GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 18, 2011

GESAC & More Spin

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

The agenda items include the long awaited ‘report’ on GESAC. However, this is not a ‘report’ but only an expanded ‘minutes’ of the October 5th meeting of the Pool Steering Committee. So much for Lipshutz’s promises and the transparency of this council!

The following is made clear:

  • GESAC will not open in December
  • Council is facing a ‘liquidated damages’ suit of $1m – at this point in time. Residents should therefore prepare themselves for potentially more legal costs in the attempt to recoup these monies
  • Even after the builder has finished, there is still a period which includes ‘commissioning’ – ie outfitting. We suggest that this means that the opening will likely be in February at the earliest.

We must also take the following with a huge grain of salt:

“The project is currently under budget, partly due to the levying of liquidated damages (LDs) on the sliding scale since 19 May 2011. Total LDs are likely to exceed $1m by the end of the project. The most likely scenario is that the $41.2m construction contract will be completed for thirty-nine-point-something million”.

Again we invite readers to consider the following:

  • What is the TOTAL COST of GESAC? All along we’ve been handed the line that the cost is roughly $41m. Now there is the admission that this is only the CONSTRUCTION costs. Add in, interest,  outfitting, staff, higher purchase agreements, running costs per year and we’re undoubtedly looking at a venture that is well and truly above $50m.
  • If these LDs were becoming apparent as early as May, then why has the public continually been fed the spin that everything is on time and under budget?
  • Several assumptions are made in the above statement: (1) that council will successfully recoup its LD payments; (2) that potential legal costs will be paid by the builder and there won’t be a protracted court battle adding further to overall costs.

Finally, this meagre 3 page document (which is really one page and a half) is short on detail but long on spin. Residents still have no idea when the centre will open; how much it will cost and how much it will be up for in operating costs. And of course, there is no mention of the basketball allocation saga which was ‘promised’ by Lipshutz at last council meeting. All in all, we suggest that this is fast becoming an unmitigated disaster on all fronts – transparency; accountability, and prudent oversight.

 

November 17, 2011

GESAC: McKinnon Basketball Assoc. Has Its Say

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Dear MBA members,

By way of background, it is worth pointing out that we (MBA Executive) have always had one major issue with the Council’s decision and that is that throughout their process we were continually told that any submission we put forward had to offer at least $50/court/hour.  Given that this was substantially higher than we currently pay, we felt it important to seek the view of our delegates and that view was, unanimously, that the MBA could not afford these rates.  Consequently we advised Council that we would not enter a proposal at those levels.  It is easy to see, therefore, why we were so dismayed to learn that Council had in fact accepted an offer from a much smaller Association (presumably with far less capacity to pay) at a rate much less than $50/hour.  Had Oakleigh offered Council $50+ then we would still be questioning council on the grounds on which the allocation was made particularly around community benefit and hours of operation, since we were told we needed to scale back our proposal and the justifications given for being unsuccessful simply did not add up.

We have been actively lobbying Glen Eira Council to persuade them that the exclusion of McKinnon Basketball Association from GESAC is nonsensical.  Council have sought support from Basketball Victoria to facilitate a mediation between Oakleigh and McKinnon in order to determine whether there is the possibility of agreeing a means by which both organisations could use the space.  This mediation will take place soon.  In the meantime, in an attempt to see if we could shortcut the process, we approached the Warriors direct to see if we could agree a way forward between ourselves.  We made it clear that the only workable joint allocation of time would have to see McKinnon occupy the facility on Saturdays.  The Warriors subsequently presented a proposal to us which provided us with Saturdays but whereby they would be granted access to two existing McKinnon courts on a Saturday as well as a number of other conditions.  Whilst we felt there was a workable way forward with most of the conditions, several were simply unworkable.  Consequently we have respectfully declined the offer and will move ahead with the mediation process.

Some of you may have read an article in The Saturday Age last weekend which suggested that members of the McKinnon Executive had in some way promised to reward Councillors with votes at the next election if they grant access to GESAC to McKinnon.  The quote used in the paper was taken from an email to Councillors which Council have confirmed was NOT provided to the Warriors under the Freedom of Information Act as the article suggests.  It remains a mystery as to how the Warriors came into possession of this email but suffice to say that the quote was accurate but taken out of context.  The article also suggests that Jim Magee, among other Councillors, has been in some way retained by McKinnon to help fight our cause.  This is simply not true.  McKinnon Executive members have had one meeting with Jim Magee, which he instigated, several months ago when he first heard that we had not been successful in our application.  Since then there has been appropriate lobbying but nothing more.  These suggestions are inflammatory but nothing more; we pride ourselves on our professionalism and have at all times simply sought to promote McKinnon and our programs as the most logical basketball occupant of this great new facility.

Rest assured that we will continue to put forward the case for McKinnon and will engage enthusiastically in the mediation in an effort to achieve the best outcome for McKinnon and basketball in general.

MBA Executive.

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

 

November 17, 2011

Same Old, Same Old……

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

We’ve recently featured posts on the administration’s performance in tabling Requests for Reports. We remind readers that Newton claimed that such requests were “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting”. The use of Upper Case would suggest that this is an Ordinary Council Meeting and NOT an assembly of councillors. Newton cannot have it both ways. Either the above statement is false and inaccurate, or all councillor requests for reports have been tabled at Council Meetings. History tells us that this is not the case, and even when councillors have specifically stated where and when they wish reports tabled this has not been done. In other words, council resolutions do not appear to have been fulfilled by the administration.

Below is a request for a report taken from the minutes of 26th July, 2004. Readers will note the clear and unequivocal time frame and the demand that the report be provided in open Council. Needless to say, this report was not forthcoming on the date requested and to the best of our knowledge did not appear in subsequent Ordinary Council Meetings.  

We’ve highlighted this specific report given the goings on with GESAC and the lack of information forthcoming to the public and possibly, councillors themselves.

“CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 2004/05

Crs Grossbard/Marwick

That a report be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 September 2004 outlining the stages of progress on all Council major capital works projects budgeted for 2004-2005 financial year

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously”.

We reiterate that no report on “all major capital works projects” was contained in the minutes of 6th September 2004

We find it unacceptable that accountability and transparency have fallen victim to semantics and linguistic sleight of hand.  

 

November 16, 2011

Letters To the Editor

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 
  • 16 Nov 2011
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

Residents’ warnings go unheeded by council

 I write in support of a neighbour’s concerns (‘‘Spotlight on centre’’, November 2) about car parking being built as part of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre project. Residents were assured there would be ample off-road parking.

After removing a number of beautiful trees, Gardeners Rd residents are to be faced with an ugly carpark with floodlighting, which apparently will be left on until 11pm.

Glen Eira Council has shown throughout the whole building process a complete disregard for the rights of residents surrounding the project. Surely it must now be admitted, as residents warned, that there was not enough space for three basketball courts without major traffic and parking problems in surrounding streets.

 

November 14, 2011

The Tortoise & the Hare? No – More Like A Snail!

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

Readers should find the following extracts from the minutes of 26th May 2003 especially interesting, given the recent publicity over the lack of tree protection in our Green Glen Eira and the procrastination in the development of a Significant Tree Register. Yes, it certainly does look like things move at glacial pace in Glen Eira. Thus far it’s only taken 8 and a half years to get to the stage of the final Council resolution! That’s what we really call ‘timely’!

The extract reads:

“Crs Grossbard/Hyams

That a matter concerning a temporary tree control be considered as an item of urgent business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

9.2 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North File No:

Temporary Tree Control

Crs Grossbard/Hyams

That Council put a temporary tree control on a Moreton Bay Fig Tree in 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North.

DIVISION

Cr Erlich called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                              AGAINST

Cr Grossbard             Cr Erlich

Cr Esakoff

Cr Marwick

Cr Bury

Cr Hyams

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.

Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That a matter concerning a temporary tree control and Ministerial intervention be considered as an item of urgent business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

9.3 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North File No:

Temporary Tree Control

Request to the Minister

Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That Council send a letter to the Minister asking the Minister to protect the Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North and that Council Officers examine ways to protect this and other significant trees in the City.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

November 14, 2011

The Continuing Mire of GESAC

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

The minutes of 6th June, 2011 record the following resolutions: 

Item 10 – URGENT BUSINESS  

Crs Magee/Pilling 

“That Officers report to Council on the awarding of the use of GESAC basketball courts. This report should include details of requests for Expressions of Interest letters offers and acceptances copies of draft contracts, and responds to the claims contained in the letter by James Cody Treasurer of the McKinnon Basketball Association of the 1st June 2011 and should also cover the capacity of the Oakleigh Warriors to honour their commitment.

