March 19, 2014

Item 9.3: Racecourse & Valuer General – Part 1

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

We’ve broken discussion on this item into 2 parts due to its length.

Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect conflict of interest’. Magee moved an alternate ‘motion/recommendation’ apart from ‘noting the report’. Also included was that the Minister for Crown Lands be approached and asked to ‘take over’ lease negotiations with the MRC; for the Valuer General to review the leases ‘before it gets signed’ and to complete a ‘review of all current leases’. Magee also asked for a ‘review’ of the landswap and that the Auditor General ‘conduct an audit performance’. He also wanted government to go back to the Select Committee Review and consider their recommendations. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said the issue was ‘complex’ and that he’d been a trustee, chairman of the trustees and also on the lease committee. Stated that he’s a ‘hoarder’ and kept a lot of information. This was a ‘serious’ matter and wanted a ‘serious’ response from minister and government. The Trustees are about to ‘enter’ into a 21 year lease with the MRC and ‘that’s fine’ but ‘when you look at’ history’, ‘makeup’ and ‘track record’ of the Trustees then it isn’t fine because since some of the trustees are members of the MRC then they are ‘adjudicating on a lease to themselves’. He also thought that ‘at least 2 other members’ belong to the MRC. This makes him think that there is some conflict of interest. Quoted from the minutes of a Trustee meeting from 2011 where (reading) it said that Magee raised the issue of conflict of interest and the resolution was that ‘advice’ be sought from the Government Solicitor. They got an answer and Magee quoted again and paraphrased from the long letter that ‘the public can reasonably form the view that conflict exists’. Also mention of ‘improper influences’.

Went on to say that the current chairman also tabled documents at meetings  that ‘he believes’ that there was a conflict of interest with the MRC members. The chairman (Greg Sword) ‘also sits on the lease committee’. So even though they ‘know’ there is a conflict of interest ‘the process continues’.

Stated that the trustees do include ‘experienced’ and ‘decent’ people. Referred to the landswap from 2009 of the ‘Tabaret carpark’ and the land at the end of Glen Eira Road was part of the deal. The Trustees ‘might have’ thought this was a ‘good deal’ and voted for it.

AT THIS POINT PILLING SAID THAT MAGEE HAD ‘REACHED’ HIS FIVE MINUTES. MAGEE ASKED FOR AN ‘EXTENSION OF TEN MINUTES’. Pilling said that he would give Magee 2 minutes. Magee said that after all these years, this is ‘a very serious issue’ and wasn’t happy with 2 minutes. Also said that he thought it was ‘incumbent on me to explain’ all the information that he’s got. Pilling then stated that he was worried about other councillors getting a say. Delahunty then moved that Magee gets a 10 minute extension. This was seconded by Lobo. Put to the vote and PILLING USED HIS CASTING VOTE TO DEFEAT THE MOTION. VOTING FOR: Lobo, Magee, Delahunty. Against: Okotel, Sounness and Pilling. (Mutterings from the gallery at this point!)

Magee then continued for a lesser time allocation after Delahunty moved another motion.

MAGEE: quoted again from the minutes relating to the landswap where he raised the issue of the ‘status’ of the landswap and whether it would be ‘returned to the Crown’. Said that this means that the Trustees ‘had no idea what they were voting for’ and that they were ‘giving away 8500’ sq metres and they ‘got back nothing’. The trustees job is to ‘protect the reserve’ and all they’ve done is to ‘give away 8500 square metres’. Magee then read from the minutes his question as to whether the landswap or any part of it was to ‘become part of the reserve’ and whether they knew. ‘No’ was the answer. Magee then asked the rhetorical question about how they could be responsible for land that they ‘gave away’ without even knowing they’d given it away. Also asked what they thought at the time and what advice they’d been given and which of the trustees who voted for and against the landswap. Magee said that he asked this 3 times wanting to see the minutes of these meetings. THEY COULDN’T FIND THE MINUTES – ‘THE MINUTES HAD BEEN LOST’. So here’s a ‘group’ about to sign a 21 year lease for a 2 billion dollar asset and they can’t even do the proper paperwork. Magee then cited 2010 minutes on ‘2 leases’ where there hadn’t been ‘any advice on what the value was’. These leases and the relevant paperwork also ‘couldn’t be located’ he read from the minutes. Amazingly the trustees end up asking the ‘person they leased it to, to give them a copy’. The lease for Aquinita Lodge to the Freeman Brothers was also incapable of ‘being located by the Trust’. Said that the Trustees ‘are not capable’ of administering the reserve and ‘doing the right thing’.

Said that when he became chairman the first question he asked was ‘what is the racecourse worth?’ They asked the Valuer General who recommended a certain company who has done leases for big sites like Southbank etc.Magee then itemised some of the leases – ie Grandstand – $45,000pa.

Pilling then told Magee that his 5 mintues are up and that he should ‘consider other councillors’ and that he’s got the 3 minute summation time ‘at the end’. Magee said he would be ‘as quick as I can’.  Delahunty then moved that Magee be given 2 minutes extension. Seconded by Lobo. This time only Okotel and Pilling voted against.

 

March 19, 2014

Faine & Magee

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

We feature an extract from this morning’s Jon Faine program where Cr Jim Magee was interviewed regarding the makeup of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees and the potential conflicts of interest involved. The issue was also debated at last night’s council meeting which we will report on in a separate post. Suffice to say that both Pilling and Okotel in our view should hang their heads in shame for their performance on this matter!

Our many thanks to the resident who typed up the transcript for us!

FAINE: ….threw into doubt the future development of the Caulfield Racecourse. For years this has been a sore point  for the local community. It is a massive chunk of land. How best to use it. Councillor Jim Magee is a member of the Glen Eira council and last night there was a vote 4 – 2 in favour of a resolution to refer the redevelopment for further investigation. Cr Magee, good morning to you.

MAGEE: Good morning Jon

FAINE: why is this still being debated out in Caulfield?

MAGEE: Because it’s not sorted Jon. There are too many issues in Caulfield regarding the racecourse. One issue is that community use of community land within the centre of the racecourse and the second issue is the makeup of the Board of Trustees.

FAINE: the Board of Trustees of?

MAGEE: The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Well the board are made up of 15 members, 6 of whom are from the racing club, the Melbourne Racing Club, 6 are appointed by the State Government and 3 are appointed by Glen Eira Council. Now currently there are lease negotiations within the Trust, to lease for a 21 yer period, up to a 21 year period, the whole racecourse reserve to the Melbourne Racing Club. One of our issues is that 6 members of the club are actually on the board of Trustees who in fact are adjudicating the lease for the club – for which they are the committee.

FAINE: so, it’s not quite but nearly half the members of the Trustees board ..

MAGEE: yes, yes

FAINE: voting to lease to themselves in another entity a public asset.

MAGEE: yes, they are leasing to the club. Now we also know, we believe, that at least 2 of the government appointed trustees are also members of the Melbourne Racing Club.

FAINE: does that represent a conflict of interest then?

MAGEE: look, I believe it does represent a conflict of interest. I’m a past chairman of the board of Trustees and I raised issues at many meetings as a trustee chairman I asked the Trust to consider conflict of interest. The Trust wrote to the Vcitorian Government’s solicitors office and got advice from the government solicitor’s office on conflict of interest and he gave us advice and his advice is, it was very clear that there was a perceived conflict of interest.

FAINE: what are the terms of the lease being proposed between the Melbourne Racing Club and the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees?

MAGEE: Jon, I can only speak on the past. I wrote in 2012 to the Premier asking for advice as to the, as the chair of the Trust, and I have concerns about conflict of interest, I –

FAINE: is it a commercial transaction?

MAGEE: Well at the moment we don’t know because I’ve been a feather duster, I’m no longer  on that trust , so I can only talk about what I was advocating at the time and what the trust was advocating for at the time. The main uses of the racecourse are commercial uses. There is a Tabaret on the racecourse. The Melbourne Racing Club, their offices,  their corporate offices are on the racecourse. Now they own 11 hotels which they administer from the racecourse. Now the Trust at the moment gets a return of around $80,000 a year for the whole racecourse reserve.

FAINE: $80,000? For all that land?

MAGEE: yes, and keep in mind the Tabaret that sits on that land I think took in 12 million dollars last year alone.

FAINE: so effectively the community is subsidising the Tabaret and 11 hotels run by a racing club that’s not paying a commercial rent.

MAGEE: and it’s all been conducted on Crown Land, land that belongs to you and me Jon.

FAINE: and yet the age of entitlement is over Jim!

MAGEE: look, I believe it is. But Jon there is a bigger, broader issue happening here. The centre of the racecourse , now the City of Glen Eira last year could not accommodate 20 sports teams. That’s over 200 children that we had to say to their clubs ‘you cannot play sport in the city of Glen Eira’ because we did not have enough grounds for them  to play on. The centre of the racecourse  there is locked up 15 MCG playing fields, 15. Imagine if we could open  up just 3 of them or 4 of them to soccer, footy, cricket . At the moment I invite anybody driving past the Caulfield racecourse around Glen Eira road, after 9.45  when the gates should be open to drive in and have a look at their public park. Now the racecourse was set aside – it is designated for racing, recreation and public park.

FAINE: isn’t there a lake in the middle?

MAGEE:  there is a lake there in the middle which is there to irrigate the racecourse. There’s a second lake which is a man made lake  which is bore. They’re all operated from bores, again to water the racecourse. Everything about the racecourse is about racing. The recreation and public park are non existent.

FAINE: no. they’ve got it stitched up.

MAGEE: yep. They’ve got it, yeah – your words.

FAINE: There’s two separate issues here. One is why aren’t they paying a commercial rent as opposed to getting a subsidy from the people who own it  which are the residents of the area.

MAGEE: yes, yes

FAINE: and if they are indeed as commercially sustainable and  viable as they say then why  do they need an $800,000 subsidy. And the second one is why can’t the land be more shared other than locked up?

MAGEE: Jon, no one at Glen Eira Council wants racing ever to finish at Caulfield. We’re not interested in training leaving Caulfield. What we’re asking for is a share of  the public open space. We’re asking that the MRC pay a commercial rate for the land that they’re renting. That can, commercial amount which would be held by the Trust can go  into developing sports fields and recreation in the centre of the racecourse. We share it. We all share it. And last night we called on the Minister to get involved –

FAINE: The state government minister?

MAGEE: The Minister Brian Smith

FAINE: the minister for Crown Lands. But the Minister for Racing of course is the Premier.

MAGEE: look, the Premier, it’s a hard gig for the Premier. He wears many many hats and he’s probably not totally over what’s happening at the racecourse. The local member for Caulfield David Southwick, we sat in his office, we talked about this. He was going to go down there, he was going to do this, he was going to do that and all he’s done so far is organise a fun run.   Now I don’t mean to be flippant in saying that but  that’s all he’s done.

FAINE: okay. Can you keep us posted? Let’s see what response you get and we will follow this one through. Councillor Jim Magee from Glen Eira Council.

 

March 18, 2014

Who’s Being Stomped On?

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

The following is pure conjecture. We simply note the following:

  • An incredible number of mentions involving the Councillor Code of Conduct in the Records of Assembly
  • An in camera item about more ‘legal advice’ in relation to the Code of Conduct

What does all this mean? We can only surmise that some councillor, and our bet is Lobo, has fallen foul of the existing clique and more ratepayer funds are being spent on legal eagles to ramp up their power base as well as shutting up any dissenters. All this certainly makes a mockery of Newton’s nomenclature of council being a cosy ‘club’. It has always been a ‘club’ divided and nothing has changed.

 

March 17, 2014

More Smoke & Mirrors & Policy On The Run

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Tomorrow night’s agenda features Item 9.7 – Redan Road proposed ‘restructuring’ and the removal of 11 car parking spots; installation of a bike path, and preference for “landscaped kerbs”. We have been informed of the following:

  • 92% of residents living in the street are NOT in favour of the landscaped kerbs since they argue that the street cannot afford to lose these parking spots. They are not opposed to speed humps, just the removal of invaluable parking spots. This has resulted in two separate petitions to councillors
  • The plan provided to residents is factually incorrect in terms of its measurements according to residents. Council refuses to acknowledge this.
  • Nowhere in the extant Bicycle Strategy is there any mention of the need to install bike paths in Redan St.
  • Countless other streets throughout the municipality also have cars ‘speeding’ and are hence unsafe according to council’s definition. Yet, despite numerous and ongoing resident complaints regarding countless other streets with far higher volumes of traffic, these have remained untouched for years – so why the sudden interest in Redan St?
  • Repeated letters and emails to individual councillors such as Delahunty have not been answered.
  • Pilling appears to be content to sign off on faulty and inaccurate information – raising the question as to the quality of councillors’ decision making when the information they are provided with is highly dubious.

But there’s much, much more involved in this sudden need to change Redan St and we believe it fits in very nicely with the Caulfield Village proposal. The entire emphases of the Development Plan focuses on Caulfield Park as providing the necessary open space. (The Centre of the Racecourse barely rates a mention). Hence Redan St. as access to Caulfield Park becomes vital. More questions then become necessary – ie why ratepayers instead of the MRC/developer should be footing the bill for any works that ‘complement’ the Caulfield Village proposals? We’re already witnessing millions upon millions being spent on drainage in the immediate vicinity. Is this just another ‘expense’ that has been landed in residents’ laps via a fully compliant council?

 

March 16, 2014

Agenda Lowlights

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

 

Records Of Assembly

Cr Pilling – Need to take care with Council information provided to the Councillor Group as some seems to be shared outside of the group.

Cr Hyams – Councillor Code of Conduct has a requirement that all Councillors read Council briefing and Agenda Papers.

Cr Hyams – Cr Lobo has foreshadowed a Right of Reply at the next Council Meeting. Councillor Code of Conduct regulates what Councillors can say about other Councillors.

Cr Lobo – Councillor Code of Conduct, information being passed to other persons.

Cr Lobo – Does the Councillor Code of Conduct govern behaviour outside of Council duties.

Visitor Car Parking

Car parking, which includes visitor parking and access, is often identified as a key issue. Applicants typically respond by redesigning a proposal. Those that do not amend their proposal risk having their application refused or modified by Council through conditions. This risk, in effect, encourages applicants to provide an adequate amount of visitor car parking.

Continuing this approach is preferred. This ensures that:

  • Visitor parking is not given higher priority than other valid planning matters, such as amenity impacts on neighbours, scale, and open space.
  • Visitor car parking is correctly assessed in the wider planning context, which includes consideration of the particular parking conditions in the area.
  • The integrity of Council’s fast track processes is maintained.

Consultation Committee

A paper determining community preferences for consultation using a community wide questionnaire was tabled. The committee noted that the process of sending a hard copy questionnaire to all members of the community cannot guarantee that a representative sample of the community completes the questionnaire. The statistically reliable method is stratified random sampling; different subgroups are established and a questionnaire is distributed to a random selection of respondents in the subgroup.

Council’s 2013 Community Satisfaction Survey included a question on residents preferred method of communication from Council. The results gave a clear indication that a multi method communication approach is required to ensure all sections of the population are provided with the best chance to participate in community engagement opportunities.

Racecourse

In order to encourage the involvement by the Valuer General, Council could

  • Write to the Trustees advocating for them to involve the Valuer General
  • Write to the Valuer General, including a copy of this Item
  • Write to the Minister for Crown Lands.
 

March 14, 2014

Open Space Strategy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

One must really wonder why council has spent over $100,000 of ratepayer funds on a consultancy that delivers pre-determined outcomes and maintains the status quo in all important areas. The policy contains nothing of import that is new or that will change the course of what this administration and its lackey councillors have rubber stamped for eons and eons. But the most glaring omission relates to the manner in which open space levies are to be used.

We remind readers that on June 25th 2013 council adopted a policy which stated:

Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space.1 (including the former Glen Huntly Reservoir)

Council will not spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to improve land which is already public open space.

From June 2013, each Council Budget, Strategic Resource Plan and Annual Report will disclose the revenue and expenditure of public open space contributions.

Suddenly this policy is ignored and morphs into the following:

As described in the Strategy and in this report, the open space contribution program is based around the provision of additional land area for open space and also for capital works cots (sic) to establish new open space and upgrade facilities in existing open space where appropriate to meet the additional needs of the forecast population. 

Use of the Reserve fund

Cash contributions toward land acquisition and open space development should be held in a Reserve fund until a suitable site is located and sufficient funds are available to assist Council with purchase or resulting capital works. Funds will also need to be held for upgrades to existing open space

As for ‘monitoring’ and ‘review’ of this long term strategy, residents should not be holding their breaths that their views will be solicited and carefully considered. It will again be more of the same as is made apparent by this one liner – Internal review the Strategy every 4 years for the duration of its operation.

 

March 13, 2014

Conflict Of Interest

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

Victoria’s public sector riddled with problems: Ombudsman George Brouwer

Date:March 12, 2014 – 3:23PM

The report from Ombudsman George Brouwer, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, details cases of spouses being hired for jobs by their partner, lucrative contracts being awarded to friend’s businesses and accepting gifts from companies doing work for the public sector.

The Ombudsman has conducted a number of investigations into the problem and he says that constant vigilance and attention is required to combat the problem.

“It is worrying that it occurs all too frequently in the Victorian public sector. Also, it can jeopardise the proper expenditure of significant public funds,” Mr Brouwer said.

“Allegations regarding nepotism and favouritism in procurement and recruitment arise frequently in conflict of interest complaints received by my office.”

The report was tabled in parliament on Wednesday. On Tuesday, The Age revealed that Water Minister Peter Walsh had been drawn into controversy surrounding Victoria’s new water agency after his office made a mysterious payment to a consultant 12 months before it chose him to lead the organisation without advertising the job.

The revelation of Mr Walsh’s office’s payment to former Howard government adviser Simon Want, followed an investigation by The Age that found the Office of Living Victoria had split contracts awarded to more than 10 consultants, including former ministerial staff and public servants, in a bid to keep their identities secret and to avoid public tender processes.

In Wednesday’s report, Mr Brouwer said he was also investigating a number of matters relating to conflicts in interest relating to procurement and recruitment.

Mr Brouwer said through his investigation, he found departments and agencies either had inadequate conflict of interest policies or a complete absence of policies, as well as a lack of ongoing training and education for staff.

In one case, a senior employee of a statutory body had also been a director of a private company for 10 years and had contracted the company on behalf of the authority for six years.

Mr Brouwer said the person had personally approved payments to the company totalling several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Non-pecuniary interests, such as personal relationships, remain a common source of conflicts of interest for public officers, particularly those involved in procurement or recruitment activities,” Mr Brouwer said.

In another case, a council officer awarded a contract to a friend’s company and in another, a council officer hired a former work colleague. In that process the officer failed to declare the relationship in the council’s register.

The Ombudsman also highlighted that there was an increased risk of conflicts of interest in rural towns. In one case the manager of a prison accepted an offer from the director of a company he had employed to perform maintenance and construction at the prison for a free asphalt driveway at his home.

The Ombudsman recommended that guidelines for conflicts of interest be reviewed and greater awareness programs for staff considered.

Labor’s scrutiny of government spokesman Martin Pakula said the recent revelations about the Office of Living Victoria were another example of how the Napthine government did not understand the issue.

“The Napthine Government has shown zero interest in dealing with conflict of interest or accountability issues more generally. In fact they’ve made an art form of conflict of interest and jobs for the boys,” Mr Pakula said.

The government has been contacted for comment.

 

March 12, 2014

Speaking With ‘Forked Tongues’?

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

By now residents would have made up their minds that anything that comes out from the MRC and Council should be treated with the utmost caution. Last Monday’s planning conference provided further evidence of this incontrovertible fact. Admittedly Ms Ring is not at the top of the food chain where major financial decisions are made. Nor is she on the Board of the MRC. Even granted all this, it still does not excuse the public and unequivocal utterances that were made last Monday night at the Planning Conference. The unsuspecting audience were told in no uncertain terms that the land had been ‘sold’ and that residents can forget all about the MRC and start accepting the fact that they would now be dealing exclusively with Beck and Probuild. How true is this we ask? Is it really possible that the MRC would wipe its hands of a controlling interest in the biggest development it has undertaken? Was all this nothing more than a ploy to achieve some respite from of the ever growing criticisms levelled at the MRC? And is it really possible that nobody (including Trustees and Council) knew absolutely nothing about the alleged ‘sale’?

There are undoubted advantages for the MRC to remain the title holder of this land. In the first place they will save themselves 10 years of back-dated rates as stated in the April 28th 2011 Council Minutes when the decision to accept the C60 was made – ie if the subject land is no longer rated under the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act, the owner would be liable for “back paying” rates at a higher level for ten years. Secondly, they will still have a very strong ‘bargaining chip’ for whatever happens down the track with the other two precincts. So, it should not come as a surprise that on page 5 of the MRC 2013 Annual Report we find the following:

Untitled‘Development rights’? We are now firmly in the land of legalese double talk and private hatched deals. Development rights do not equal the sale of any land. Nor do they signal the removal of the MRC’s control. $15 million at this stage is certainly a handy bit of pocket money for a cash strapped organisation, but it in no way represents the true and total value of this land. We remind readers that the Alma club which was a fraction of the size of this 5.6 hectare site went for just under $8 million. What does this make 5.6 hectares worth?

The more one dwells on the entire history of this project the more questions arise. One thing is clear though – all participants in this sorry saga have been far from straight forward in their varied pronouncements. Residents deserve straight talking rather than a chorus of forked tongues and a plethora of carefully constructed spin.

 

March 11, 2014

No Comment?

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

charges

Neither side will discuss the legal bill for the case…….Glen Eira Council also did not respond to a question of whether its lawyers had asked Mr Penhalluriack to sign a confidentiality agreement. ‘No Comment’ or both sides refusing to answer questions can only mean one thing in our view – there is a confidentiality agreement and these usually involve some kind of ‘settlement’. The only ‘settlement’ that would make any sense in this case would be if council, after withdrawing its charges, has decided to hand over some money to Penhalluriack.

village

 

March 8, 2014

More MRC Spin!

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

The Car Parking Management Plan for the whole of the land states that for major events the following car parking spots within the racecourse are available (from page 6 of the Plan) – Kambrook Road entrance (674 spaces); Guineas Car park (536 spaces) and centre of the racecourse (3000 spaces). The claim is that all of these are sufficient to cater for demand – especially for the Caravan and Camping Show which draws the largest crowds and puts the greatest demand on car parking spaces.

It’s a pity that the consultants haven’t included a full and accurate picture of what actually happens with the Kambrook and Guineas car parks during the Caravan and Camping Show. They disappear and are replaced (of course) with caravans and camping gear. That means that 1210 sp0aces that the MRC is banking on to support its unsupportable claims do NOT EXIST. Where these 1210 cars end up is obvious – in all quiet surrounding residential streets!

The map below (for all those who haven’t driven past the grounds) provides a clear picture of the nonsense that is contained within the Parking Management Plan.

Edited_map_smaller

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »