And more of the same?
August 18, 2015
Progress?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[25] Comments
August 16, 2015
Public Safety Versus Profit
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
We’ve received the following email and series of photographs highlighting (once again) the chaos that residents have to put up with. Why this goes on and on and developers allowed to own our streets is incomprehensible. Even if fined, we’re told that either the fine is ignored, or it’s so miniscule that it is a drop in the ocean for most contractors working on multi-million dollar projects. It is our understanding however, that councils have the legal right to set their own penalties. A $200, or even $300 dollar fine is negligible. It is time that this council got off its backside and starting properly policing, fining and prosecuting each and every single developer that does not give a damn about those living next to his mess.
In order, here is:
- The email we received
- The photos depicting day after day
What we do not have photos of is the claim that on Friday last, there were 16 trucks parked in the Carnegie Street – three with trailers attached. The street in its entirety is approximately 200 metres long. Residents were unable to get out of their drives.
Development has a major impact on us everyday and council just doesn’t care and doesn’t have the interest in doing anything about it!! Our neighbourhood has been impacted, like so many others, by a local single block development in Carnegie. The developers and construction company have had no regard for publicly owned property, no regard for public access, no regard for neighbours and have had a number safety breaches on site that I understand have resulted in fines and orders to rectify the site. This week council has been contacted everyday to complain about the impassable footpath that has been created by the construction company. The attached photographs show the problem. The daily calls have resulted in 3 notices being issued to the construction company (Wednesday) – but the result was no change at all – the footpaths remain impassable. Calls were made again on Thursday and Friday – again no change to the footpaths at all. This morning the solution seems to have been found! ‘Use other footpath’ signs erected. So the developers get away with completely ruining public infrastructure and are not made to immediately rectify the damage – no strong action from council, nothing that does anything to protect the health and safety of residents, nothing that makes a strong statement to developers about not damaging public property. This council is shameless and completely ineffective.
August 14, 2015
From Elizabeth Miller’s Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethMillerBentleigh
Source: http://karl-gillon.me/
PS: The latest spruiking!
August 13, 2015
Our ‘Perfect’, Little ‘Cosy Club’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
Item 9.COMMUNITY GRANTS
Magee moved to accept ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.
MAGEE: said this was the ‘most gratifying part’ of being part of a council in handing out money to community groups who ‘provide services to our community’. Went through the report on numbers of applications and how many from non profit groups. Said that the committee included himself, Esakoff and Sounness. Community groups are largely volunteers and they work to ‘give a community benefit’. Some groups missed out because they didn’t fit in with the guidelines which council publishes and these are ‘extensive’.
HYAMS: called this a ‘good process’ and it helps the community and ‘everyone benefits’. There are still other applications to consider.
OKOTEL: is ‘happy and pleased’ that there is this program because it’s ‘important for our community’ in supporting groups. What she was unhappy about was the ‘final submissions’ on which clubs received the grants. Said that the process involves ‘assessment against community grants guidelines’ and this ‘is done in a very thorough way’ by the grants committee. This takes a day to go through them all and ‘I would certainly endorse the recommendations of the committee’. But she sees ‘a stretching of those guidelines to accommodate’ other applications and that ‘this goes one step too far’. Further, ‘if council were to act properly’ then they should amend the guidelines ‘to be more accommodating rather than stretching’ in her opinion, the guidelines to give grants to those groups that ‘weren’t recommended’ by the committee. She supports the recommendations of the committee but ‘what we see before us is a step too far’ beyond the guidelines.
PILLING: said that the ‘process’ had improved over the years and that the quality of applications had also improved. Said that ‘overwhelmingly’ the majority of the committee’s recommendations were ‘adopted’. Admitted that a ‘few’ had changed amounts but ‘that was a very small number’ and he was ‘confident that the process’ is good and that all applicants are aware of the guidelines. Purpose of the guidelines is to give residents the ‘confidence that we’re spending their money wisely’.
DELAHUNTY: thanked the committee for their work and appreciated that it was ‘very very difficult’ for decisions when there are so many ‘good causes’. Thought that ‘the process is robust’ and councillors have a big responsibility and also to ‘ensure’ that they follow the guidelines. Said she was ‘undecided’ on some and that they had to ‘get more information on’ like the one on making a ‘short video’ and the Jewish GLBT (IE gay, lesbian,bisexual, transgender) and ‘this will be a great project, one we haven’t seen before’. Sporting clubs ‘hang out for our decisions’.
LOBO: ‘any grant is always welcome’. Said that grants are ‘motivation’ for clubs and this is also apparent in the ‘community service awards’. One thing that ‘intrigued’ him was the clubs who said they were ‘running multi-cultural’ events and ‘I would like to have seen what kind of multi-cultural activities they perform’ plus whether ‘multi-cultural people can also join that club’.
MAGEE: endorsed all recommendations and everything is assessed against guidelines. Committee is important because they can delve and question and decide ‘what is the greatest community benefit’. and ‘sometimes the amounts can change slightly to what the officers recommend’. Thanked Jones and the officers for ‘putting this together’ and ‘it is an awesome amount of work’ that they put in and then bring it ‘to the assembly’. Also, there is often the need for ‘clarification’ from the applicants and this sometimes ‘comes from the committee and sometimes from Mr Jones’. Magee endorses ‘all of the’ grants and even when there is the wish to give a grant he can’t ‘because there is only so much money to give out’. Those groups that ‘miss out’ did so because their application wasn’t ‘worded properly’ or ‘explained’ things properly. Said there are some new things in the grants – Jewish Comedy Festival and he’s ‘looking forward to this’ and hopes it really ‘gets off the ground’.
MOTIONS PUT AND CARRIED. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST
++++++++
Item 9.12 – Strategic Resource Plan
Hyams moved to accept as printed. Pilling seconded.
HYAMS: said that this was simply to ‘adjust some of the figures’ but that they are still ‘good figures’. Main one was ‘liquidity’ and ‘at first glance is not the greatest’ but the ‘reason we adjusted’ is that once you look at the ‘seasonally adjusted for aged care’ it is ‘very sustainable’. Stated that the adjustment was because ‘without that’ there would be the assumption that the aged care bonds would have to be ‘repaid all at once – and that’s never going to happen’. So now the ‘assumption is that only a small percentage’ will be paid out at a time. Claimed that the adjustments therefore equal ‘the real world’ and the previous figures were more ‘accounting fiction’. Council had to change because the Local Government requirements has changed and council had already sent their plan off to the minister. So there was the need ‘to change and bring into line with those assumptions’. Admitted that ‘there were also some mistakes that were made’ but these ‘have been corrected now’.
DELAHUNTY: said that the officer’s report mentioned two reasons for the adjustments – ‘formulaic inconsistencies’ and ‘definitions’. Said these errors should have ‘been picked up’ and that the ‘biggest one’ is the ‘last line’. Said that council ‘always’ knew about the ‘new definitions’ for the aged care bonds. This was ‘adjusted in our minds’ only. Said that she’s got ‘issues’ with the performance indicators as a system and acknowledged the time of council officers to ‘work out the definitions’. The report is ‘obviously sound’ but ‘subject’ to the need to be a ‘bit more careful’.
OKOTEL: said that they’ve ‘identified areas’ where the indicators ‘could be improved’ so that ‘what we’re reporting against is meaningful’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
August 11, 2015
MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[12] Comments
ITEM 9.7 – MRC
(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)
Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.
DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.
MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.
OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.
HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.
DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.
MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
August 11, 2015
MRC – ‘Born To Rule’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
The Melbourne Racing Club is at it again – acting as if it is their god given right to do whatever they want on public land, whenever they want, and without any concern for nearby residents. This time they want a ‘timing system’ which involves the erection of 31 radio towers (height 13 metres) scattered across the racecourse and costing, they claim, $570,000. Naturally, the Department (as land manager) has given its approval (see uploaded letter here).
Throughout the application there is not a single word about environmental impacts nor potential safety concerns for residents – nor for that matter horses! Instead there is repetition upon repetition claiming ‘non-significant impact on the visual amenity of the area’. One paragraph in particular caught our attention –
3 antennas are proposed within the centre of the reserve and will be located directly adjacent to the track and existing infrastructure. The location of these antennas will ensure that the visual impact is minimal and the use of the public open space area remains unaffected.
Yes, 13 metre high poles of steel are certainly compatible with visual amenity and ball sports that council is advocating. Another nail in the coffin for more public open space if this goes ahead!
Here is what the poles will look like and where it is proposed they will go!
PS: please note that the heights will exceed 13 metres, since this calculation does not take into account the footings upon which the poles will rest.
August 10, 2015
Hansard – Alias ‘Kindergarten Playtime’
Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous[7] Comments
McKinnon Road, McKinnon, level crossing
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, who is responsible for the removal of level crossings. A constituent of mine in the Assembly electorate of Bentleigh has a business close to the McKinnon Road level crossing in McKinnon, which is one of the level crossings highlighted for removal by the government. My constituent is a landlord and one of her tenants spoke to her about being approached by government authorities about the public acquisition of the land on which their business stands. As members will imagine, this has caused great concern to both the landlord and the tenant because it was the first time they had heard that that land was going to be targeted. My constituent attended the public meeting held last week in Bentleigh, and the public acquisition of land was also news to some people at that meeting.
The uncertainty has caused great concern amongst a number of businesses around the level crossing that is slated for removal. What has made it even more confusing is that the information given suggests that people should approach the local council for advice and guidance, yet the local council also seems confused. It does not seem to have anyone who knows much about it and so far it has not appointed anyone to undertake that work. As members will appreciate, there is much consternation amongst the community. The action I seek from the minister is that he provide clarification as to where people should go to seek advice or guidance about the future impacts land acquisition may have on business owners and operators, landlords and tenants.
There needs to be a clear direction about the intention of the public land acquisition, and clearly my constituents in Bentleigh need to have their fears and concerns allayed.
Mr PULFORD …..Ms Crozier raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, but I suggest that perhaps the Minister for Public Transport is the lead minister on the level crossings project.
Ms Crozier—I was not sure if it was Minister Donnellan or Minister Allan.
Ms PULFORD—The removal of the level crossings and a project of this scale does have intersections with road issues, and Ms Crozier’s issue was particularly around land acquisition, which would naturally sit with another minister. I suggest that if Ms Crozier is happy, I will refer that to the Minister for Public Transport as the lead minister on the level crossings removal project. I will seek a response for her.
+++++++++++
SOUTHWICK & STAIKOS
Level crossings
Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—The Andrews Labor government is getting on with the job of removing level crossings in the Bentleigh electorate. In just eight months we have established the Level Crossing Removal Authority, allocated the funds in the budget, signed the contracts and completed early works. Full construction begins later this year.
Consultation is key to the successful delivery of these projects, and I was pleased that last week 500 local residents packed the McKinnon Secondary College hall to hear from the Level Crossing Removal Authority and give their feedback. After four long, dark, wasted years, the Andrews government is removing level crossings at Centre Road, McKinnon Road and North Road. Local residents are delighted by this and very much appreciated the opportunity to participate in the consultation last week. The only people unhappy about this consultation are those opposite. Several members of the opposition got a bit hot under the collar about this meeting and are highly critical of community consultation. The member for Caulfield, who is in the chamber, has been one of the most vocal opponents of consultation on level crossing removal works. I am not surprised by this, given the strange place the member finds himself in.
The member for Caulfield recently held a meeting in protest against the Matthew Guy residential zones. The flyer for the meeting opened with, ‘Do you have concerns about local overdevelopment, such as Port Phillip or questions about planning laws?’. It might as well have read: ‘Come and tell us how bad we were in government’. We know how bad they were—that’s why they are on that side of the house.
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I call on the Premier to discipline the member for Bentleigh over his disgraceful behaviour in advertising a level crossing removal information session using government funds to promote himself and his cause. I particularly question where the email addresses of constituents in Bentleigh will end up. Will they receive Labor Party information?
These level crossing removal information sessions are meant to be run by the Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is supposedly independent, to gain information. This is a disgrace to the Labor Party, and it is absolutely disgraceful behaviour by the member for Bentleigh. He has utilised this opportunity for his own political gain.
What will happen with the information that was collected? I think all constituents of Bentleigh would be very concerned. They provided their information with the singular intention of ensuring the wellbeing of their area. They want to receive the right information. This is an absolute disgrace to the member for Bentleigh. It is overreaching at very best. One would have to question what this information is going to be used for, and I ask the Premier to investigate this absolutely absurd and ridiculous action of the member for Bentleigh.
Caulfield electorate
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—(Question 394) My question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal is a vital project for my electorate of Caulfield which was announced and fully funded by the former coalition government in 2014. Local residents are concerned about the future of the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass, which may be removed as part of the North Road level grade separation, as it enables commuters to travel east–west through their neighbourhood and to two nearby schools.
I note the sham consultation process run by the member for Bentleigh, which did not allow many to attend the Dorothy Avenue meeting to talk about their concerns. We have certainly had a lack of consultation and transparency, with the only consultation run by the member for Bentleigh, which was an absolute sham. I ask: could the minister provide advice on whether the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass will remain or be removed as part of the North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal?
August 9, 2015
A Fair Dinkum Stuff Up?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[3] Comments
How on earth does a council stuff up so badly on financial reporting when:
- There’s supposed to be an audit committee that oversees everything?
- Strategic Resource Plans are worked on for months and months – presumably?
- The CEO has been part of the Advisory Committee that set up the standards (See: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/244867/Directions_Paper_-_Local_Government_Performance_Reporting_Framework_December_2012.pdf
- The budget and SRP has already been tabled, so why has it taken 3 months to discover the errors?
This is all about Item 9.12 of the current agenda where we find the following unbelievable admission –
On assessing the financial indicators as part of the end-of-year accounts review, officers identified a number of formulaic inconsistencies and errors in the indicators listed in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan compared with the calculations in the LGPRF template.
To ensure consistency with the Local Government Performance Reporting calculations, officers have recalculated the financial indicators and have reproduced these (refer attached). They will be updated in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.
So readers may judge for themselves the magnitude of these errors, we ask them to compare the ‘original’ SRP (passed and accepted without question by our wide awake councillors) and the current version. Simply click on each image to enlarge. We do apologise for the quality of the images – that of course is dependent on the formats that council chooses to publish its material. Otherwise readers should go directly to the minutes of these council meetings.
CIRCA MAY/JUNE 2015
AUGUST VERSION
August 7, 2015
Fences: A Microcosm Of The Rot!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
In the great scheme of things, Item 9.10 of the current agenda is trivial and far from earth shattering. Yet, it is a microcosm of the rot that distinguishes this council and its administration. The report is about fences on borders and whether Council should include information on its website that residents can access. Hardly revolutionary, hardly controversial and hardly likely to bring down the citadel. Yet the report (written once again by Mr Anonymous!) recommends the usual – do nothing!
Even with something so basic, the report is skewed and peppered with woeful logic, plus a disdain for residents that comes through strongly and clearly.
The arguments for doing nothing are quite literally appalling, childish and contradictory. There’s no need for council to do anything because residents can use ‘Google’ to get the required information, plus –It would be uncommon for members of the public to go, in the first instance, to the Glen Eira Council website to search for information on boundary fences. Really? Then why claim a few sentences later that council is frequently called by residents on such matters as gas, transport, centrelink, etc. If residents don’t know who is responsible for these latter areas and call council, then why should they have any more ‘legal’ knowledge about fences?
We’re then told that the job of council is to direct callers to the appropriate authorities. All well and good – but residents might not call – they might simply go to the website looking for information!
The final kick in the guts to residents comes with these gems of paragraphs –
The purpose of Council’s website is to provide residents with information about issues that Council can assist with. It is not to provide them with information on every issue that may affect them, such as dividing fence issues.
If residents were to see information on issues that Council has no control over, such as dividing fences, then it may lead to the question – “If Council can’t help me then why do they have information about it on their website?”
It follows that placing information on Council’s website about boundary fences warrants placing information on the website about other non-Council controlled matters. Taken further, it could be argued that Council’s website should include information about income tax returns, or passport applications; matters which are also important to the community.
Of course, nowhere in this mass of puerile logic will readers find one statement about fences that sit on the border of council and private land and council’s responsibility to pay for half, or to compensate owners when their trees damage private fences. That aspect of important information for residents does not rate a mention. Search the website and all that one can find relates to the mandatory fences around swimming pools.
How such drivel and disdain for the public can be allowed into the public domain is beyond belief. It is arrogance of the highest order that in our view even surpasses the arrogance of the Melbourne Racing Club. In Glen Eira, residents simply don’t matter except as the permanent cash cows to keep such anonymous authors in a job!
And what on earth is the problem with putting up a single webpage? Surely this could have been done much cheaper without a ‘request for a report’ and some bean counter spending an hour or two devising a way to say – get stuffed? How much did his time cost ratepayers?
Thankfully, not every council is so toxic and anti-community as Glen Eira. After a perfunctory search, here are the URLs for information on fence borders that all these other councils think is worthwhile to put up on their respective websites.
http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/building_in_bayside.htm#Fences
www.kingston.vic.gov.au/…/Fences_Boundary_Rules_Info_Generic.pdf
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Building/Fences/Dividing_Fences
http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Building/Installations/Fences
http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Fence-Requirements.html
http://www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=931
http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Planning_Building/Building_services/Around_the_home/Fencing
http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/FencingRegulations.aspx
http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Planning–Building/Building-services/Fences/
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/fencing/
http://www.melton.vic.gov.au/Regulations/Rates_and_payments/Fencing_information
www.buloke.vic.gov.au/neighbours-the-law-and-you
http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/fences
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/fencing.htm
http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Council_the_Region/Laws_Regulations/Fences
https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/building/fences
http://www.corangamite.vic.gov.au/index.php/council-services/building-a-planning/building/fencing
http://www.latrobe.vic.gov.au/Search?keyword=fences
http://www.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/Building_and_Planning/Building/Fences
http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=8602
http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Neighbouring_Fences
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Property-owners/Owner-Responsibilities
http://www.alpineshire.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1922
http://www.hrcc.vic.gov.au/building-services/fences
http://www.colacotway.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=4762&h=1
August 7, 2015
Council Clowns!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
The following two pages appear in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s council meeting. They pinpoint very clearly the sheer incompetence of this administration and its councillors – plus the ongoing ‘born to rule’ mentality of the MRC. Many issues need to be investigated and fully reported on – namely:
- What has Council done in the past 4 years to ensure that the Clayton’s ‘agreement’ is in fact bona fide and worth the paper it is written on?
- Council in 2011 published an ‘agreement’ signed only by Newton. Why wasn’t this countersigned by the MRC or Trustees? What actions, if any, did council undertake to ensure this occurred?
- What representations, if any, has council and/or councillors made to MPs following the Auditor-General’s report?
- Were councillors told prior to Newton signing the non-existent ‘agreement’ that this still required the MRC’s signature?
- What further ‘information’ is likely to ‘come to hand’?
- What is the nature of the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between Council (and whoever was involved) and the MRC in the past 2 years? Why has there not been a single report tabled in regard to such meetings?
- We have been informed that the MRC is currently creating a Master Plan for the centre of the Racecourse? What involvement has council had with this? If none, then why not? If yes, then why the ‘secrecy’?
CONCLUSIONS
We can only conclude from all this that:
- there is NO AGREEMENT!
- that residents have been dudded
- that administration and councillors have allowed this situation to drag on to the detriment of all.
Glen Eira Debates 