2. That the report include by way of separate appendix a copy of the proposed contractual terms to Oakleigh Warriors and
Council not submit any written contract to Oakleigh Warriors until Council has considered same.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting, and

4. The report should include the cost of hire of like courts at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.”

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Tang

In part four delete the word ‘at’ and replace with the word ‘including’.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED on the casting vote of the Chairperson and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENTS

Five months later the silence is literally deafening on all aspects of GESAC. The resolution states that officers are to report to council. If this has been done, then we question why this has been done in camera and behind closed doors via a secret assembly meeting. If, on the other hand, it hasn’t been tabled anywhere, then fulfilling the requirements of such a simple request in a timely manner should in no shape or form take 5 months. Most of the requested documents should be on file. As for the comparisons, we in fact put up a post including figures for MSAC and other sporting facilities that took us no longer than 20 minutes to research and locate the relevant information.

The angst that has been occasioned by this entire stuff up is unacceptable. What is even worse is that no information has been released to the long suffering residents who are paying the bills. If officers are incapable of carrying out councillors’ resolutions within an acceptable time frame, then most reasonable people would conclude that they are either incapable of performing their duties, or engaging in a not so subtle form of obstructionism. Either way they should be replaced.

 

November 13, 2011

Hoorah! Now For Glen Eira!

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

Inquiry into our secretive councils

  • by: Political reporter Daniel Wills
  • From:The  Advertiser
  • November 08, 201112:00AM

The  public gallery at Burnside Council, one among a cross-section of councils whose  use of confidentiality measures will be examined. Picture: Nigel Parsons Source:  AdelaideNow

OMBUDSMAN  Richard Bingham is auditing secrecy measures at 12 councils amid claims some  are over-using or incorrectly invoking confidentiality.

The councils are a cross-section of city and country councils, and include the  trouble-plagued Burnside Council, which was the subject of a ministerial  investigation into misconduct claims.

Mr  Bingham said he was already aware of cases where councils had incorrectly used  secrecy provisions to exclude the public from meetings. Mr Bingham said he  would report to Parliament with the audit findings and the councils involved  were selected as a representative cross-section of the state, not because of  specific concerns.

The councils  are Alexandrina, Barunga West, Burnside, Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Grant, Light, Mt  Barker, Murray Bridge, Onkaparinga, Playford and West Torrens. Mr Bingham will  be allowed to make findings about behaviour at the councils if warranted.

Local  government laws require council meetings be open to the public except in  certain circumstances for privacy or business reasons. Local  Government Association president Kym McHugh said councils strove to balancing  legitimate needs for secrecy with reasonable demands for public disclosure.

“I  welcome the representative audit by the Ombudsman as such an external review is  an important test of how we are managing these matters,” Mr McHugh said.

AND STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH –

Ex Bendigo Mayor Cr Greg Williams

“In the last few years I have been saddened by the politicisation of council,” he said. “There is a view that if all nine councillors say the same thing in public, everyone in the community will believe it and think it is doing a good job, regardless if the merit of particular policies,” he said. “There seems to be a great fear of having public input and public discourse about policies.”

Cr Williams said the root of the problems were obvious. “I think the fundamental problem here is there are too many people on council who do not understand the role of democratically-elected councillors,” he said. “There are too many people on council who think their role is to support whatever the council organisation comes up with. I think that is wrong and dangerous. “The role of councillors is to represent community views to the organisation and to challenge the officers in a constructive way and promote discussion of different points of view. “I believe that is how you get good public policy.

“The best advice I was ever given was if you are sitting in a closed-door briefing and are thinking ‘I hope this issue never gets to the public’, then you are probably developing bad policy. “This happens most of the time with the current council.”

Cr Williams said real debate and options were being presented away from the council table. “Senior officers have an executive meeting every week where they do a lot of the debating for the council,” he said. “They work out which is the best option to put to council, and most of the time present only one option. “This is something that has happened since the 2004 election. “Prior to that, councillors were presented with a range of views and options from officers. “Instead, this debate and these options are presented in executive meetings and councillors don’t get to hear opposing points of view.”

Cr Williams said when that was mixed with the amount of “secret” agenda items in recent years, it became dangerous.

“Most decisions have been made well before the public consultation even begins,” he said. “It could be argued the Epsom supermarket was the most stark example of that. “The closed-door forums have become much more of a decision-making forum than they were before.

“The public council meeting has really become a rubber stamp, because we have a majority who think they should support whatever the council staff say. “The way the closed-door forums are now, councillors don’t even know what is on the agenda when they arrive. “During the last council term, if an officer came in with a late report, nine times out of 10 it would not be accepted because councillors needed time to look at it. “Now councillors are expected to turn up not knowing what is on the agenda, have a large report plonked in front of them and are expected to vote on it. “It is appalling. This is all dressed up under the argument of secrecy. Each year Bendigo council would have one or two reports that need to be legitimately secret.

“Everything else is done under the cover of secrecy to avoid public scrutiny.”

Cr Williams said an example of the politicisation was the recent community survey the council commissioned. “I would call this push polling. They set up people to have a good feeling, by asking them positive questions first about the good things of Bendigo, then slip in the political questions before going back to asking questions about the city’s great assets,” he said. “If they say Bendigo is a great place at the start, they are less likely to say they are getting bad representation. “The political questions are sandwiched in between the feel-good stuff, which makes me question the survey.

“But no doubt they will bring it out at the election and say it is more significant than the independent, state government community satisfaction surveys surveys which have become progressively worse over the past four years.” Cr Williams stopped short of urging ratepayers to vote against the current council. “Whether the community votes against this council is a matter for them,” he said. “However, I think the big problem at the last election was the candidates were not good enough. “I would very much encourage people who want to improve things to nominate.”

 

November 12, 2011

GESAC: This Is Getting Ridiculous

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

Glen Eira faces  sports centre inquiry

Jason Dowling
November 12, 2011

GLEN EIRA Council is facing a possible third probe by the Ombudsman’s office  in 12 months, this time over access to basketball facilities at the  nearly  completed $41 million Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre.

In May, after an expression-of-interest process, the Warriors Basketball  Association was officially offered use of the centre.

But since then, several councillors have  tried  to overturn the decision  in  favour of the losing bidder, the McKinnon Basketball Association. The council is  believed to have received legal advice that the Warriors won the  process fairly  and the council could be exposed to legal challenge should it overturn the  original  decision.

Documents obtained under freedom-of-information laws by the Warriors show  that councillors have been actively lobbied by the McKinnon Basketball  Association.

In one email sent to councillors from the McKinnon Basketball Association’s  treasurer, James Cody, last month, councillors are told that should the  association gain shared access,  ”I guarantee those stakeholders will reward  your fortitude with votes”.

Emails between councillors Jim Magee, Neil Pilling and Frank Penhalluriack  from June show them  trying to overturn the council’s decision and appoint the  McKinnon Basketball Association as the tenant, with a lower hourly court rate  than that offered by the Warriors.

The Ombudsman’s office is believed to be investigating the involvement of  councillors in the attempt to overturn the decision.

An Ombudsman’s report into Glen Eira Council is expected to be tabled in  state parliament next month.

Cr Magee said he supported both associations having access to the  facility.

He said that for many families that paid rates in Glen Eira, the only way  they  would be able to use the new sports facility would be if their team left  the McKinnon Basketball Association and joined Oakleigh,  ”which, for the life  of me, I just can’t see that’s fair”.

Cr Penhalluriack said he could not recall the emails, but  he supported a  compromise.

”I think the people who live and play in Glen Eira and who have paid for the  stadium itself should be given priority,” he said.

A spokesman for the Warriors Basketball Program said they were disappointed  the process had ”gone as it has”, but added: ”As the general application of  the expression-of-interests process is honoured, we’re more than happy to work  in a combined front with the McKinnon association to make sure all kids in Glen  Eira get access to that facility.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/glen-eira-faces-sports-centre-inquiry-20111111-1nbx5.html#ixzz1dQi7o3Gv

 

November 5, 2011

GESAC: Is There A Major Problem?

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

For months and months we’ve been hearing the same repetitive spin – GESAC is on time and under budget. We’ve also consistently bemoaned the fact that the Pools Steering Committee has not exactly been forthcoming with information. Secrecy has dominated all facets of this project and the committee. Finally, the utopian vision that Lipshutz has been peddling is starting to show some major cracks. Suddenly the picture is not all that rosy for the much vaunted December opening. We also suspect that money is leaking like a sieve from this project – why else the need to enter into higher purchase contracts? ‘Unforseen’ costs such as lawyers, car parks, and heaven knows what else, must surely have blown the budget to smithereens? If so ‘successful’ then why the need for the continued extensive full page advertising in 4 local papers? Yet, we have been hearing the same old story again and again. It is definitely wearing thin.

So now, at the 11th hour it looks like residents will finally get an (edited) version of at least some of what has been going on. Lipshutz is finally admitting that there ARE PROBLEMS, and that the opening date is still unclear. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the pool doesn’t open until January next year. If council is right in its projected attendance figures of hundreds of thousands, then one month’s delay in the summer period, could impact massively on income. Longer and it could be disastrous. It really is about time that residents were provided with the full picture of what is, and has, been going on.

A good start would be for councillors to demand and receive a full, itemised account on all expenditure, where every single penny is accounted for – and income. And if there are issues and problems, then who is to be held accountable?  Is it really all the weather’s fault? the builders’ fault? The Steering Committee’s fault? The possible questionable quality of a business plan? And the most vital question – how much more money is this going to cost ratepayers that hasn’t been budgeted for?

Here’s what was said at Wednesday night’s Council Meeting:

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that committee meets monthly and discusses progress. ‘One of the biggest problems ….is the builder and the difficulties (for completion on time). Said that at NEXT council meeting there would be a ‘full report as to that issue’ (and) ‘the various activities at GESAC’. Concerns ‘that all members of the community have is the completion date’. Lipshutz expected ‘that would be discussed at next meeting’ and ‘once we know how the builder is going’ (building and plumbing issues, then they’ll be able to give some definite date as to when the pool will open)’.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he had attended some meetings and that there was another one on tomorrow (Thursday) ‘ I’m concerned that this council has too much in confidence material (these minutes lack) ‘detail’….I endorse what Cr. Lipshutz said. It was a full and frank discussion about the progress….and I think they should be recorded in the minutes…..there are one set of minutes for assemblies…this is a steering committee and I believe we either have this in camera …..or alternatively we have full and frank minutes published”.

 

 

 

November 4, 2011

Toilets, Policy and Circuses

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

Item 9.4 on Wednesday night featured the Public Toilet issue in Centre Rd., East Bentleigh. We draw readers’ attention to this item because it highlights again:

  • the total inconsistency of argument when applied to previous decisions and discussion
  • the discovery of new terminology by Lipshutz – ‘holistic’
  • the platitudes and dissembling that surround notions of ‘consultation’
  • the gang of four – again!
  • but the saddest thing about this whole episode is that it occupied more time than the C60 and other important issues put together. Yes, we can have ‘robust discussions’ – but only when the matter is ‘trivial’ in comparison to the really political and important matters that need proper decision making.

Here’s what happened:

MAGEE: Submitted alternative recommendation/motion where council could ‘note’ the ‘possibility’ of providing a public toilet at 672 Centre Rd and that there be community consultation about Option A – ie to sell the laneway to help fund the toilet block. Seconded Forge.

MAGEE: Stated that nearby toilet had disappeared nearly 15 years ago and that the IGA toilet was inappropriate since residents had to leave a deposit when they asked for a key then return it. For elderly residents this was not ‘dignified’, so instead of spending an ‘enjoyable time in our shopping centres’ they go to a hotel, go home ‘or they don’t come to the shopping centre’. Proposed that sale of laneway could go to Commonwealth bank ‘who are already pushed for car parking’ and they would benefit from an extra ‘3 or 4 carparking spaces’….(which would) ‘subsidise if not pay for the whole’ lot….’People in East Bentleigh deserve this and asking for this….let’s see how we can fund this….let’s ask the community, the shopholders…

FORGE: Supported Magee. Outlined how her previous work with the health industry and elderly and ‘it’s all very well going to a hotel’……’but when you’re in trouble….it’s a long way (to go)….it’s not just the elderly, but young ones as well. Mothers with children’….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports the ‘concept’ of public toilets and ‘if there is a need in East Bentleigh I would certainly support that’. ‘What I’m concerned about is policy on the run….we have a SRP (Strategic Resource Plan) ….we have a budget….we have so many projects that we all want as councillors…toilets is certainly one of them and childcare is another….trees,….footpaths….all of us
want to do (these projects)…’we also have a budget…I remind councillors that we are now completing GESAC ….a situation is critical to maintain cash flow….(can’t spend money which will) ‘impact adversely’. Said that council meets in February ‘where we look at our priorities, we look at what we want to achieve in the year’ (budget and SRP are developed from that). ‘there no reason why we should not alter that….I think in this particular case you go to consultation it tells the community straight away ‘we’re going to do this’….I’d rather see a recalculation of our strategy….let’s look globally, holistically and not simply
plug holes….if we approve this motion it simply opens the flood gates….every time we find something to plug….and before you know it we have a dysfunctional budget and a dysfunctional council’…I think that once having a plan you try and stick to that plan’…..’no iron clad, but in this particular case…..

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed with Lipshutz but only first half of what he said. ‘public toilets are important….(not only for mothers and elderly) but for youth….we spend a lot of money of warm season grasses…for sporting fields which are only used (mainly) by the young….but we don’t spend enough money on toilets’ Gave an example of the Hawthorn Rd toilet which is ‘way beyond I think the budget and way behind the timetable….(Agreed that council should be careful with spending money…Said that there had been plenty of discussions on) ‘the systems we have for delegating jobs…’we don’t know why the tenders come in and they’re too expensive….(Foreshadowed his calling for an Officers’ Report on tendering)…’In last Saturdays’ Age you can buy this house (holding up newspaper)…2 storey, double garage, study, 4 bedrooms, and 3 toilets  for $250,000….(whilst the toilet at Hawthorn Rd) ‘providing only 3 toilet cubicles that’s for $320,000….an extra $70,000 for a piddly little building…I really do not understand as a business person why this is costing us so much money…..I agree we are tight for funds….borrowing heavily….we can look more carefully in other areas to …how we allocate these jobs.’. Invited residents to look at the Hawthorn rd toilet and compare it with ‘this house – 4 bedrooms’….’we’re not getting value for money’….

TANG: Said that he thought that even Senator xenophon ‘would be happy with that stunt’…..’if public toilets can be made cheaper maybe there’s a business opportunity there …..(Brimbank councillor thought there was; imported toilets and under cut the market)….all State government bodies are paying around the same price…..(Disagreed with both Penhalluriack and Lipshutz in that finding money and spending it only when it becomes available)….’what I don’t hear is if we did get more money which public toilet would we spend it on?….(neither pays any regard to what he) ‘thinks was a unanimous (decision) on the Public Toilet Strategy in 2010…..(Spoke about the ‘filthy’ public toilet at Murrumbeena Railway Station)…’you’ve got to wonder if we had more money for public toilets where would we spend it?’….’If you’re wanting to go back to those priorities go back to the whole priorities….(foreshadowed a motion which would have consultation and look at priorities…’If it’s a representation made by the public council should consider it…(Said he’d been approached about McKinnon Reserve playground toilet)….I’d like to see us consider that location for priority listing….

PILLING: Would like to support Magee’s motion because ‘there certainly is a great need….East Bentleigh is the poor cousin….(his issue isn’t with money or process since) ‘there is a case to review the whole (strategy)….(Would be in favour of funding this toilet) ‘but more at the end of the process when we’ve examined all our strategies….I’d certainly be keen to re-examine the riorities….but we have to go through (process)….I certainly would like to be supporting a review….

HYAMS: Spoke about toilet at 670 Centre Rd which seemed to have been ignored….’not flush with funds’…(so if there’s a possibility of the developer paying for the toilet wait) ‘and see how that develops….I’d prefer at the moment to have an overall look at it (strategy)…..

ESAKOFF: Doesn’t support Magee’s motion. ‘ not for lack of motive….I support public toilets….(need to be provided) ‘in the usual way, not on the run as this one is….I would like to see us review the public toilet strategy….look at various options before we go to consultation….that needs discussion from our group first….financial report (on page 32 says) ‘definite need for caution and cash flow for remainder of this term….something that has not been budgeted for, not provided in the SRP…we need to go through this process in the correct and usual manner…..I would like to do this in the proper way and I would probably support the alternate motion (of Tang).

MAGEE: ‘strategies and policies….are just strategies and policies….The councillor group have lost the ability to listen to the community….if we are so stuck on a strategy that is now 2 years old, that didn’t properly in my opinion identify the need….this is about councillors doing their job. This is about listening to a community who have needs….this is an identified need and an approach from the community…this is me acting on behalf of that information….there’s no law that says Glen Eira Council must stick to (the strategy)….we have a very ageing community around East Bentleigh…..(can’t tell them that htye have to walk 250 metres when they need to go to the toilet).. ratepayers of Glen Eira deserve when they ask a councillor to advocate on their behalf….(talked about the laneway and how this could cover costs) ….I think the councillor body are now more intent on sticking to policies, strategies and formulaes rather than listening to the community….It’s not a council I (want?) to be part of’.

MOTION PUT: and Lost

TANG: Put alternate motion about conducting a review of toilet strategy BUT those residents who have made ‘representations’ since 10th August 2010 ‘should be invited to make submissions as part of that review’. Seconded Lipshutz. ‘Disappointed in the way Cr. Magee argued….very easy to say you stand here and represent your community and the rest of your colleagues don’t….(went over last ‘consultation process) ‘and council had to listen to its community…if councillors ignored them, find, probably got our strategy wrong….if council disregarded the advice it got on that strategy it probably got its strategy wrong….(and if we don’t review then again not doing things properly)…’It’s inappropriate to stand up here and say I received representations ….if you don’t listen to what I’m saying you’re not listening to the community…(need to have) ‘whole of community heard (and not just those that speak to one councillor). (Didn’t support relying on private developer)….(his motion would fit in with consultation) ‘that is to the whole council and not just one councillor because we happen to be doing our shopping down in East Bentleigh….some councillors shop in East Bentleigh, some councillors shop in Elsternwick, some councillors shop in glen Huntly….it shouldn’t be about catching them on a Saturday morning……

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m a councillor from Camden Ward but …..I’m a councillor for Glen Eira….and when I look at issues I look at what’s going to benefit all of Glen Eira, not just necessary my ward….(praised Magee for standing up for his ward residents but what is needed is )’a holistic approach….let’s do away with strategies, let’s do away with plans. If you do that ….let’s not have a community plan, let’s not have (February)…let’s willy nilly chose our pet projects …..It’s unfortunate that he (Magee) says that…I think all of us have to look at what’s best for the citizens of Glen Eira as a whole…(Claimed that more money is spent in Magee’s ward than any other one. That’s okay if) ‘that’s where the need arises….there has to be a holistic approach…you have to have a look at the needs of all the city of Glen Eira….’Let’s look at it holistically…let’s see what the community wants overall….and then decide where our priorities lie…(stated that each councillor wants to do so many things)….’but if we all do this…..as a team we actually achieve a hell of a lot….

HYAMS: Disagreed with Magee. ‘what we do when we put these strategies together is we consult with the community (they have input)…’we’re actually disenfranchising all the people who contributed to the strategy’ (if follow Magee’s example of individual representation)…’so in effect the way we do it is the most democratic way’…..’we do it systematically. We give everyone the same opportunity….once we’ve done that then we come to a solution….we are struggling for funds….sum of about 2.5 million dollars was ripped out of the budget over five years….we have to live with that decision….

PILLING: Positives will be that ‘we certainly do need to review’….(toilet strategy is) proceeding at glacial pace and that is part of the problem…perhaps we can increase the rate….but then also adjust some other areas….

MAGEE: ‘We obviously do need a review’ (so will support Tang’s motion)….I’m saying (residents) come to me and ask me and I’ll listen. I can’t speak for you. Only you know that.

ESAKOFF: ‘We are councillors who are meant to be working in the best interests of the people….not our given ward….and that’s why we have these plans in place and our strategies….and our prioritising of various things….to change those priorities around means changing other priorities….if something comes in something must go out,. Unless it’s been budgeted for and it’s in the SRP…we make those very difficult decisions (prior to budget setting) … because there are an enormous number of demands….What we have in place now is what was considered the right order, the right priority….that may well change….

TANG: ‘I don’t think ward arguments are particularly relevant here….(issue is where toilets are going to go, especially when only a couple a year are erected)….(Said that he wouldn’t like to get up and suggest to council that they change their priorities because he had been approached by one resident in his ward) ‘Representing the community would be to take on board that gentleman’s concerns and to bring them to council’s attention….I think we can accommodate what all councillors have been trying to achieve….in this review….No something we usually do (ie 2 year review) ……’so a review after two years is I think a pretty good outcome….

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »