GE Service Performance


The deadline for submissions to the Local Government Act Review has now passed. Glen Eira has placed its effort on its website – after the fact of course and in direct contrast to other councils who sought a formal council endorsement (via resolution) on their submissions.

Councils generally have tended to advocate for the status quo, thereby maintaining their ‘independence’ and powers to do as they like. But as per usual, very few of these other councils are as conservative and anti change as Glen Eira. Here are some quotes from Glen Eira’s submission –

On mandatory versus normative legislation – We feel that the legislation should as a general principle provide consequences for noncompliance. But in this case, where it’s a matter of more general principles, there needs to be a reliance on common sense elements – much as it currently is.

On elections and set questions for candidates – We don’t agree with the suggestion that all candidates should answer standard questions, this should be left to the discretion of each candidate. If they don’t adequately communicate with voters they will not be successful.

On banning developer donations – We don’t agree that donations should be banned, nor that certain categories of donors should be banned. Banning categories of donors could unduly favour certain types of candidates over others. Conflict of interest provisions, which would prevent councillors from voting on anything that benefits major donors, should be sufficient to cover this.

Roles of councillors and Mayor – Clarifying the role of the Mayor is a good idea but we don’t agree that this should mirror either the NSW or QLD model  – AND

We don’t believe councillors should be full time. This would dilute the pool of those able to stand. Tiering for payments is unfair. Everyone should get the same pay – it’s the same amount of work regardless of the population of the Council.

The Mayor should have a casting vote to resolve deadlocks. It should be up to Councils to determine the extent of public participation in decision-making, not legislated, beyond what is currently contained in s223.

Local laws including meeting procedure should be left to each council to determine. Indexing fines is a good idea.

On reporting and ‘efficiency’ – We oppose the suggestion to require the publication of comparative data for all services – this would be a large impost on resources that should be directed to delivering services

On conflict of interest – Where councillors have a conflict, they should be entitled to be present for the debate, but not to vote. Often, as in the case of conflicting duties, the councillor excluded may have valuable insight into the subject at hand.

By way of contrast, here are some extracts from other councils –

BAYSIDE – The discussion paper raises the practice of councils appointment of special committees to undertake a number of non-statutory, operational roles for example managing sporting pavilion hire art gallery etc. It is suggested that this model should be explored further to enable community involvement in the management of local facilities.

STONNINGTON – There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for Councillors. There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for officers.

MELBOURNE – Regardless of role, it is essential that the governance requirements of the MAV are updated to reflect current public sector best practice and to tackle some current challenges. The MAV should be subject to the same openness and transparency requirements (including freedom of information) as other public bodies established under legislation. Areas that could be covered in a new Act include:

  • employment of senior officers
  • disclosure of senior officer remuneration in its annual reports
  • management and disclosure of conflicts of interest

BOROONDARA – to address the insufficiency of comparable information about candidates. The answers to these questions be made available to voters in the form of a candidate information template in the postal ballot packs provided by the VEC and this information be made available on the VEC website. While candidates would have the right to withhold answers to some or all of the prescribed questions, all their answers (including ‘no response’) would be made available to voters.

YARRA – The current minimum standards for public exhibition and submissions to Council Planning and budgeting processes act as a barrier to the development of more meaningful consultation methodologies. By effectively reducing the time available for other forms of consultation and participatory decision-making, the exhibition process is an inhibitor rather than facilitator of community engagement

seasons-greetings2

2015 has definitely been a very mixed bag. Here is our summation –

The Positives

  • The resignation of Andrew Newton and another senior bureaucrat.
  • The fallout from the residential zones is now obvious to all and councillors are feeling the pressure
  • A far more enlightened and knowledgeable electorate on planning
  • 2016 is an election year.
  • Rate capping imposed

The Negatives

  • Further evidence in recent days of a dysfunctional and divided council
  • Major travesties of justice and continued ignoring of community – Frogmore, the MRC and C60 developments, Caulfield Park conservatory, destruction of street after street as a result of the new zones
  • Ratepayer funds spent on disseminating lies and propaganda as damage control – ie the 11 cents flyer
  • Voting cliques
  • No tree register
  • No amendments to curb overdevelopment & no review of planning scheme
  • No consistency in councillors’ arguments
  • Deplorable governance continues
  • Sub standard officer reports
  • Pavilions that continue to come in well over budget – Duncan MacKinnon for one.

We have undoubtedly ignored plenty of other events/issues that could have been included in the above. Please feel free to add your own.

Finally, thank you to all our readers and contributors and thank you again to our council for it is they who provide the multitude of fodder for our analyses. We are pretty optimistic about the future and the potential for major change and improvement. As the following says – it has started but still a long way to go before we get a fully transparent and accountable council. That in the end will depend on voters and candidates who do give a damn about residents.

2016

Approval sought to arm private security guards on Glen Eira Council property

December 22, 2015 12:00am

Cheryl Balfour

Glen Eira Council received a request to allow armed guards on its property. A CONFIDENTIAL report has confirmed a private security company sought approval from Glen Eira Council for guards to carry guns in public places, just two months ago.

The council has dodged questions on the issue since Caulfield Glen Eira Leader first revealed on December 7 that the issue went before a confidential council meeting on October 20.

The issue has caused friction at the council, with Cr Oscar Lobo accused of “anti-semitism” for comments he made during a council debate about public security. Cr Oscar Lobo’s comments during a council debate have incensed some in the community.

Leader has since obtained the confidential ‘Change to Council’s Risk Profile’ report tabled at the November 27 Audit Committee meeting. The report says: “On October 6, 2015 a non-government security group wrote to council seeking authority for some of its members to carry concealed firearms at events held on council property”.

Councillors Mary Delahunty and Thomas Sounness confirmed a letter from the Community Security Group seeking consent for security measures for Jewish events going forward was circulated among councillors on October 6.

The risk profile report states, “council officers would not give permission for an event under these circumstances but would suggest alternative venues for consideration”.

It says council management advised that if the council proposed to authorise the request, all security personnel must be licenced and have Australian citizenship or Australian residency. Firearms management should comply with legislation and evidence of public liability insurance of $20m must be provided, according to the report.

The document says that after the October 20 special council meeting, the security group “advised Council that it held public liability insurance of $20m on the following basis: “use of guns — covered”.

Minutes show a majority of councillors voted to close the October 20 meeting to the public and that “matters affecting the security of council property” were discussed.

Sources have confirmed to Leader off the record that councillors voted to allow armed guards on council property, including parks.

Mayor Neil Pilling again refused to comment and directed Leader to a council statement that “there is no authorisation by Glen Eira Council for the carrying of firearms for any current or future event anywhere in Glen Eira”.

The statement does not mention past events.

Victoria Police spokesman Acting Superintendent Richard Koo said police authorised individuals to provide armed guard services. “Provided a private security guard holds the appropriate sub-activity of armed guard on their licence there is no legislative restriction on where the activity can be carried out so long as the individual is abiding by the conditions stipulated on their licence and legislation.”

Police confirmed armed security guards could protect property and cash in transit only.

Government spokesman Kosta Pandos said it was “a matter for the council, however any decisions such as this must comply with the law”. “I can say that the government wants to see less guns on our streets and not more.”

Caulfield State Liberal MP David Southwick said the matter was between police and the council.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/approval-sought-to-arm-private-security-guards-on-glen-eira-council-property/news-story/bb16a685455c17183177444c2a3e0405#load-story-comments

letter

 

Here are some questions to ponder –

  • Why is so much in Glen Eira ‘secret’? – when other councils see no need for such limitations?
  • Why do councillors continually allow such ‘perversions’ to continue unabated?
  • Why does Glen Eira continually resort to bluff, bluster and frankly intimidation when it is dealing with residents?
  • Why does this council’s culture display such arrogance and disdain for its residents?

Here are some prime examples of very recent times.

  • The online planning register has suddenly been updated to include this load of deliberate, intimidating hogwash.

Availability of planning documents
The planning applications and associated plans and documents available on this website are provided solely for the purpose of the planning process as set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The information must not be used for any other purpose. By entering this website you acknowledge and agree that you will only use information accessible here for the purpose of the planning process under that Act and any use or distribution of this information beyond that purpose is strictly prohibited.

Not only is there nothing in the Planning and Environment Act to substantiate these bogus ‘threats’, but the Government Spear program itself includes far more than the pathetic council register – ie name of applicant. Further, Planning Alerts is a free service that publishes applications for wider distribution.

  • Last Tuesday night’s council meeting included this public question –

“Will Council publish its submissions on Plan Melbourne Refresh and the Local Government Act Review? I also ask why council does not seek a formal resolution endorsing all submissions made to Government reviews or inquiries?” and the ‘answer’ was –

“When finalised, the submissions will be posted on Council’s website. Resolutions are sought as required.”

There is plenty amiss here. Firstly, residents will not have any idea of council’s position on these important issues until AFTER THE FACT. There is no open public discussion in chamber; no formal council resolution endorsing the submission written by officers, and hence another example of decision making behind closed doors – and we are of course assuming that councillors even get to read the draft submission! Yet, as always, such practices are allowed to continue unchallenged by councillors. No comments are required as to the ‘tone’ of the response and the arrogance implicit in it!

In stark contrast, we’ve done a very quick search of other councils who did seek formal resolutions and discussions on their submissions. Here is the list we’ve found after only a 5 minute search. All speak volumes of the culture of Glen Eira!

Plan Melbourne Refresh

Banyule

Boroondara

Brimbank

Darebin

Hobsons Bay

Maribyrnong

Melbourne

Moonee Valley

Moreland

Mornington Peninsula

Nillumbik

Stonnington

Whitehorse

Yarra

Yarra Ranges

 

Local Government Act Review

Bayside

Boroondara

Brimbank

Frankston

Monash

Moreland

Nillumbik

Northern Grampians

Port Phillip

Surf Coast

Yarra

PS – ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW CEO

mck

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

DELAHUNTY: whilst reporting on this meeting, Delahunty referred to Item 8 of the minutes which stated – “The Committee noted the paper on changes to Council’s risk profile.”. Said ‘we had a paper presented’ and that she wanted the mover and seconder of the motion to accept the minutes of the advisory committees to ‘amend their resolutions’ in the minutes so that the ‘paper’ would be incorporated into these council minutes. This amendment was not accepted by Hyams and Lipshutz. Sounness seconded Delahunty’s amendment.

DELAHUNTY: asked Newton to confirm whether the paper presented to the Audit Committee was written by himself and whether he considers it to be confidential. Newton stated that he did write it and was confidential. Delahunty went on and said that she thought the paper would be available under FOI and that she thought it was ‘important’ for people to see ‘items such as this and how they reflect on the risk profile’ of the organisation. Said that council takes its ‘risk profile very seriously’. Said that the paper is about the changes to the risk profile ‘of the organisation as a whole’. Believed that ‘it is an important paper for the public to have access to’ and that ‘it would go some way’ to help people understand ‘some of the media reports’ of recent times. Asked councillors to find ‘in their hearts the transparency’ that is important and to release the paper because ‘the public is intelligent enough’ to ‘have a conversation about risk management’.

SOUNNESS: said he had attended the meeting and thought the paper was ‘factually important’ and highlights ‘the risks looked at by council’ and without specifying anything that he might feel ‘uncomfortable’ about some of ‘what those risks might be’.

HYAMS: thought that Delahunty’s implication that councillors didn’t want the item put into the ‘public’ domain was because councillors didn’t think residents were ‘intelligent’ enough and there were ‘lots of other reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order and stated ‘that’s not what I said’

HYAMS: ‘that’s exactly what you said’.

Pilling then asked Delahunty on ‘what point of order’ and she replied ‘on misrepresention’. Pilling fumbled and mumbled and asked Delahunty to ‘clarify’. Delahunty said that she said that she thought that residents were ‘intelligent enough’ and ‘did not infer’ that council thought otherwise.

HYAMS: stated that ‘Delahunty’s comments speak for themselves’. Continued that ‘there are plenty of other reasons’ why you might want to keep something confidential’. The Local Government Act has 9 such sections and so do other branches of government. Found it extraodinary that Delahunty could want the ‘underbelly’ of Council published and he was ‘sure’ that if the Audit Committee wanted it published they would have provided for this. Said he was ‘quite disappointed’ with the motion.

Delahunty then asked Newton that she thought it was Lipshutz who had asked for the ‘insurance map’ to ‘be released’ to full Council. Said that this was just ‘another example of Audit papers that come before council’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he is being ‘misrepresented’ and that he didn’t ask for this.

DELAHUNTY: apologised and said that she thought ‘it might have been’ Lipshutz and that it could have been someone else. But it is ‘still another example of audit papers’ released.

NEWTON: confirmed that something like this had been ‘suggested’. Said that there are papers that go to councillors and vice versa.

LOBO: claimed that the ‘basic responsibility’ of a councillor is to ‘heighten the awareness of residents of risk’. Said in this instant if the ‘servant is serving his master’ then it is the servant’s ‘responsibility to tell where the risk lies’ and ‘why we hiding all the time’ and that people’s ‘perception is that we are not trustworthy’. Thought it was ‘time to break’ this perception and ‘start a new year 2016’.

AMENDMENT PUT TO THE VOTE – VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

AGAINST – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESKAOFF, PILLING, OKOTEL, MAGEE

Original motion then put and speakers asked for.

LOBO: said that CEO is retiring and that there is ‘normally a procedure’ for an exit interview with a ceo ‘who has served more than a decade’. With Newton leaving ‘he could tell us what we do not know’ so ‘that’s another risk we may have’.

LIPSHUTZ: sprang up on a point of order.

DELAHUNTY: asked Pilling to determine the ‘grounds’ of Lipshutz’ point of order.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Lobo was ‘talking about what should happen’ and not ‘what did happen’.

DELAHUNTY: claimed that if this was about ‘relevance’ then the issue was ‘considered at number ten of the Audit Committee’.

PILLING then ‘over-ruled’ Lipshutz and said that the issue was raised at the audit committee.

LOBO: said that he was ‘used to rubbishing’.

LIPSHUTZ – another point of order and Pilling asked him to ‘speak to the issue at hand’.

LOBO: said he was speaking to the issue because ‘my masters are here’ (ie gallery). Said that they had ‘left’ the exit interview to the ‘discretion of the CEO’ and he ‘may or may not have accepted’ but ‘it is his responsibility to let us know why he resigned on the 20th October – a very good date’.

PILLING: said that it ‘is true’ that Lobo raised this at the audit committee meeting. The ‘offer was made’ to Newton and it ‘was declined’ and ‘that is the end of the story’. Said that it was ‘not mandatory’.

Motion put and carried. Voting against – Lobo, Sounness, Delahunty.

Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling, Magee

Just a very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. Full details in the days ahead. However, tonight’s events distinguished themselves by disclosing to a good sized gallery how governance and unity do not exist in Glen Eira. The animosity in chamber was palpable.

The lowlights –

  • insult after insult hurled across the chamber between various councillors – Lobo, Magee, Lipshutz, Hyams the main culprits
  • open government again the loser to the gang of six (Magee an enthusiastic joiner)
  • inconsistency in argument on vivid display once more
  • public questions basically fobbed off with non answers

On planning applications the results were –

  • 9 storey for Centre Road – unanimous refusal
  • Bent Street – permit (Lobo voting against)
  • Centre Road 5 storey and 63 units – permit
  • Murrumbeena 4 double storeys – permit
  • Nicholson Street Bentleigh – permit

Watch this space for our reports on what happened!

Apologies to the author for our misquoting this line in our heading. However here is a very carefully worded council Media Release designed no doubt to deflect recent public criticism of the Lipshutz/Hyams’ sponsored ‘guns in parks’ fiasco. Yet, it is the wording itself which only succeeds in raising numerous questions –

  • The media release refers to ‘current’ and ‘future’ events. What of PAST events – ie the Shabbat Project and (possibly) Chanukah in the Park?
  • The media release speaks of ‘administration’ of the Firearms Act? Surely ‘administration’ of an Act is distinct from seeking permission for licences? So the question becomes – did council seek permission from the ‘commissioner’, ‘police’ or anybody else with authority?

GECC_-_Firearms

PS – SOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

g

let

Item 9.2 – Centre Road/Browns Road, Bentleigh East.

Application is for a part 3 and part 5 storeys building and 67 dwellings. Officer recommendation is ‘up to 63 dwellings’. Of the 67 proposed dwellings 60 are to be single bedroom apartments, 6 double bedroom apartments and one 3 bedroom apartment. Officer recommendation is to ‘amalgamate’ some of these so that another 3 two bedroom apartments are created and one additional 3 bedroom apartment in the revised dwelling numbers of 63 units.

Whilst this represents an interesting new position in that this is the first time we remember an officer’s report commenting specifically on the issue of ‘diversity’ and imposing conditions that will only marginally increase the number of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, we remind readers of the following comments made by our wonderful councillors in previous decisions. Once again the question of consistency and arguably integrity (depending on who the applicant is) raises its ugly head.

HYAMS on the MRC Amended Plan for Caulfield Village where 3 bedroom apartments were gutted to create more single bedroom units so that just on 61% of the proposed 463 dwellings got the nod to be single bedroom dog boxes – “I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. . So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity.

PILLING (on same item) – On profit council has to look at the ‘planning process’. 26 3 bedroom places ‘are a plus’ but’ not for us to determine’. Said that council ‘can encourage but we can’t actually have that law’. And this also applies to ‘social housing’. This will ‘happen’ at some point and ‘it’s up to the developer to provide it’ even though council might like it in ‘every part of the development’. Just because council doesn’t ‘like’ it isn’t enough reason to vote against. Council has to make its decisions on ‘good planning’ processes such as the planning scheme, incorporated plan and development plan.

OKOTEL (same item) – was ‘concerned’ about the reduction of three bedroom apartments but she accepts that these could ‘be difficult to sell’ and ‘nobody wants to see vacant dwellings’ especially when ‘there is such a need for housing’. ‘It’s better that apartments are built and purchased’.

The above quotes speak for themselves!

 

The Victorian Government is currently undertaking a review of the Local Government Act and it has appointed a Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee to assist with the task. It has invited public submissions which close next Friday 18 December. We strongly recommend that you make a submission to the review to register your concerns and to ask that the Local Government Act be amended to ensure that Glen Eira City Council is compelled to be a far more transparent and accountable institution.

With less than a week to go before submissions close, this Council is up to its old tricks. No formal resolution endorsing a submission; no submission made public and no discussion in chamber. Needless to say this is not how other councils are doing things – Bayside, Stonnington, etc. Whatever Glen Eira is submitting has been decided behind closed doors. This is one very good reason why the Act needs reforming.

Here are some suggestions to consider:

The Local Government Act should make it mandatory that:

  • All councils have Notice of Motion
  • All councils have ‘dissent from the chair’
  • All councils adhere to regular rotation of Audit Committee membership and council committee membership
  • All councils present live broadcasts of meetings
  • All councils publish agendas and full minutes for advisory committee meetings and that these meetings be open to the public
  • All CEO positions be advertised
  • No CEO be appointed for more than 2 consecutive contracts (ie a limit of ten years)
  • Staff Code of Conduct be published
  • Key Performance Indicators for CEO and senior staff be made public
  • Minutes to include how each councillor voted
  • The provision of open, timely and evidence based public consultation on major issues, including the public work shopping of significant issues
  • Community representation on all advisory committees
  • Public questions answered by individual councillors at start of meetings if question addressed to them
  • Ensure that budgets reflect community views

We are sure you will be aware of many other instances of systemic Council failure which can and should be remedied by appropriate reform of the Local Government Act. Please do so to assist to give the necessary weight to the changes we need in Glen Eira.

Your submission can be made through the Local Government Act review website at http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission or by post to Local Government Victoria, PO Box 500, Melbourne, VIC 3000, by no later than Friday 18 December 2015. Submitting through the website requires you to log in.

Alternatively (and you may find this easiest) simply send an email to hannah.wood@dewlp.vic.gov.au and clearly mark your submission for the attention of the Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee. Note: each submission is to be released publicly unless the submitter requests that it be withheld.

 

 

In this post we will concentrate on two important aspects of council’s operations as they are depicted in the Agenda Items – (1) continued selective editing and publishing timeline of Assembly Meetings and (2) community consultation committee as a mirror of this administration’s attitude to genuine community consultation and representation.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Local Government Act (Section 80A) stipulates that  – The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable

  • reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and
  • incorporated in the minutes of that Council

This is clearly not happening in Glen Eira. Minutes from the 27th October and from the 10th November are still to be tabled and made available. Yet, when we look at what has been published, the order is astounding and we believe quite deliberate. It is not therefore adhering to the Local Government Act but rather indulging in political machinations that attempt to keep certain items (like the guns in parks) under wraps for as long as possible. Why was the November the 4th assembly included in the minutes of the 24th November Council Meeting whilst the highly contentious 20th October meeting was only published for this agenda (15th December)? And what has happened to the missing Records of Assembly? Here are the respective council meetings and the Records of Assembly minutes published for each of these council meetings.

24/11/2015  Council Meeting

6 October

13 October

November 4th

15th December 2015 Council Meeting

20th October

17th November

24th November

Some items from these latest records deserve highlighting –

Cr Delahunty – can an update on the recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust be given. Councillors who are Trustees gave an update to the extent they were permitted to by the Trust’s Code of Conduct.

Cr Delahunty – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse.

Cr Sounness – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse. Role of the Private Building Surveyor.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

Quite frankly, we have to wonder why council even bothers in having this committee – apart from going through the motions and pretending that Glen Eira is so community conscious and ‘democratic’. Meeting after meeting achieves bugger all in our view. Here is the evidence to support this claim –

The committee minutes of 19th February 2015 show that a presentation was made by Iain Walker of the New Democracy Foundation. The foundation is geared towards ‘the idea of citizen juries’ and to ‘place decision making in the hands of community members’. The minutes also state that ‘discussion on selection process, structure of juries, methods used, authority given to the jury and costs occurred’ took place. The ‘Action Item’ was for officers to send Mr Walker a ‘letter of thanks’!

Now 2 meetings later we get this morphed situation –

Report on how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and advise about any statutory obstacles which may impede implementation

A report was presented that provided an overview of how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and the statutory issues in pursuing this approach. The report identified that the approach has been used in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, US and Canada. It has been adopted as a way of engaging citizens and ensuring that local government spending reflects the needs of local communities. Australia has developed their own particular take on participatory budgeting that seeks informed recommendations on budget decisions through the citizen jury or panel format.

Although there are no statutory limitations or requirements for the implementation of participatory budgeting process, there are some potential restrictions that need consideration in exploring application of such a model. The most pertinent include:

  • Council consists of democratically elected members who are afforded the responsibility to govern and make decisions on matters affecting their municipality and community.
  • There are substantial costs associated with implementing a quality participatory budgeting process.(New Democracy Foundation estimates $85-90,000)

Any recommendations made by a participatory budgeting process are still required to be approved by normal Council arrangements. According to the Local Government Act 1989, Councillors are the legal authority to make decisions whilst participating as a member of the Council in a formal council meeting.

Action: Further discussion participatory budgeting and options for Council to use this approach to be on agenda for the next meeting in February. Officers to contact the ‘New Democracy Foundation’ to discuss options for a participatory budget process including costs and timelines.

 

COMMENTS – There is nothing in any of the minutes to indicate that ‘participatory budgeting’ was now the focus instead of ‘citizen juries’ in general (based on the previous Iain Walker presentation. No doubt it will take another 3 or 4 meetings (ie at least a year) for anything to happen. And it would be so wonderful if instead of highlighting the presumed ‘negatives’ of an issue, the ‘positives’ were also included! But then, that is the Glen Eira way – pretend to listen, then do nothing. As we’ve previously stated – progress in this council occurs at glacial speed!

Some other examples of inexplicable tardiness follow –

Minutes of 27th May feature this gem – Discussion occurred on what Council should consult on and whether new Council policies should be subject of community consultation. The discussion was adjourned to a future meeting so that John Fien could begin. Result? This fundamental issue has now disappeared into the dustbin of history!

Minutes of 19th August 2015 include this – The committee considered that the use of social media could enhance community engagement and that an increased use of social media would be of benefit to Council. Action Item – Officers to prepare a paper setting out how other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced.

But this current set of minutes includes the following –

Report – How other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced –This report is being prepared by Community Relations and will be presented at the next meeting of this committee in February 2016. Thus in Glen Eira it takes at least 6 months for anything to even be initiated much less implemented.

The best however comes with this from the current minutes –

Definition of consultation and informing the community

Susan McKenna (community representative) sought clarification on Council’s definition of consultation. In the Community Engagement Strategy; consultation is described as obtaining community feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. This definition reflects the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), Public Participation Spectrum.

Susan stated that the revised plans for the Booran Road Reservoir development are not currently on the Council website.

Action: Councillors present committed to raising these issues at a future Assembly of Councillors

Comments: SO WE’VE NOW HAD A COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE GOING FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS AND THE BASICS REMAIN UNCLEAR. We also know that officer reports are tabled at these meetings but never made public. We also know that past community reps have found the process completely unsatisfactory and resented the continual doctoring of minutes or very selective inclusions. We offer our commiserations to the current crop of community reps who no doubt are trying their utmost to ensure that improvements are made but are continually stymied by a culture that sees no place for community views, much less genuine participation and god forbid ’empowerment’ for the community!

 

« Previous PageNext Page »