GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

August 2, 2011

More Questions On GESAC

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Today’s Leader carried two huge advertisements calling for submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act for the leasing of two facilities at GESAC – one for a cafe, and one for consulting rooms. There are a couple of interesting features in these ads. For example the rental that is listed for each lease DOES NOT indicate whether the amount is PER ANNUM or whether the stated amount is for the full 5 year lease period. We strongly suspect that this is again nothing more than spin and placing an amount of $66,000 for one lease (as the total sum) certainly sounds a lot better than publicising the fact that this space has been leased for a paltry $12 or $13,000 per annum!

There are also several other questions we would like answered. For example:

  • Are tenants paying for all utilities such as water, electricity,etc. or will ratepayers bear this burden?
  • Are these final rentals in line with original prognostications or are they well below what the planners of GESAC promised?
  • Does any councillor even know the answers to the above questions? If so, please let the community know too!
 

July 31, 2011

MSAC & GESAC: What A Difference!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

From the minutes of Port Phillip’s last council meeting on the Community Representative sitting on the Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee. Note the contrast with GESAC’s Pool Committee!

 CITY OF PORT PHILLIP

2011
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MELBOURNE SPORTS AND AQUATIC CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  1. Purpose 

The purpose of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee is to assist Council to get the best result by ensuring that the views of relevant community members, government agencies and others are expressed and taken into account in the ongoing operation of the Centre. The Committee will:

Provide advice to Council on matters associated with Council’s interest and involvement in the development of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre at Albert Park Reserve, and, in particular, the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

Represent the interest of Council and the community and, in particular, in respect to those matters associated with the Community Aquatic Centre’s design, management and pricing structures.

Pursue a pro-active role in gathering information relating to the operation of aquatic facilities elsewhere, with the view to presenting issues and information to the Aquatic Centre which might be of benefit in improving the design, management and/or operation of the Community Aquatic Facility component of the overall complex.

Pursue on behalf of Council and the community the following objectives in relation to the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

………..

The council will appoint members of the Committee. The membership of the Committee will be:
City of Port Phillip (Councillors) x2

City of Port Phillip (staff)

Joint Councils Access for All Abilities

Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (MSAC)

Swim School

Regular community MSAC aquatic centre user X2

Inner South Community Health Service

(Allied health professional qualified in hydrotherapy)

Regular MSAC Hydrotherapy user

The Chairperson will be one of the Councillors.

Community members of the Aquatic Advisory Committee will be appointed by Council for a period of up to 2 years. Every 2 years positions will be advertised through the local paper, on notices at MSAC information boards, on the MSAC website and in the Divercity publication.

 

July 26, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Community Satisfaction

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

We’ve commented frequently on the difference between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours. We’ve also remarked on the Caulfield Leader’s possible editorial policy when it comes to reporting on council matters. The most recent example is the recant by the Caulfield Leader on the State run Community Satisfaction Survey. In contrast, we publish below the Bayside Leader’s appraisal of that municipality’s results, as well as citing from the Agenda items Bayside Council’s response to the survey. Readers should note that this year Glen Eira has not issued one single word (either as a press release, or any comment) on the results. As for including an officer’s report in the agenda items for council meetings, this has never been done as far as we know. Whereas Bayside appears quite willing to admit that there is room for improvement, Glen Eira remains silent and possibly hoping that the issue quickly fades away. 

Bayside Leader

Jon Andrews

Poll slams planning department: Bayside residents far from impressed

BAYSIDE Council’s planning department is one of the poorest performers in the state, according to a survey. In a damning local government poll, far more people were unhappy with the municipality’s planning sector than were happy.

Fifty-three per cent said the department ‘‘needs some improvement’’ or ‘‘needs a lot of improvement’’. Just 3 per cent thought it ‘‘excellent’’. Nineteen per cent said it was ‘‘good’’, while the remaining 26 per cent believed it ‘‘adequate’’.

Bayside Ratepayers’ Association president George Reynolds said the council’s town planning performance was ‘‘dismal’’, and the council did not seem to take into account residents’ needs. Other sectors that didn’t fare well include parking, local roads, footpaths and community engagement, while the council excelled at waste management, recreation, health services and local law enforcement.

Cr Michael Norris defended the council’s performance, saying Bayside residents had ‘‘higher expectations’’ than many other Victorians.

 ************

Council Agenda – 12th July 2011

“…the survey is valuable in measuring changes in perceptions of a Council’s performance over time. This can be used to influence the allocation of budgets and service levels, to introduce new services or adjust priorities between Council services and projects.”

“In comparison to all Councils in the Inner Metropolitan Melbourne local government grouping Bayside records higher results for waste management, and lower results in areas of advocacy, community engagement, customer contact, and town planning policy and approvals.

One area that continues to record low perception scores in this survey is town planning policy and approvals. In this instance 47 per cent of respondents rated town planning policy and approvals as Excellent, Good or Adequate and although this is consistent with the trend overtime, satisfaction results have reduced by five percent from 2010.

The Customer Window: Key areas for Improvement chart (p9) shows that while perceived performance has remained unchanged in the area of Community Engagement, it remains a key areas for Bayside to continue improving. Community Engagement also has the highest relative importance to residents. In the 2011-12 Annual Action Plan, Council has committed to reviewing Council’s Community Engagement Framework of 2009 and develop of a suite of products that outline appropriate tools for engagement opportunities with the community.

Another key area for improvement is Local Roads and Footpaths, with 36% of residents seeking improvement in this area. Council has recently endorsed Bayside’s Road Asset Management Plan designed to provide guiding principles for the long term  management of Council’s road and pavement assets. The plan will ensure that there is a defined methodology and management
and process improvement for Council’s road and pavement asset well into the future.

It is reasonable to expect that the measures in place will contribute to the improvement of satisfaction outcomes in coming years. Bayside uses the DPCD survey results to help guide its service planning with the indicated priority areas reflected in the Annual Service Plans”

“Council has committed in its Council Plan to seek engagement with the Bayside community and to making decisions based on evidence. The Annual Community Satisfaction Survey results make a significant contribution to Council meeting this commitment.”

 

July 25, 2011

Fat Cats Everywhere?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Council worker sacked over  Facebook ‘slack’ slam

Brendan Gullifer

The Age: July 22, 2011

A young council roads worker has been sacked after commenting on Facebook  that the council had too many office staff and not enough workers.

Alec Armstrong, 21, posted the remarks on a Hepburn Shireresidents’  page last month and had his employment terminated five weeks later for what the  Victorian council called “intimidating or offensive” behaviour.

In postings made after hours on June 2, Mr Armstrong said council had 140  staff, but only 30 who worked outdoors. “Shows you how top heavy they are,” he posted. He said outdoor employees never had enough money to do the job properly.

“I work on the roads for the shire. There would be four office staff to one  of us. Their (sic) slack, and we need less office staff who aren’t slack and do  the job a bit more. We never have enough money to do a job the way it should be  done. That’s why rates are going up. Keep blaming it on the useless staff above  us.”

And in a post later that night, Mr Armstrong wrote: “Most of the staff don’t  live in the shire. It’s like they give a s…t about nothing but their pay  packet.”

When confronted by office managers about the postings, Mr Armstrong said he  immediately removed them and apologised. In a letter to council chief executive officer Kaylene Conrick July 7, Mr  Armstrong expressed his “deep regrets” over the incident.

He admitted it was “inappropriate, disrespectful and lacked the  professionalism” required by Hepburn Shire Council employees.

In the letter, Mr Armstrong pleaded to keep his job. “As a younger employee I would like the chance to learn from my mistake and  in future be more mature and respectful about what is said,” he wrote.

“I understand that I have done the wrong thing and that I will have to deal  with the consequences of my actions.”

Mr Armstrong said yesterday he recognised that unauthorised media commentary  was prohibited under the shire’s employee code of conduct but at the time didn’t  understand that included social media, such as Facebook.

But in a letter to Mr Armstrong, a senior council officer called the comments  “seriously wilful conduct” that “may have damaged the reputation of the  council”.

Mr Armstrong was one of two new employees featured in a council bulletin in  2008. Under the headline “Council commits to youth – trainee and apprentice  appointed”, the council said Mr Armstrong and another employee were two  successful job candidates from more than 60 applications.

Hepburn Shire Acting CEO Evan King said the decision to sack Mr Armstrong was  made following due process. In a written statement he said: “The employee breached the code of conduct,  and based on an assessment of the seriousness of the breach, it was deemed the  employment of the employee should be terminated.”

Dave Beckley from the Australian Services Union said yesterday a case for  unfair dismissal of Mr Armstrong was being prepared for Fair Work  Australia.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »