GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 16, 2011

Basketball: Shambles & More Shambles

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

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

 

December 12, 2011

Our Disappearing Parkland

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

We thought residents would like a ‘bird’s eye’ view of what has been happening at Bailey’s Reserve. First off, we present the BEFORE AND AFTER LOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next there is a slideshow where the size and scale of GESAC may be truly appreciated.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

December 11, 2011

GESAC Basketball

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

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.”

 

December 10, 2011

The Wisdom Of Solomon – Or Cow Towing To The MRC?

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

Following several comments we decided to do a little bit of investigating. Readers will remember the Queen’s Avenue issue and residents’ call for something to be done in regards to the overgrown vegetation and lack of real footpath which forced pedestrians and joggers onto busy Queen’s Avenue. The issue was therefore one of safety.

With typical convoluted logic, the officers’ report tabled on the 2nd November 2011 recommended, in part, the erection of a barrier in order to ‘force’ residents and joggers to use the other side of Queen’s Avenue. This barrier has now been erected for the princely sum of at least $15,000!!!!

What is quite ridiculous about this barrier is that the very officers’ report which purported to support ‘safety’ included the following paragraphs:

“Safety

Since Council called for this Report, Council has involved the Crime Prevention staff of Victoria Police. They do not support any changes which would increase the use of the strip of land without increasing safety by significantly reducing the risk of ‘ambush’ from vegetation and clearly separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic along Queen’s Avenue.”

“To improve safety along Queens Avenue, officers have previously recommended that Council move to encourage pedestrians to use the footpath on the east side of the road. This is because some pedestrians continue to use the informal track on the west side where they risk tripping and/or stepping into on-coming traffic.”

Solution? Put a barrier in to ensure 100% that pedestrians have to step into traffic! And pay $15,000 for the privilege. What should also be borne in mind is that BECAUSE of the overgrown vegetation, pedestrians will not see the barrier until they are upon it. How’s that for shrewd ‘risk management’ and prudent expenditure of public monies? And we have to ask, how much would a little pruning have cost?

 

December 9, 2011

Oops! Our Plumbing Is Showing!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

December 9, 2011

Gobbledygook & Dirty Tricks

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is a mixture of more gobbledygook plus a few new dirty tricks. We will go through some of these.

Pools Steering Committee Minutes – 1st December 2011.

“The builder’s revised program suggests further delays in relation to the gym and stadium. As these elements are not on the critical path, these works should not delay overall completion of the works. Unfortunately, officers are aware of other works that are not tracking as per the revised program. These delays (primarily in the pool hall) have the potential to further delay works. Officers have advised the builders of their concerns.”

COMMENT: If the gym and stadium are not on the ‘critical path’ does this mean that there are more serious problems with construction that have lead to the delay?

Under the heading Cash Flow – nothing, zilch, a big zero!

Budget/Variations

“There are a number of additional deductions under the contract. A quantity surveyor is currently valuing these works. Council continues to levy liquated (sic) damages.”

COMMENT: ‘additional deductions’ is a fascinating phrase. We suggest that what this is really referring to is that the original GESAC design is being cut back because of the cash flow crisis. Of course this will be trumpeted as GESAC coming in even further ‘under budget’. But residents should know what corners are being cut and what this suggests about the final quality of the building and facilities.

Critical Issues

The next paragraph is unintelligible and we are continually astounded at how such nonsense can be released into the public domain – “There are a number of active critical issues that officers continue to manage (some of which confidential has they relate to contractual matters). Critical issues include planning for handover of the facility from the builder, commissioning and managing delays in the program.”

COMMENT: Residents may as well forget January as the opening of the site. Again, the phasing is sublime in its attempts to camouflage the truth – “This would mean the facility would not open to the community until after the end of January”. ‘After the end of January – can only mean February, maybe even March’. But it sure sounds better to say ‘January’ rather than the later months! And no further meetings until ‘some time in January’!

DIRTY TRICKS

For the first time EVER a councillor’s ‘Right of Reply’ is published in the agenda items, rather than after it has been delivered at council meeting and then appears in the Minutes of that meeting. We can only speculate as to the thinking behind such a new ‘initiative’. Is this meant to ensure that Penhalluriack sticks 100% to the published script? That if he diverges by one single word, then Hyams and his cohorts will leap to their feet and declare a point of order?

Hyams is also very, very busy again requesting amendments to various previous minutes according to the Records of Assembly.

One other point we’ve noticed is that on all previous occasions when ‘legal advice’ and OH & S matters were discussed BOTH Penhalluriack and Newton left the room. (See 15th November for example). However, the minutes of 22nd November (after Newton has got his reappointment!) there is no mention of Newton departing even though the items cited were: “”Under s89(2)(a) ‘Personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 re OH &S compliance” and “under to (sic) s89(2)(f) ‘Legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” regarding OHS legal advice.”

MURRAY RD DEVELOPMENT

This application is for a 4 storey building comprising 31units. Officers recommend permit for 30 units. What caught our eye again was this sentence: “In principle, there are a number of factors which make this site appropriate for medium density development at the scale proposed:

  • It is located within close proximity to the Hawthorn Road tram route and shops;
  • It has abuttal to a tall 3 storey commercial building to the north and a single storey commercial building to the east (both fronting onto Hawthorn Road);
  • it has abuttal to two storey flats to the east”

COMMENT: When did a 30 unit development suddenly become ‘medium density’? Why the use of the word ‘tall’ in ‘3 storey commercial building’. Three storeys is three storeys surely? But what is most laughable is the logic of the argument – because of the existence of a 3 storey building and a 2 storey building then this seemingly justifies the granting of a permit for a 4 storey building! A small paragraph then follows – “Whilst the proposed development will be taller and more robust in its build form than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of reasonable change to the character of this street being within a Housing Diversity Area”. We congratulate the planning department for its expertise in the use of euphemism and spin and simply wonder where in the planning scheme does the policy state its ‘expectations’ as to medium density meaning 30 units on one lot?

Audit Committee Minutes – 27th November 2011

“The Committee noted the Auditor-General’s issuing of a high risk rating for Council based on a low liquidity ration as at 30 June 2011. Officers confirmed that the overall high risk rating was due to the liquidity ration of 0.95. The CFO stated that the monthly finance report to Council now included an additional liquidity section. The CFO also confirmed that Council should continue with all planned operating and capital expenditure, but should avoid any unplanned expenditure proposals. He said that delaying any planned capital expenditures such as the roads program or the warm season grasses program may have a negative impact on future renewal costs. The Chairman requested that Councillors be made aware, particularly at the strategy workshop, of the spending impact on the liquidity ratio. He also requested close monitoring of Council’s liquidity position and asked the CFO to report back at the next Audit Committee meeting”.

COMMENT: Another Machiavellian strategy by the CFO (Chief Financial Officer)? It’s okay to spend an unbudgeted for million on extending the car park at GESAC and relocating the playground, but not okay to delay roads and sporting ovals? Again, the logic is mind boggling, especially when you consider that many of these roads are repaved yearly! All in all, we suspect that this is a not so subtle warning to councillors to watch their “p’s and q’s” and not to interfere with the grand plans laid out by Messrs Newton and co – for example such as the recent funding of Take a Break and the attempt by Cr. Magee to have public toilets installed in Bentleigh. The message seems clear – it states “butt out councillors and let us continue as we will”!!!!

 

December 9, 2011

GESAC Basketball

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

Dear MBA members,

The mediation between McKinnon and Oakleigh took place yesterday(Wednesday)  We assume that the outcome of this will be discussed at next Tuesday’s Council Meeting, following which we will know more.

In the meantime, we strongly recommend that you continue to write to your Councillors encouraging them to make a decision in the best interests of McKinnon Basketball Association, their local and largest Basketball Association.  Please contact the MBA office if you require a list of the specific MBA credentials.

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »