April 9, 2014

The Backroom Boys & Hidden Agendas?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[35] Comments 

URGENT BUSINESS

Magee moved a motion that Council that sports grounds in the centre of the racecourse be considered as URGENT BUSINESS. Hyams declared a conflict of interest as did Esakoff. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT DECLARE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND REMAINED IN THE CHAMBER. No councillor challenged his presence. (Delahunty was absent).

MAGEE: moved the motion that council’s position was that the centre should be used for sporting grounds; that on the 7.30 Report the MRC CEO stated that ‘community sport would be welcomed’; that council writes to the Trustees and that they ‘ensure’ that community sport be developed in the centre and that a copy of the letter go to the Minister for Crown Lands , the minister for sports and to the minister for racing. Motion seconded by Sounness.

Magee went over council’s resolution for the centre of the racecourse where many sporting teams were missing out and that the ’54 hectares of land’ could be used for sportsgrounds. Said that this ‘vision’ was presented to the community and ‘accepted widely’ and that all councillors have ‘worked tirelessly’ to get this done. Magee said that it was good to hear that the MRC CEO ’embraced this vision’ and that it’s the first time they have said anything like this. Magee welcomed this statement. At the moment there’s a ‘lease being prepared’ and Magee thought it was ‘incumbent on us to work with the’ MRC and to write to the trustees and ‘inform them of this agreement’ and how the MRC ‘have now embraced’ this vision. The trustees have to now ‘take this advice’ and work it into ‘any lease agreements that are before them at the moment’. Said that the MRC should ‘only ever be given a lease’ for areas outside the actual racetrack and not the racetrack itself nor the centre of the racecourse. Stated that this is the ‘first time in 150 years’ that the ‘two groups can actually work together’. The turstees job is to administer the racecourse ‘for the benefit of all Victorians’. Claimed that here’s the perfect time to do all this ‘given that there is an agreement’ and that the MRC spokesman has ‘made it very clear on national television’ that sport is ‘very clear to the’ MRC and ‘we welcome that’. Said that since they’ve stated this that all that’s left is to ‘inform the minister’ to ‘let them know there is an agreement in place’.

SOUNNESS: asked Magee if he would accept a change in wording from ‘community sports grounds’ to ‘organised sport’. Magee refused to accept change in wording. Sounness still accepted the motion and said that he ‘copped it in the neck’ about lack of sporting ovals, lack of off leash dog areas because of organised sports, and lack of passive areas. Said that this is an opportunity and should be followed up. Open space for sports grounds can’t be found that easily in a built up city so the centre could be the solution.

LIPSHUTZ: said he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because he didn’t think there was one but that it is ‘appropriate’ that he ‘report’ on what’s been happening in ‘recent times’. Claimed that the trust ‘has not been sitting on its hands’. Said that for the first time the ‘non MRC trustees as of one voice’ and that there have been ‘ongoing lease negotiations with the MRC’ for the past 2 years but these negotiations haven’t as yet ‘reached fruition’.   Said the lease is about the Tabaret and the grandstand and not to the ‘infield and the tracks’. Said that the MRC ‘does not have any legal right’ to anything in the infield. Said that the trustees are therefore committed to a ‘license agreement’ for the infield so the MRC ‘knows precisely what it can do and what it can’t do’. Went on to say that the trustees have got a valuation for the land rental and have put that to the MRC. Claimed that the trustees had ‘always taken the view’ that the valuation should be done by the Valuer General and that the chairman has asked for this. Said that he had been at a meeting today with Greg Sword and the governor executives and that the ‘valuer general will get a brief’ and that if there’s disagreement the Minister will ‘arbitrate’. He didn’t ‘expect that agreement will be reached’.

Said that he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because the trust ‘has taken a very strong view’ that the ‘centre of the racecourse should be used for sport’. Didn’t think that even though the MRC CEO said he welcomed sport, he wasn’t that sure that the MRC itself would endorse this view. Said that the ‘government has also advised’ that there should be sport in the infield but that boils down to the ‘license’ negotiations. Thhere is training and he didn’t think that ‘in reality’ training would go ‘any time soon’ and this would be in the ‘scope of 10 to 15 years’. So if training remains there are ‘safety’ issues both to the public and to the animals. Thus claimed that ‘this motion itself does not actually further anything’ since there is ‘already a commitment by the trust’ to have sport and that won’t happen very soon because they still have to negotiate the ‘license arrangement’. And if there’s no agreement then the ‘minister will step in’. Reassured everyone that ‘the trust has been very active’. Stated that at his morning meeting with the MRC they discussed the issue about opening up access to the racecourse. Said that ‘everyone’ recognises that entrance through the tunnel ‘is not satisfactory’ but ‘equally it is an issue of safety’. Claimed that the MRC has now ‘committed to looking at those issues’ and seeing where there could be ‘palisade fencing’ so that there could be the ‘visual entrance’. Didn’t know whether these things would ‘come true’ but reiterated that the trust is ‘committed’ to having sport, but unsure of the ‘extent’ of this. Therefore he didn’t see that there’s any conflict of interest since the Magee motion ‘is in accord’ with the ‘wishes’ of the trustees.

OKOTEL: asked Magee if he would consider writing to the trustees asking for their position on sport in the centre. Magee didn’t accept this proposal. Okotel then queried the value of writing to the trust asking them to state a position that they are already taking. Thought it ‘would be better’ to have the trust put their ‘position in writing’ so that it would be public and council might ‘utilise’ whatever is written to them as an ‘advocacy tool’.

PILLING: thought that Magee’s motion is only what council is asking for and is ‘complementary’ to ‘what’s going on behind the scenes’.

MAGEE: thanked Lipshutz for remaining in the room since he thought it’s important that people know what the trustees and councillor reps on the trustees are doing. Said that he wasn’t surprised that when Lipshutz became a trustee ‘he would always be acting in the best interests of Glen Eira’. Stated that he thought that Greg Sword was trying ‘to do his best’. Two years ago the trust’s position was a ’64 year lease with no conditions’ and now ‘they’re looking at the same things we are’. Now the MRC CEO wants ‘the same thing’ and the government ‘wants sport in the centre of the racecourse’. ‘Everybody’s together. There’s nobody opposing this’. Wanted his motion to ‘stay the same’ because it sends ‘a strong message’ that council ‘wants to work with them’. Conceded that ‘no one is saying’ that training should go ‘tomorrow’ but important to say that a ‘section of the racecourse’ can be ‘given up’ such as ‘3 ovals’ and then build on that’ and ‘phase out training’. Said he ‘wanted to see racing stay there forever’ but that training is ‘not a permitted use’ and it’s not written anywhere that it is a ‘permitted use’. Concluded by saying that Tang and he first moved the motion that the lease be reduced from 61 years to 21 and that this motion was defeated by 9 to 2. So they never wanted a 21 year lease . ‘We’re not going to tolerate the exclusion of Glen Eira residents’. Said that the 21 year lease ‘is pivotal’ to the future. Quoted the president of Ajax about the lack of space for sport and that 75% of his team can’t play in Glen Eira and ‘that’s a shame’. So there are about 130 or 140 kids who can’t play sport where their ‘parents pay rates’. ‘No one in this room thinks that’s acceptable’ and here’s the ‘opporunity’ to do something. Everyone (trustees, mrc, community) is ‘all on board’ with this.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSING THE MOTION. TECHNICALLY THIS MEANS AN ABSENTION!

 

April 7, 2014

Bigger & Better & Only For $3 Million!

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

An application is in at Council seeking a permit for an ‘illumated screen’ at the Racecourse. The size of this screen is gigantic as the following illustrates – the equivalent of at least a 3 storey building and approaching the height of a 4 storey. Of course, this size screen will have no impact on the surrounding areas as stated by the applicant. By way of contrast, we also include a screen dump from the Moonee Valley Racecourse and the dimensions of their electronic screens. Nothing it would seem is too big or too expensive for Caulfield Racecourse!screen

screen2screen3

mvcc

PS: we urge readers to also contemplate the following ‘sign-off’ by the ‘protectors’ of crown land.

dse

 

April 4, 2014

Agenda: Delays, Conflict of Interest & Open Space Levy

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

WHY THE DELAY?

Contrary to what Mayor Pilling stated at the Caulfield Village planning conference, namely that council would make its decision on the development plan on April 8th, there is no item set down for decision this coming Tuesday night. What makes this omission even more fascinating is that Schedule 2 of the C60 amendment states – 

The responsible authority must make a decision on the development plan or amendment to the development plan within 60 days after the completion of the display.

The submission/advertising period ended on the 26th of February. The next scheduled council meeting exceeds this 60 day limit – admittedly by only one day. However, given the ‘legalities’ that this council is so keen on, we have to wonder what is really going on. Surely 4 months (at least) to ‘assess’ the submitted plans should be sufficient for our fabulous planning department? Or is there possible dissension in the ranks? Perhaps another conveniently supplied ‘loophole’ for the MRC to ‘negotiate’ to their advantage? All conjecture of course, but given Council’s track record (pun intended) on this issue we have to wonder. Perhaps council might for once furnish residents with an explanation?

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Records of Assembly make for some more interesting conjecture on the Valuer-General item from the previous two council meetings.

At the 11th March meeting both Hyams and Esakoff declared a conflict of interest. Lipshutz (who was present) DID NOT DECLARE AN INTEREST. Presumably he therefore partook in the discussion.

A week later, on the 18th March meeting on the same item, he apparently changed his mind and did declare a conflict of interest.

OPEN SPACE LEVY

Council is finally making a move after 11 years in hiking up its open space levy to 5.7% across the board by seeking permission to ‘prepare and exhibit’ Amendment C102. Whilst most welcome, and certainly a vast improvement on what the Open Space strategy initially proposed (ie 4 to 5%) we have to note the following:

  • Stonnington, which has the second lowest proportion of open space, is currently seeking an 8% levy and more for its commercial precincts. Glen Eira with the lowest proportion of open space is, in contrast, only seeking a 5.7% levy for all developments – commercial, residential or mixed use.
  • Instead of clapping themselves on the back in relation to the $4m levy achieved from the proposed Caulfield Village we have to wonder why this council settled for so little given that this 5 hectare bit of land is going to be the most densely populated area in the municipality.
  • There are claims of ‘analysis’ in a paper that is mooted to become a ‘reference document’ to the Amendment. That of course has not as yet been made public. Other councils (ie Whitehorse, Bayside) don’t seem to have had any problems in publishing their detailed analysis prior to the actual Amendment process. Even worse is that the officer’s report claims that the objective is to meld the Open Space Strategy with the proposed Amendment when there was absolutely no detailed discussion, nor analysis provided in the now accepted Open Space Strategy.

PS: And for the sheer heck of it we’ve pinched the following (slightly edited) from Abbattoir Facebook.  

fraser

 

April 2, 2014

News Flash: 7.30 Report

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[45] Comments 

Channel 2’s 7.30 Report will be featuring an item on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve saga this Friday evening – ie 4th April. We believe that the focus of the story will involve:

  • governance issues involving the Trustees & MRC
  • conflicts of interest, and
  • role of government
 

April 1, 2014

They’d Make Great Car Salesmen!

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

110628_Guy_-_1_billion_development_approved_for_Caulfield_Page_1110628_Guy_-_1_billion_development_approved_for_Caulfield_Page_2

 

March 30, 2014

MRC – Part 2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[14] Comments 

From the draft minutes of April 2012

Pages from CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_190412DRAFTFull document UPLOADED HERE

 

March 28, 2014

MRC & Conflict of Interest

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[13] Comments 

From the draft minutes of March 2011

Pages from CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_030311_FINALDRAFTThe entire document is UPLOADED HERE

 

March 25, 2014

Hyams’ Little Temper Tantrums!

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

Former Glen Eira mayor defends public meeting slur

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 21, 2014 11:00AM

A GLEN Eira Council critic has accused two-time mayor and current councillor Jamie Hyams of calling her a “bitch’’ at a public meeting, but he says her account is not accurate.

Rosetta Manaszewicz aired her complaint via a public question at the council’s March 18 meeting and has challenged the council to bring him to account.

She said that at a planning conference on March 3 Cr Hyams “called me, among other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?’’.

Cr Hyams said he used the word, but offered a different account of how he used it, saying he used it as a verb, describing her behaviour.

“You have misrepresented or misheard the words,’’ he said in his reply speech.

He said she contributed to a blog that was relentless in its criticism of the council and the blog carried “baseless and highly defamatory’’ comments about councillors.

Ms Manaszewicz insists Cr Hyams used the word as a noun, to describe her.

Both agree the exchange took place in the foyer of the Caulfield Park Pavillion before a Caulfield Village planning conference, both agree the word was used and both are refusing to back down on their accounts.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was showing a petition to a resident at the time. She said Cr Hyams’ words were unprovoked and something needed to be done.

“There was no misinterpretation in what was said,’’ Ms Manaszewicz said.

“I just think it’s appalling for an elected representative.’’

Cr Mary Delahunty weighed in.

“To refer to someone’s actions as bitching, or indeed to call them a bitch, is derogatory, used in a sexist manner, it’s unacceptable and I’m genuinely aggrieved that council has lowered itself to such a level that a response such as that is read out at an official meeting,’’ Cr Delahunty said.

Last year, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd forced the resignation of the candidate for the safe Labor seat of Hotham, Geoff Lake, amid revelations he verbally abused a wheelchair-bound fellow councillor at a 2002 Monash Council meeting, calling her a “f—ing bitch’’.

That matter went to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission at the time and Mr Lake made admissions and apologised.

Glen Eira Council did not answer Ms Manaszewicz’s questions, instead taking them on notice.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/former-glen-eira-mayor-defends-public-meeting-slur/story-fngnvlpt-1226861034823

++++++++++++++

The public question & Hyams’ response:

On March 3rd at the Caulfield Village planning conference two time ex-mayor Hyams called me, amongst other things, a ‘whining bitch’ in front of another resident. Does Council consider this appropriate behaviour? Will council censure Hyams for such behaviour?

The Mayor responded. He said: There are several parts to this question. The first part I can invite Cr Hyams to respond. The second part relates to a Council position. Because of the time constraints we ran out of time to come to a collective Council position so I will take the second part On Notice.

Cr Hyams provided a response. He said: “You have misrepresented or misheard the words I used. I didn’t call you a bitch. I used the word as a verb to the effect that you just bitch. It is possible I also used the word whine and said you whine and bitch, but I don’t think so.

The context was that I came across you trying to have a resident sign a petition that called for a Royal Commission into, among other things, alleged conflict of interest of councillor trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, of which I am one. Had this been the sole cause of my comments, they would have been unwarranted. However, that is far from the case.

Glen Eira Council is, by any measure, a well-performing Council. We consistently perform well in public surveys, our rates are among the lowest in Melbourne and the Auditor General regularly praises our performance and compliance. Recent achievements such as GESAC and the new residential planning zones have been widely lauded by many both within Glen Eira and from other councils. Just to name a few of our successes.

You, however, appear to devote a large part of your life to attempting to make this Council look as bad as possible. You are an administrator of and major contributor to an anonymous hate blog that is relentless in its criticism of this Council. In the time
that I read it, I never once saw a post (as opposed to a comment) that had anything positive to say about this Council, and while I have not bothered reading it in over a year, others have assured me that nothing has changed.

You are often seen at Council consultations trying to propagate your critical views around the entrance and I am also assured by others who attend Council meetings that at the end of each meeting, you chase after any journalists who attend to try to have them write about your negative impressions of the meeting.

To give just a few specific examples, when Crs Esakoff, Lipshutz and I were appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, you organised and submitted a petition calling for us to be replaced as trustees because, according to you, we did not adequately represent the community. You somehow thought that your opinion and those of the 100 or so who you managed to have sign your petition were more important than the nearly 17,000 residents and ratepayers of Glen Eira who voted for one of the three of us to represent them, returning us first in our respective wards.

Your blog has also carried baseless and highly defamatory allegations that I and other councillors have been corrupt in our dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club and the C60 development, and I am reliably informed that you have been personally
circulating these allegations. I am still considering my options in relation to that matter.

In 2009, you were pushing for a review of Council’s dog off-leash areas, and adamant that Harlock Jackson should carry out the review. This was done, by Harlock Jackson, and resulted in a considerable increase in off-leash areas across Glen Eira. However, you still strongly criticised the review and the process, including at a public consultation meeting held by Harlock Jackson as part of the review.

I believe that Councillors are entitled to express their feelings as long as they do so in a way that accords with the expectations of our civic society, and, in this case, for many reasons including those set out above, my comments were acceptable.”

Cr Delahunty. Statement pursuant to Glen Eira Local Law 232(2)(f).

“I accept that Council has taken part of the Public Question on notice but I am aggrieved by the reply in such that it seeks to somehow wash away the language that was used. I find the language that was used to be offensive no matter whether or not you agree with the persons views. I don’t think it’s appropriate for elected representatives, adults, anyone to refer to someone’s actions as bitching or to call them a bitch is derogatory, is used in a really sexist manner is completely unacceptable. I don’t think views held that differ will ever make that acceptable and I am genuinely aggrieved that the Council has literally lowered itself to the level whereby that sort of response was read out at an official meeting. It is sad.”

 

March 24, 2014

What A Joke!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

An astute reader has raised a very interesting point about Tuesday night’s council meeting. It concerns the little private tete a tete between Newton and Okotel when both left the chamber. Okotel was seeking ‘advice’ after being challenged by Delahunty.  Newton presumably provided this ‘advice’. This raises countless questions in itself:

  1. We do not remember such an incident ever taking place in Glen Eira before. The ‘normal’ course of events is that all ‘advice’ has been provided in chamber and usually by Burke. Why was this conducted outside of chamber?
  2. Could the question of potential conflict of interest be applied to Newton himself since he was an integral part of the ‘negotiating team’ for the ‘agreement’ which involved crown land in the centre of the racecourse?
  3. Okotel’s explanation featured conversations that took place in the pre-meeting. Council’s code of conduct precludes a councillor from making public any information from such meetings unless it has the approval of the ‘councillor group’. Since 3 councillors were not in the chamber, and others were definitely not asked for their agreement, we wonder whether Okotel in fact breached the code of conduct?!!!!!!!

What all of this shows is the circus that parades as good governance in Glen Eira.

 

March 22, 2014

Records Of Assembly

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

Lipshutz moved to accept. Seconded by Okotel

Lipshutz had ‘nothing to add’. Lobo spoke ‘against’.

LOBO: said that in the past he had ‘expressed my reservations’ about the records of assembly in that the minutes are ‘altered, changed, replaced’. Agreed that there couldn’t be ‘details’ but that council shouldn’t ‘be permitted without the consensus of everyone’ to change things.Thought that ‘changing and replacing’ would have ‘implications’ down the track ‘such as conflicts of interest’.

PILLING: said that he knows that Lobo has raised this before but he was confident that ‘process’ was being followed and it’s ‘good’ to be ‘diligent in the upkeeping’ of the ‘policies’.  

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that ‘no one is changing these minutes’ and if they come to council ‘they are the minutes’ and if councillors decide to change anything ‘they do so at this meeting’ and ‘nowhere else’. Even though Lobo has raised the issue he agrees with Pilling that ‘process is being followed’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »