking activity locations.
  • Resolving residents’ parking concerns through careful readjustment of the critical balance between parking supply and demand.

Accessible

The service is available Monday to Friday 8.30am–5pm at the Council offices.

Continuous improvement

Capital   projects completed 14
Traffic   & Parking Management customer requests 4255
Traffic   counts and surveys 133
Council   applications for VicRoads funding 8
Council   funded improvements $767,055
Community   consultations 50
Court   prosecutions handled 74
Supervised   school crossings 63

Regular consultation

Consultation during the year included the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey; surveys of interested parties on specific issues; feedback via Council’s Customer Tracking System, highlighting issues and concerns raised by the community; regular meetings with internal and external stakeholders, and meetings with shop owners in local shopping centres.

Quality   and Cost Standards Target Performance
Customer   Satisfaction. 60%   or above in the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey. 58%
Job   requests actioned and completed. 100%   of responses to customer requests completed within five working days. 100%
   90%   of detailed investigations completed within one month.  98%
Cost   of managing job requests. Contract   amount in tender is not exceeded. Contract   amount exceeded by 17.9%*

*In order to deliver the Transport Strategy a three day a week staff member was increased to full time to ensure delivery of all Strategy actions.

 

November 30, 2011

‘Please Explain!’

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

From the flood of comments we’ve received on the Newton reappointment and upcoming Mayoral election there is clearly keen interest out there in the community. We’ve basically summarised the range of comments and present them below as a series of questions – many of which need to be answered by councillors themselves since the Councillor Code of Conduct tells us that the public has a right to hear the reasons and logic behind each councillor’s vote! We therefore welcome their responses and also ask readers to provide their ‘answers’ to the following:

  • Why didn’t the majority of councillors choose to advertise?
  • Why after 12 stormy years with Newton at the helm did the gang choose to reappoint?
  • What really went on behind the closed doors of the Special Committee?
  • Should the public really believe that these councillors are so enamoured with Newton’s performance that the decision to reappoint was inevitable – keeping in mind GESAC; more bullying allegations; more Municipal Inspector investigations; more ombudsman’s investigations; more rate rises; more service charges; more planning objections; more lawyers than you can count; more secrecy and lack of transparency; general discontent in the community, etc. etc. etc.
  • Were any (undue) pressures brought to bear as in 2005?
  • What will be the legacy of another two years of Newton?
  • Will Hyams, if elected Mayor, enhance governance or continue along the same slippery path as Esakoff?
  • Why has Lobo so dramatically aligned himself with the gang?
  • Do any of these 9 councillors deserve re-election if they stand?
  • Will  Liberal party backers/supporters of certain councillors be dismayed at the current turn of events?
  • Will the presumed ongoing Municipal Inspector’s and Ombudsman’s reports be another whitewash?
  • Has this Council reached its lowest point in the eyes of the community?

 

 

November 29, 2011

The Leader: ‘Newton’s Green Light’

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

Glen Eira CEO keeps job and pledges to complete sustainable lighting project

Newly reappointed Glen Eira chief Andrew Newton is hoping cost savings will appease residents who wanted him out.

The 54-year-old father of two said he was looking forward to finishing projects he had started, such as creating sustainable street lighting that would save the council $250,000 a year.

A special committee, at a meeting closed to the public, resolved to extend Mr Newton’s contract until April 2014.

Mr. Newton, who has held the top job since 2000, will be paid $271,000pa plus super and has the use of a hybrid Camry.

Residents behind the Glen Eira Debates blog created an online petition in a push for the council to advertise the job and encourage fresh applicants.

But Mr Newton said people criticising his reappointment should understand it was common practice. “Numerous councils have reappointed their CEO,” he said. “The (Local Government) Act gives councils the choice whether to reappoint their CEO or advertise the job.”

Mr Newton said he was looking forward to converting 5000 street lights to new-technology globes. “The project will cut council’s total green house emission by 15 per cent,” he said. “Glen Eira already has the lowest emissions per capita of any metro council and this will cut running costs by $250,000 per annum.”

He said the council had “important work to address in our ageing population, government reforms to kindergarten, increasing public open space, providing extra housing while protecting neighbourhood character.”

Louise Clifton-Evans

 

November 26, 2011

Value for Money: How Do We Know?

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

Below are some extracts from the last Auditor General’s report. We highlight these as particularly relevant to Glen Eira and the manner in which service performance is assessed and reported. It is not enough to have a performance measure as simply ‘investigation’ and a satisfactory outcome listed as ‘investigation completed’ as was the case with the ‘investigation’ regarding the location of another site for the Caulfield Park Depot. There are countless similar measures in the Community Plan, and dare we say it, probably in the CEO performance appraisal KPIs.

The Auditor General’s findings are not new, and admittedly, Glen Eira is not the sole culprit. Residents however need to insist that every consultation and policy includes thorough evaluation techniques so that we can have greater confidence as to whether or not we are getting value for money.

“Councils have yet to fully embrace performance reporting and the non-financialindicators of many are of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents. Councilscontinue to adopt a compliance approach to performance reporting. As a result, the performance reporting framework has yet to deliver relevant and appropriate information to the community on the quality of services delivered and achievement of outcomes by local councils.

Our review of a selection of performance statements identified that a large number of indicators related to key strategy areas are activity-based, focusing on whether an activity is completed rather than the impact of the activity. Councils continued to adopt a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to performance information and used the minimum legislative requirement when preparing performance statements as the maximum disclosure standard.

Councils have yet to fully implement previous audit recommendations and to produce performance reports which drive council outcomes and accountability by being relevant and appropriate to stakeholder needs.

  • • KSAs were activity-based with the sole measure being whether the activity was completed. Any effectiveness cannot be determined when it is not possible to determine the extent of progress toward, or achievement of, the councils strategic objectives.
  • • Effectiveness measures are being inconsistently applied by councils. Some measures will be time-based while other measures such as quality, cost and quantity are often not being used thus not providing a balanced approach to the basis of measurement.
  • • When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing whether the targets were realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch’ target.

The measures used by the selected councils to determine effectiveness were often time-based. Other measures such as quality, cost and quantity were not always considered. Councils had not provided a balanced approach to the basis of measurement. When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing if the target set was realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch target

Other areas of weakness identified include:

  • • continued reliance on community satisfaction surveys as the sole basis of measuring activities of the council
  • • use of short-hand descriptors for performance measures, that do not provide users with necessary context and meaning, this means the reporting provides little insight into what is being measured.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »