GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 9, 2011

Are They Worth It?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Top city bosses’ wages hit $400,000

• John Masanauskas
• From: Herald Sun
• August 29, 2011 12:00AM

COUNCIL chief executives are on notice about their pay packets as the top municipal salary package breaks through $400,000.  Several metropolitan council chiefs earn about $350,000, including bonuses, putting their salary packages up with the $365,000 a year paid to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell said she had asked her department to look at how managers were paid in other jurisdictions to see if councils could be better advised on appropriate CEO salaries.  “Council CEO salaries have been raised with the peak bodies of the local government sector as part of discussions on a range of issues,” she said.

Melbourne City Council’s Kathy Alexander is the highest paid CEO, with a $425,000 annual package.  A council spokeswoman said Dr Alexander was in charge of a $346 million budget and 1200 staff. “The role of a capital city CEO requires strong leadership and professional and technical expertise (and the salary) is reflective of the significant responsibility and expectation associated with the role,” she said.

Darebin Council CEO Rasiah Dev has a package of up to $349,000, while Boroondara’s Catherine Dale and Kingston’s John Nevins earn up to $340,000.  Bayside CEO Adrian Robb earned up to $260,000 last year, but said his current pay could only be revealed through a personal inspection of a register at the council’s offices.

Mornington Peninsula Shire councillors have come under fire for renewing veteran CEO Michael Kennedy’s contract without advertising the position.  Former Kennett government minister Robin Cooper said Mr Kennedy was first appointed in 1999 and it was a disgrace that councillors were not testing the market for the $319,000-plus perks job. But Mornington mayor Graham Pittock said councillors had voted to stick with Mr Kennedy after an external assessment.

Hobsons Bay councillor Tony Briffa said CEO salaries were rising too fast. However, Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said CEOs ran big operations. Their salaries should be compared with those of public service heads, not politicians.  “I believe council CEOs receive a justifiable salary for what is a pretty tough job,” he said.  “When you look at similar roles in private enterprise, their remuneration goes into the millions of dollars, even for poor performance.”
masanauskasj@heraldsun.com.au

COMMENT: Ratepayers everywhere should be grateful to councillors at Hobson’s Bay, since they probably got the ball rolling on this contentious issue. On February 8th, 2011 they passed a resolution (in response to a Notice of Motion!!!!) which read:

“Moved Cr Tony Briffa, seconded Cr John Hogg, that the Council:

1. Writes to the Premier, (the Hon. Ted Baillieu), Minister for Local Government (the Hon. Jeanette Powell), the Shadow Minister for Local Government (the Hon. Richard Wynne), the members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly for Altona and Williamstown Districts and the members of the Victorian Legislative Council for the Western Metropolitan Region, recommending that the Minister for Local Government appoints a panel to conduct a public review into the remuneration of Victorian Local Government Chief Executive Officers;

2. Submits a motion for the consideration of the May 2011 meeting of the Municipal Association of Victoria State Council, seeking a resolution to support the request for a Local Government (CEO Remuneration Review) Panel; and

3. Requests the Victorian Local Governance Association support a Local Government (CEO Remuneration Review) Panel.”

Of course, setting a limit to CEO salaries only addresses half of the problem. When councils have 5 directors sitting on over $230,000 per annum (plus other fringe benefits) as Glen Eira does, then the argument becomes a lot easier that CEOs should receive heaps more. Perhaps one possible solution is cut the pay of underlings and that will stop the huge pay hikes for CEOs? and who, after all, establishes director pay scales and is in charge of hiring and firing?

 

September 7, 2011

The Time Is Nigh!

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

The question of whether Andrew Newton will have his contract renewed, or whether the position will be advertised, will be answered shortly. If the position is to be advertised, then Councillors must decide in October.

Newton has presided over a traumatic period in Glen Eira’s history. He has been the common denominator in 3 Municipal Investigations, (and we learn that there is another one in progress). Numerous incidents have also revealed how this council remains divided and how little trust or goodwill, exists between administration and councillors. When we look over the history of Newton’s reign, these have been the defining characteristics with each group of different councillors. He is obviously an individual who incites either loyalty or condemnation. In our view, this history does not augur well for a municipality that requires strong leadership and commitment from all.

The past year has seen countless ‘stuff ups’ in a whole variety of areas. GESAC allocations, and then the fiasco of having to increase car parking space; next there’s the whole issue of the C60 and centre of the racecourse; various ‘clerical errors’ have even been admitted and to top it off claims of harassment and bullying against Penhalluriack. None of these events show an administration functioning well and on top of its game. Nor does it reveal an administration that is working in unison with its entire group of councillors.

In our view, to reappoint Newton is to short change the Glen Eira community. Surely it is no coincidence that since his arrival this council has been embroiled in continual governance issues including one sacking. How much more does the community have to endure? It is time that new blood and an entirely new vision was brought in to manage Glen Eira. It’s also time that a new culture that acknowledges the importance of accountability, transparency and openness was created and fully implemented. These principles have been the casualties in the past decade.

Pilling has already gone on record that the position should be advertised. We can only hope that other councillors follow suit. The slate must be wiped clean and a new administration brought in that embraces diversity of views, accepts challenges, and accords the community the respect it deserves.

 

September 1, 2011

Public Questions, GESAC & Use of Council Logos

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

We’ve had a few comments regarding the use of the Glen Eira Council logo in the recent Warriors advertisement in the Leader newspaper. Several public questions were asked on Tuesday night regarding the allocation of basketball courts to the Warriors instead of the McKinnon Basketball Association. One of the questions specifically mentioned the use of council’s logo.

This is an important issue. It’s even more important since council is expending ratepayers’ monies on ‘legal advice’ to sort out the mess. Judging by the in camera items, this issue remains unresolved after weeks and weeks. If this is the case, then answers to the tabled questions are vitally important in terms of transparency and good governance. We are still awaiting the minutes of the meeting in order to cite verbatim the response to these public questions. However, the following is an approximation of what was asked and the response:

To the question of who gave permission for the use of the logo the response went along these lines – (a) Groups using GESAC are ‘expected’ to show the logo and that anyone who receives a grant must also ‘enclose’ the logo

‘Expectation’ is such a wonderful weasel word. Does this mean that the Warriors weren’t ‘ordered’ to use the logo? That their letter of offer even mentioned logos? That by osmosis they realised that this was ‘expected’ since we believe they are not recipients of any grant for GESAC use? It also neatly sidesteps the core of the question – did any individual(s) inform, tell, advise, instruct, insist that the logo be used? If so, then implicit permission was granted without formal council approval and without the issue of who uses the courts having been resolved.

We would also suggest that the appearance of such an ad (with the logo) in effect undermines the very deliberations that are currently ongoing. Any reasonable person seeing the advertisement and the logo, could only assume that (1) the Warriors have the full imprimatur of Council for their use of GESAC and (2) that a decision has already been made. We doubt whether this is the case.

 

August 26, 2011

Planning: Are We That Perfect?

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

Submissions on the State Planning Ministerial Review close on August 31st. Thus far Glen Eira has not produced any public documentation on its anticipated submission. That’s fine, except that the next council meeting is set for the 30th August – one day prior to the closing date and there’s nothing in the agenda items for this important document. So once again the likely scenario is that officers will write the report but without full public discussion by councillors. Or perhaps no report from council will eventuate! In any event, the outcome will mean that councillors either will have had no input; or if there has been any input, then it is once again done behind closed doors. Without an agenda item, councillors can at least be saved from the embarrassment of rubber stamping something that is put under their noses at the last minute.

No so at other councils however. We discover that Bayside has included a ‘report’ on the draft submission at its last council meeting, thus providing plenty of time for debate and alterations. Kingston has also produced a draft six and a half page submission plus media releases and commentary by the Mayor. Surely it’s not too much to expect that in two months since the
announcement of the review and the establishment of the Panel, that something more than a link on council’s home page would eventuate?

 

August 24, 2011

Where To From Here?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

Cr. Hyams’ reference to the Leader pre-election blurbs by the various candidates has been the catalyst for this post. Just over a year out from the next election, we thought it would be opportune to consider where we’ve come from, what’s been achieved, and what still needs doing.

The rhetoric that we continually hear is that councillors run the show and that administrators administer. Reading the promises below, a total rethink on this proposition is in order. Nearly every councillor opposed ‘inappropriate development’; nearly every councillor promised better consultation; nearly every councillor thought that carbon reduction was important as was keeping rates ‘reined in’. Three years down the track and very, very few of these promises have materialised into concrete achievements. So what’s gone wrong? Why can’t councillors deliver on their promises – especially since they’re supposed to be in control? Have we simply elected the wrong people? Why have many of these initial worthwhile promises simply bitten the dust? What is the reason for the failure of vision, the failure of real initiative, and the failure to fully engage and represent the wishes of the community? All your views are welcomed!

Councillors’ comments (including those from our ‘dearly departed’) are cited below from the Leader (November, 2008)

TANG: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Environmental, financial and social sustainability. We need to invest in community assets and community building whilst minimising our environmental impact. This can  be achieved while keeping our rates below peer councils.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can deliver record investment in community infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. Top of the list is the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and Booran Rd Reservoir Park.

ESAKOFF: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Having a responsive, service-oriented, financially and environmentally responsible Council that governs well and fully consults the community to make the best possible decisions for the people of Glen Eira.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Making Glen Eira even more liveable by keeping rates low, retaining the pensioner rebate, improving services, facilities, safety, shopping strips and open space, whilst protecting our environment and residential amenity.

PILLING: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Genuine community consultation. We need to build a better council that genuinely listens and acts on what the community needs. I will conduct quarterly open focus forums to discuss concerns and issues.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Our present council doesn’t take climate change seriously! I will advocate strongly for Glen Eira Council to become carbon neutral by 2018 with a 40% reduction in carbon pollution by 2012.

PENHALLURIACK: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Gaining a financial and recreational benefit from the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land, which is a jewel hidden behind a gulag-style fence and used for only 20 race meetings a year.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

My experience as the owner of Penhalluriack’s Building Supplies will enable me to bring local knowledge and business efficiencies to council, thereby enabling lower rates and better services and facilities.

FORGE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

 Develop Caulfield Racecourse into a world standard sporting and recreational complex; reform State planning rules in the best interest of ratepayers; and make greater progress of greening our city with canopy trees.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I attended over 90 per cent of Glen Eira Council meetings in past three years, so am well aware of how I can contribute. I am a skilful negotiator and have experience lobbying.

WHITESIDE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

My priority issue during the past three years in council has been and remains town planning, particularly inappropriate development, protection of heritage properties and streetscapes, especially at boundaries of minimal change areas.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I am committed to good governance and to a council that listens to people. I believe that the high standard of governance can be continued in Glen Eira with my influence.

LIPSHUTZ: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

We must have balanced development but at the same time preserve streetscape and period homes. Additionally rate increases must be contained, Glen Eira must be a leader in environmental matters.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can assure voters that responsible and decisive governance will continue. Rates will be reigned in and Glen Eira will become a much greener municipality. Planning will be reviewed.

HYAMS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

Council is about community, and helping residents and ratepayers. As President of the Moorabbin Historical Society, Vice President of Glen Eira Community Associations, local Bendigo Community Bank committee member and until earlier this year cricket club president and Neighbourhood Watch Area Secretary, and as a former councillor, I have a strong history of community involvement. I will work for low rates and a high pensioner rebate, improved community and sporting facilities, better support for sporting and other clubs, improved services for families and the aged, better community consultation, improved safety and better representation to State Government. I will strongly oppose over-development.

STAIKOS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Tucker Ward councillor for the last three years, I have worked to ensure that Bentleigh and East Bentleigh are not forgotten. Some positive outcomes for our local community include the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool, keeping the McKinnon Maternal and Child Health Centre open as well as expanding services at the Bentleigh Centre, committing to the rebuild
of the Centenary Park Pavilion and ensuring that the Home and Community Care Service is as efficient as possible. Looking forward, I want to ensure that Council opposes inappropriate development, establishes a child care centre in East Bentleigh, reduces carbon emissions and fights graffiti.

MAGEE: Why should the electorate vote for you?

I have lived in East Bentleigh with my wife Claire and two children since 1988. I have watched our area grow year by year. The number of double, even triple, dwellings on single blocks has started to change the very look and feel of Tucker Ward. The pressure for places at our kindergartens, child and maternal health centres and schools shows how popular this area is. We need our parks and playgrounds to be safe, our streets well lit and footpaths in good order. I am committed to the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool.

LOBO: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Justice of the Peace for Victoria, I believe I am community spirited. By the nature of my professional background I am result oriented. My commitment to the residents of Bentleigh, East Bentleigh and McKinnon is to give our suburbs a strong voice on the council and put community safety and welfare before council’s surplus. I will oppose inappropriate developments; ensure that senior citizens are properly supported; support parents with young children and give young people opportunities to express their creativity in positive ways. A vote for me is a vote for someone who cares with heart and mind.

 

August 18, 2011

Panel Hearing & Council Performance

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

This is what happened at the Panel Hearing yesterday.

  • Chair outlined the rules for the hearing but also noted that she had received an email from council the previous Friday correcting the Housing Diversity information – ie. that this did not apply to Seaview St. The report would be completed in about 4 weeks and Council had to make the report public within 21 days of their receiving it.
  • Council (via a lawyer) made its submission. Powerpoint presentation showing Housing Diversity areas and Minimal change areas. Admitted that report was wrong in that Seaview St is not in Housing Diversity but in Minimal Change Area. Stated that this is a ‘peripheral’ issue and doesn’t have any bearing on the heritage question. Showed photos and highlighted development in area surrounding the property – that is heaps of developments. Also showed photo of another building in Caulfield similar to 466 Hawthorn Rd. Talked about ‘administrative anomaly’ and owners not notified.
  • Officers sought authority to rectify this but councillors voted against recommendation. Said that submissions supporting removal of heritage had argued that building wasn’t ‘sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated and cost to refurbish is astronomical; ‘restricts development; unfair that people weren’t notified; two objectors to removal and their arguments that this property is worthy of preservation and enhances area; removal would allow development and further traffic congestion.
  •  A planning conference was held and there were two objections one of which was queried because the person lived far away. Chair asked if objectors were notified. Council rep said ‘yes’ but objector at hearing said that no notification arrived.
  • Council rep then argued that council does support heritage but only if the property is ‘worthy’ of heritage protection. In this case council doesn’t think that this property is that significant and thus heritage should be removed. Repeated time and time again that the property doesn’t have sufficient architectural, cultural or social significance. Because of the Housing Diversity then the development of 466 Hawthorn Rd is ‘unnecessarily constrained’. Minimal change area is meant to protect neighbourhood character but allows some development.
  • In regard to objectors, said that no experts were present; no development plans had been submitted; since there are 3 owners then redevelopment would be harder and ‘more complex’. Also a restrictive covenant exists. So objections are ‘premature’ and people don’t have to worry about a 5 storey residential development occurring.
  • Ended up by showing photos of 445 Balaclava Rd (another Frank Lloyd Wright influence) and thus removal of heritage from this site wouldn’t remove Wright’s presence in Glen Eira – even though the Balaclava Rd property is different!!!!
  • Chair commented on the fact that council hadn’t called expert witnesses and that the reports she’d read had all recommended maintaining heritage listing, so why is council considering ‘otherwise’?  Answer was that council thought it was ‘appropriate’ for its view to be heard.
  • Chair asked that if the Panel found that there was heritage significance then the development argument of council would be down the drain and council rep answered that it would be ‘compromised’.
  • Since council didn’t call any expert witnesses and neither did objectors Chair then explained that a report is one thing but that the best way to test the report was to have the expert there for questioning. This would carry ‘greater weight’.
 

August 16, 2011

GESAC: The Basketball Mess

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

Page 7 of today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader features a half page colour ad which boldly states:

“BASKETBALL AT GESAC!

Starts this October

Enter your team now and play at Melbourne newest sports centre this summer.

Come and play Basketball with Melbourne’s most exciting Basketball Club, the GLEN EIRA WARRIORS!

Competition features:

U9, U11, U13, AND U17 Boys and Girls  Competition for both Saturday & Sundays

U23, A Grade & B Grade Men’s and Women’s Competitions.

Competitions commence Saturday 15th October

All Players & Teams Welcome

  • Should the GESAC centre be unavailable due to building delays, etc. alternative facilities will be made until GESAC official opening date 

For more information and to register your interest (team or individual) go to www.warriorsbasketball.org”

 COMMENTS:

The Glen Eira council logo is present at the bottom of this advertisement. Did Council pay for any of this ad?

A public question at last Council meeting asked how much more funding would be put into advertising GESAC. The response was that this had not yet been determined. But, less than one week later there is another full page colour ad for GESAC! This tells us two things: either planning is a little askew and decisions are made on the run, or the answer to the public question was far from completely forthcoming!

Also worthy of note is that the public announcement for the Special Racecourse Precinct Committee Meeting, appears as a tiny advertisement on page 22. The ‘rubber stamping'(?) date is August 29th!

 

August 12, 2011

Newsflash: MRC Application

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

We’ve just learnt that the scheduled Planning Conference for next Monday evening HAS BEEN CANCELLED!

This is an extraordinary turn of events for several reasons:

  • In the first place, Council initially decided that a one week time lag between the closing date for objections and the holding of the planning conference was sufficient ‘notice’.  Given that objections might arrive at council late Friday afternoon, and that notification would then possibly not go out until the following Monday or Tuesday, this would mean that people would only receive notice of the meeting around Wednesday or Thursday – that is, 4 days notice only!
  • Now at the last minute, the meeting is cancelled. One can only speculate as to the reasons why and what is going on behind the scenes
  • The history of this application is definitely tainted – first the MRC withdraws just before the April 4th meeting; next there is the sudden ‘revitalisation’ of the application, and now, it’s pulled again.

Surely residents have every right to ask what is going on and who is responsible for all of the above?

 

August 6, 2011

VCAT ‘Ticks Off’ Council Planning Department

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

VCAT often designates some decisions as ‘Red Dot’ – that is, ‘cases of interest’ and which then form part of its ‘practice notes’. Glen Eira is the latest ‘Red Dot’ case. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1422.html)

The reason why this case is highlighted is simply that Council FAILED TO INFORM ALL OBJECTORS of an amendment. This isn’t the first time that residents have complained that they did not receive any notification of either applications, or appeals by developers, or later, amended plans submitted by applicants. One has to wonder at the efficiency of this planning department – how good is its record keeping? How up to date are its records? Or is the failure to notify and inform possibly more than a ‘clerical error’. It would appear that ‘clerical errors’ are suddenly coming thick and fast!

Below are some highlights of the member’s judgement:

“At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.

This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.

As it transpired, it appears that there were three objectors to permit application GE/PP-21828/2009, namely:

  • (name/address omitted), Caulfield East
  • (name/address omitted),  Caulfield East
  • Vic Track, GPO Box 1681P, Melbourne.

Only one of these objectors (Vic Track) was given notice.

…it is unclear whether the list of persons previously notified is based on up-to-date records held by the Council to reflect current ownership and occupancy details.

The adjournment of hearings involving s.87A applications as a result of incomplete notice being given has arisen on a number of occasions in recent times. It would appear that the obligations of Responsible Authorities in proceedings of
this kind, is not well understood.  

Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.  

 

August 4, 2011

Victorian Auditor General

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

From the VAGO website:

Business Planning for Major Capital Works and Recurrent Services in Local Government

 

Under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), all councils are required to implement principles of sound financial management; including managing financial risks prudently having regard to economic circumstances; ensuring that decisions and actions have regard to financial effects on future generations; and to ensuring full, accurate and timely disclosure of financial information relating to the council.

The 2006 Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters further commits councils to demonstrating sound public governance through good fiscal management; to consider available resources and competing priorities when making service-delivery decisions; and to improve their strategic planning and development of appropriate pricing regimes.

It has been six years since the Act was amended to shift away from annual planning to longer-term four year Council Plans and Strategic Resource Plans. It is timely therefore to determine whether this has strengthened business planning and budgeting.

The audit will review the business planning and budgeting practices for selected capital works and recurrent services in a sample of metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.

The report is expected to be tabled by end of September 2011.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »