December 24, 2013

2013: The Year In Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

In terms of transparency, accountability, and genuine community engagement, it is our view that this council has slipped even further into the mire. Nothing that we can see would indicate any change in the culture, objectives, and policies of the ruling clique. If anything, the situation has worsened with the continued defection of Pilling, and the gang’s ‘recruitment’ of Sounness and Okotel and at times, Delahunty.

2013 will stand as testimony to the failure of this council and its councillors to achieve anything approaching the principles of good governance and working for the community. We base our judgement on the following list of catastrophes –

  • The continued reappointment of Newton without advertising the position PLUS a 30 to 40 thousand dollar pay hike!
  • The introduction of the new Residential Zones in secrecy and as per norm, without any public consultation
  • The continued presence of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs on the most vital advisory committee – the Audit committee.
  • The riding roughshot over residents’ views – GESAC car park extensions; devious destruction of Caulfield Park trees; Koornang Rd and Centenary park proposed tree destruction.
  • The above demonstrate the failure to plan in a prudent and cost effective fashion. When literally millions are spent as an ‘afterthought’ on bitumen and concrete plinths, what does this say about prudence, business planning, and overall financial management?
  • The failure to introduce a Notice of Motion and other democratic reforms
  • The continual reappointments of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs to the Audit Committee
  • The formation of a ‘consultation committee’ that hasn’t played any role in any ‘consultations’ for the past 18 months and the failure to appoint the original submitters since they presumably did not meet the ‘pliable/ignorant’ requirements of the ruling clique
  • The failure to ensure that those who fork out the money (ie residents) are given priority in any sporting allocation especially the McKinnon Basketball Club at GESAC, and Ajax Seniors
  • The continual doctoring of minutes, and failure to produce answers, rather than ‘responses’ to public question
  • The continued approval of substandard dwellings of 8, 10, 12 storeys
  • The continued waiving of car parking requirements without justification
  • The failure to introduce proper reporting standards in planning
  • The failure to pursue developers for breaches of permits or the law
  • The continued cow-towing to the mrc
  • The continued ‘top down’ approach to consultation
  • The failure to include community representation on most committees

There is much, much more that could be mentioned. Much needs to happen in order for this council to be dragged screaming into the realm of good, open government. We remain committed to working towards this objective and continuing to highlight the shortcomings and duplicity of these councillors and their overlords.

 

December 22, 2013

The Law & Esakoff!

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

We unequivocally condemn this council for its continued and flagrant breaches of the Local Government Act, 1989. The latest instance of this is in response to several public questions. A little background first.

The LGA clearly defines the legal function and composition of an ‘assembly of councillors’. It says –

assembly of Councillors (however titled) means a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be—

(a) the subject of a decision of the Council; or

(b) subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee—

but does not include a meeting of the Council, a special committee of the Council, an audit committee established under section 139, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation

Being a representative of Glen Eira Council to the MAV state conference is a ‘delegated’ position – ratified by a council resolution. Esakoff is thus a ‘delegated person’. The LGA then goes on to state:

Where a Council is empowered to do any act, matter or thing, the decision to do the act, matter or thing is to be made by a resolution of the Council.

For the purposes of subsection (5), resolution of the Council means—

(a) a resolution made at an ordinary meeting or special meeting;

(b) a resolution made at a meeting of a special committee;

(c) the exercise of a power, duty or function delegated to a member of Council staff under section 98—

but does not include any business transacted at an assembly of Councillors.

What all of this means is that:

  • Decisions CANNOT be made at assemblies
  • DECISIONS must be made via formal council resolution and tabled in the minutes

So, we then come to the crux of the matter – How can Esakoff, the delegated representative of council vote for various motions at the MAV conference, when NO FORMAL RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED WHICH LEGITIMISES THESE VOTES?

The only mention of a MAV conference occurred in the Records of Assembly meeting dated the 14th May, 2013 and which eventually made an appearance in the council minutes of July 2nd, 2013. The minutes of this assembly read –  Cr Esakoff – MAV State Council Motions – Fire Services Levy, 11, 15, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, 48, 55, 59, 60, late No. 4, 6, 7.

At last Tuesday night’s council meeting a public question queried Esakoff on her voting at the State Conference. It asked:

“At a recent council meeting Cr Esakoff reported on the MAV’s State Conference without actually reporting on how Glen Eira City Council voted on any of the motions. I therefore ask Cr Esakoff, how she voted on behalf of Glen Eira, on the Melbourne City Council 3 part motion entitled “Transparency in Local Government Decision Making”. That is: did she vote in favour, against, or abstained and would she please explain the rationale behind any such actions?”

The response was:

Cr Esakoff provided a response. She said:

“The Melbourne City Council motion referred to was actually a four part motion, with the fourth part stating that Councils should provide at least five data sets in an open format to a common platform.

Being the consensus of the councillor group and as Council’s delegate, I voted against this motion, the reasons being that we felt the motion was overly prescriptive and that it was not the role of other Councils to tell Councils how to govern themselves. That is something for each Council to decide, within the required parameters.

The motion was defeated by close to two thirds at the State Council Meeting and, judging by the debate, many Councils shared these concerns.”

COMMENT

Here’s what the actual motion was – taken directly from the MAV agenda for this meeting in October 2013.

Motion 40: Transparency in Local Government Decision Making
Submitting Council: Melbourne City Council

Motion:
That the MAV State Council encourages member councils to voluntarily embrace the following transparency measures in order to maintain Victoria’s position as the best governed and most transparent local government sector in Australia.

1.Residents or other interested parties should have at least one 15 minute opportunity each month to ask general unscripted verbal questions at a formal meeting of all councillors.
2. Councils should endeavour to maintain a publicly accessible audio archive of council meetings in order to provide a fuller public record of proceedings than can be made available in the formal written minutes.
3. In the event of council decisions which are not unanimous, the council minutes should record how individual councillors voted on a particular item, without the need for a division being called.
4. All Councils commit to open and transparent government by providing at least 5 data sets in an open format to a common platform such as CKAN, the free platform currently used by the Federal Government and many other international governments.

Not only is Esakoff’s vote PRE-EMPTING COUNCIL DECISIONS, since we are still waiting for a report on audio recordings, but more importantly, the word CONSENSUS has no legal standing. It is not present in the Local Government Act, the Councillor Code of Conduct, nor in the Local Law. Consensus means bugger all – legally and ethically. In order to have voted for, against, or abstained from ANY motion, a resolution of full council had to occur. It did not and never does. That represents a flagrant breach of the Local Government Act and is simply another instance of DECISION MAKING THAT IS ILLEGAL AND CONDUCTED BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS OF ASSEMBLY MEETINGS. We will be pursuing this matter further.

 

December 21, 2013

Your Future In Their Incapable Hands?

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

A new low has been reached with the following ‘debate’ on the Kornhauser application.

Delahunty moved the motion to accept with changes – conditions requiring unloading area and that this shouldn’t be ‘used for any other purpose’. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that this was ‘incredibly difficult process’ for residents and didn’t give her any ‘pleasure to stand here and deliver a verdict tonight’. Said it was a ‘beautiful’ street and ‘suffers from being very beautiful and popular’ and she uses it when she visits Masada hospital. Said that councillors had asked officers to ‘review’ the parking in the area and that the notice of decision does have ‘regard’ for the ‘very relevant objectors’ opinion’. Realised that the objectors would be wondering how councillor can ‘allow’ this to ‘come about’ and she thought that the non-residential uses in residential zones policy has some ‘deliberate ambiguity to it’ so that decisions can be made on some non residential uses. Went on to say that in order to ‘minimise’ the impact on neighbours ‘council has done several things’ such as limiting hours and numbers of students and to limit ‘traffic movement’ and to provide car parking ‘which is an absolute necessity’. Said that what council can’t do in a permit, but she hopes will happen in that ‘everyone will go away’ here tonight ‘in good faith’ and that people come together and work together. Hoped that the permit will not ‘interrupt neighbourhood amenity’. Stated that there were some things raised by objectors that ‘may seem relevant but can’t actually be considered’ such as noise and the type of education being provided. These couldn’t be ‘discussed’. Thought that the conditions were trying to ‘strike a balance’ and hoped that everyone would be kind to one another and that the applicant adheres to the conditions.

SOUNNESS: acknowledged that there’s a history to this application and that there are ‘grounds’ under planning to consider it again. He found it ‘striking’ that such a small school could ‘generate’ that amount of ‘correspondence’ and that it’s ‘got support by the community’ and also ‘concerns’ from the community.  Went on to claim that the conditions seek to ‘confirm’ numbers of staff, students, etc. ‘These things give surety’. Said that the planning scheme isn’t definitive and ‘there is ambiguity’. He thought that a school is one thing and a home education is another and that this application ‘sits’ somewhere in between. Ultimately he couldn’t see anything to say ‘that this should not proceed’. Thought that the conditions ‘encourage good behaviour within the community’ but council isn’t a ‘policeman’ that’s going to stand ‘at the corner counting’ so he ‘hopes’ that parties recognise the conditions and act accordingly. Council needs to do the ‘best’ they can ‘by the tools they have’. He was confident that the conditions set down would provide the best ‘outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he chaired the planning conference and said that he was ‘disappointed’ that no objectors showed up because he wanted to hear what they had to say. Stated that he did hear from objectors ‘this morning’ but that this was ‘too little too late’ in ‘terms of trying to convince councillors’. If they had shown up then they would have heard that officers look at parking and amenity and noise and that ‘those are the issues’. Many objections were raised but ‘outside those principles’ and which ‘can’t be looked at’ since council is only able to look at ‘planning law’ since they had a ‘quasi-judicial’ function and have ‘to enforce planning law’. Said that in the past he had said that he doesn’t want ‘a school in my street. I don’t want Mr Scopus in my street’ but ‘this is 25 students’and for him this wasn’t ‘particularly onerous’. Talk about parties intimidating each other was ‘unfortunate’ but all council can do is ‘look at planning principles’.  Claimed that council basically ‘tried to limit the nature of this institution’.  If there is student ‘creep’ well all that means is that the ‘applicant will have to come back to council to make an application’ and he thinks that it won’t be looked upon ‘favourably’. In answering the question of ‘how do we know’ how many students front up Lipshutz said ‘well council can have spot checks’ and ‘they will be brought to task’ if the permit isn’t adhered to. There’s been ‘distrust’ and now it’s ‘important’ that everyone ‘goes away’ and allow the ‘applicants to proceed and do what they have to do’ and ‘be good neighbours’. ‘If they’re not, they will pay the consequences’.

LOBO: went through the history of the application – ie council refusal, vcat. Said that the school ‘has been operating for some time now’ but the owners are now ‘trying to put their records in order’.  Claimed that officers had addressed all issues like parking and the covenant. Said that Victoria accepts ‘home schooling’ and that council’s policy ‘cements’ this approach. Went on to say that ‘I have always said that schools should be separate from residents’ so kids can ‘shout and play’. Said the motives in running the school by the applicant is ‘commendable’ and that they are an ‘epitome of the community’ because ‘they enjoy good integrity and character’.   Since he’s got a few ‘Jewish family friends’ he ‘understands’ the organisation who are ‘selfless’ and ‘reach out to everyone without discrimination’. He’s also been told that ‘preconceived evil is not in their nature’. Said that this needs to looked at in terms of the new application and the ‘Kornhauser’s philanthropic’ contribution to society. “I do not think that their rabbis hate me anymore’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors not attending the planning conference is ‘disappointing but understandable under the circumstances’ and this doesn’t mean that their written objections weren’t ‘taken into consideration’. She didn’t think that ‘Cr Lipshutz was suggesting that’.  Said that one objector had asked her whether she would like to live there her response was that  if she didn’t ‘know the history, I would be absolutely thrilled’ but if she had ‘been through’ what residents have been through ‘I might think differently’. But ‘as it stands now’ being close to parks and transport, ‘Yes I would live there’. She ‘hoped that this street is a happy place to live’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS: A reader kindly posted the URL for the Dilbert cartoon below. We thought that it so precisely sums up the Glen Eira Council culture and philosophy that it requires highlighting.

dilbert

 

December 20, 2013

Another Snow Job!

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

Below we feature the incredible ‘discussion’ on the Sporting Ground Allocation Policy. We urge readers to carefully note:

  • Delahunty’s turncoat performance
  • Okotel’s remarks
  • Lipshutz’s inanities and little games of semantics
  • Both Hyams and Lipshutz’s attempts to win favour with Ajax – quite frankly we do not believe a word of it!
  • Control vested 100% in the hands of Burke and his cohorts, especially in regards to Expressions of Interest since the policy gives these bureaucrats the authority to ‘invite’ submissions!
  • Not one councillor commented or provided any reasons as to why ‘indoor recreation facilities’ (ie GESAC BASKETBALL ALLOCATIONS) are EXEMPT from this policy! To our mind the reason is obvious – so that the Warriors can continue unimpeded and no one will ever know whether or not they are fulfilling to the cent the obligations of their allocations!

ITEM 9.12 – SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATION POLICY

Delahunty moved motion with some changes – ie. putting policy up on website; to help public understand role of local government in sport; the policy would apply to Expressions of Interest by ‘inviting applications from any party’ and ‘Eoi’s will only be called if there is a permanent vacancy’. Hyams seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said this was a ‘long time coming’ but it doesn’t mean that the ‘operational’ processes ‘haven’t been applied’. Said that she’s always believed that if ‘we are applying something operationally’ then there should be a policy that is clearly ‘understood’ and ‘available’ to the public. This ‘helps the public understand’ council’s ‘role and commitment’ to local sport which is the ‘fabric of our society’ and helps people participate. Council is the ‘guardian of the places’ where this happens but council shouldn’t be ‘managing that in a different way to other people in Victoria’. Said that her objectives with the amendments were to ‘make it clearer what sort of’ principles are involved, but not ‘to differ terribly much from our municipal neighbours’. Went on to say that if Glen Eira did ‘differ’ then it would cause ‘operational chaos’. Also stated that by putting in ‘subjective’ criteria this would help people understand how council sees its ‘role’ BUT there may be times when ‘we may not be able to apply those principles’. This is something that officers have always ‘grappled with’ and the policy won’t cause a major ‘upheaval’ in regards to this since it’s important to have a ‘transparent policy’. She ‘recommends’ the amendments since they don’t basically change the ‘operational’ nature of what has already been happening. The amendments just ‘make it clearer’. The changes to ‘purpose’ explain ‘why we have written the document’. Second amendment was to ‘better explain the scope and not to change it’. Said she found that the McKinnon Basketball Association and some of its members use the terms ‘allocation’ and ‘expression of interest’ as ‘interchangeable’ and this has been ‘widely misunderstood’. The third change was in regards to the table and this sought to ‘clarify how many points were available’. On the expressions of interest she wanted it better understood so ‘that’s why I put in some subjective points’ that extend parts of the community plan, health plan into this policy. Importance of community sport ‘can’t be underestimated’ but ‘operationally’ it’s important that council doesn’t ‘differ that much’ from other councils.

HYAMS: said the policy sets out in a ‘straight forward and transparent way’ how grounds are allocated. The policy isn’t ‘being done for a particular football club’ but that’s ‘not so’. Said that they ‘brought to their attention’ the ‘need for policy’ and that ‘one incident brings shortcomings to our attention’ and this is an example of that. Claimed that council even decided to have a policy before all the public questions started flooding in from Ajax. Said that the policy shows that ‘we don’t throw’ out existing clubs if they are meeting their ‘obligations’. Some people might be suggesting this but he plays for a club that isn’t in Glen Eira and wouldn’t want that to happen so he could play in Glen Eira. Some ‘suggestions’ have been that council should consider the ‘number of residents in each club’ but ‘doing that may be difficult if not impossible’ but ‘we do it for community grants in a slightly different way’. The EOI ‘supposes a community connection’ and that’s ‘important’. ‘Personally’ he would like to have junior and seniors of the same club ‘playing together’ but he ‘understands’ that ‘that was not the will of the group’. Thought that Delahunty’s changes ‘improve’ the policy ‘especially’ on the tables and explaining that these also apply to EOI’s. The real solution is more open space and the policy sets out the plan for the racecourse and will be reviewed then or other times deemed necesary.

OKOTEL: appreciated the ‘work of officers’ and councillors for the policy but ‘I have been highly disappointed with the process that council has undertaken’. Said that she had ‘asked for a process of consultation’ with sporting groups and community ‘before we put this policy to the vote’ because this is a ‘new policy’. Previously council had been merely operating ‘on tradition’ and there was ‘no written documents before us’. Because this is new and ‘none of us are experts’ it ‘would have been appropriate’ for council to ‘engage in some form of’ consultation. Therefore she ‘doesn’t feel comfortable voting on a motion’ that she’s ‘unfamiliar with’ and therefore making a decision on behalf of people was ‘inappropriate without some level of feedback from the community’.  As a result she contacted some sports clubs herself and asked them if they had any comments. Said that the feedback ‘wasn’t that much’. When she raised the need previously she was told that inviting comments would only invite feedback that ‘might polarise the community, cause division’ therefore ‘it is best not to engage in consultation’. ‘I think that was entirely inappropriate and misconceived’ and that ‘we should never shy away from consultation with the community’. Quoted Delahunty saying that council is ‘guardian’ of sport. She thought that ‘partners’ is better so ‘it’s important that we do have feedback from our community’ on ‘such policies’. Said that the feedback from clubs was that there ‘was a lack of clarity in our policy’ as to clubs losing their allocations, and ‘what the deduction of penalty points would mean’ and she also ‘felt that there was uncertainty in that respect’. She’s ‘disappointed that such recommendations haven’t been taken into consideration’. She hoped that councillors vote against the policy but if not that any future review looks at these issues.

MAGEE: said he ‘disagreed with all speakers so far’. There is not ‘need to consult’ on sporting policy since ‘all that matters is longevity’. Said that clubs ‘don’t look at it as a seasonal allocation’. Said he can accept the policy ‘because it’s simple’. Said that they’re trying to do a ‘policy by committee’ and that’s not working. ‘This is a policy looking for a purpose’ and the purpose is that people who have a ground ‘are used to it’. Said that the argument that people who live around a ground have got a ‘greater connectivity’ to that ground and therefore ‘should score higher’ is not right. Didn’t think that any clubs would ever ‘fold up and move out from Glen Eira’ or that there would ever be enough grounds. Even if the racecourse is opened up he would bet that ‘Glen Eira would not be the committee of management’ and therefore allocations ‘would not be up to us’, so ‘this policy won’t matter’. He can’t see anything that would mean that ‘this policy is actually needed’. ‘The policy needs to be kept simply because the clubs don’t care’. All clubs worry about is ‘tenure’ and that’s ‘all this is about’. ‘You don’t need to go ask them that’. Said he was ‘disappointed’ that ‘we’re trying to make something that is relatively simple’ and ‘complicate’ it.

LIPSHUTZ: brought up a point about ‘incorporated’ bodies and ‘incorporated associations’. After some confusion, Delahunty didn’t accept. Lipshutz then said Magee is right in that ‘not much is going to change’. However, pavilions and grounds are important to council and clubs don’t have ‘adverse possession’ claims. So council does have an ‘obligation’ to act in accordance with policy. Said that if there is no policy then it’s ‘open slather and let the officers do as they wish’. A policy ‘gives a framework’ on how ‘things should be done’. Referred to Okotel saying that council should consult but ‘council does not consult on policies. Council consults on strategies’. Said that like Hyams he would like to see seniors and juniors together but that ‘the group’ didn’t agree on ‘this one’. Referred to sport and the ‘corruption’ that went on in Brimbank council where ‘clubs’ took ‘allocations for clubs or money or whatever’ but this ‘can’t happen here’ because there’s a ‘policy that doesn’t allow that’. In Glen Eira ‘council doesn’t get involved, council doesn’t have a say in who gets allocation’ because ‘the officers make that decision’. But ‘we set the framework’. Said that every corporate body has a ‘group’ that sets policy but then ‘officers implement that policy’. At this point LOBO VOTED AGAINST GIVING LIPSHUTZ A TIME EXTENSION. Lipshutz went on with ‘we have to have a franmework that is clear and unambiguous’. Said that the issue ‘didn’t come to council today out of the blue’ and that ‘every councillor’ has discussed it.

LOBO: said that if ‘I don’t know how minutes are taken at an assembly’ then Lipshutz should know the difference between operations and policy. Said that the latter is established on ‘legal matters’. Here ‘smooth functioning of sports club is all that is required’. If people don’t complain then this shouldn’t be ‘a big hassle’. He will ‘stick to the officers’ recommendation’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that it’s not like the officers ‘have been operating without guidelines’. They’ve had strategies and ‘conversations’. Said that there’s not this policy because of the ‘commitment to transparency’ so what’s been previously done under ‘operational’ they are now done under policy and this should be ‘open to the public’. Said this should be true for ‘all operational decisions’ but particularly for decisions that ‘affect so many people’. Council is ‘guardian’ of the facilities so they have to make sure to ensure the ‘longevity’ of these facilities. Said there are ‘principles written into the policy’ because Glen Eira doesn’t have a ‘strategy’ on community sport. Said again that her changes do not alter ‘operational’ matters but that ‘they do seek to make those decisions more transparent’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness. VOTING AGAINST – Lobo, Magee, Okotel

 

December 19, 2013

Method Acting & Pure Bull!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

There were 2 Rights of Reply Tuesday night from Pilling and Magee. Both were supposedly in response to the Southwick remarks in parliament regarding the removal of the Caulfield Park trees.  We highlight these as the supreme example of political grandstanding (especially by Magee) and the puppet performance by Pilling reading out his scripted lines. Laugh out loud, dear readers!

PILLING: claimed that Southwick was ‘not correct’ and that his statements were ‘inaccurate and misleading’.  Pilling denied that the cutting down of trees was on ‘party lines’ but that at ‘every’ stage there was ‘unanimous support’ by councillors. The ‘true number of trees removed is 21′ and many of these trees were in the range of ’15 to 20 years old’. Southwick only contacted council via a letter dated 9th December and on the 12th Pilling answered. He then quoted from that response letter. He read that the alternate proposal won’t ‘address or solve’ the ‘purpose of these works’ and that there was misunderstanding about the ‘need for buffer zones’. The proposed ‘works’ are the same that happened to ovals 5, 6, and 7 in 2008 and over 300 new trees planted. The master plan was ‘adopted after extensive community consultation’ and council has ‘reviewed’ it to ascertain whether the proposed action is ‘still relevant’. Said this was ‘the case in this instance’ and ‘even more so because of increasing pressures’ of high density development. The works are about ‘reducing risk and ensuring safety’. Went on to state that the works were advertised over a month ago and that ‘all councillors’ have had ‘continued dialogue’ with residents and as a result ‘endeavoured’ to ‘reduce the number of trees removed’. The ‘benefit’ of the ‘reconfiguration’ is that ‘over 100 children’ can now ‘participate in organised sport’. All of this is highlighted on council’s website. Concluded that the ‘long term benefits to the community’ outweigh the ‘short term loss’.

MAGEE: said that he ‘appreciated’ Pilling’s right of reply for council but that he wanted to do his own right of reply. Started by saying that Southwick ‘made a couple of fatal errors’ in his speech. Magee then spoke about pre-election and how Southwick had promised to ‘open up the racecourse’. ‘Well now the centre of the racecourse is full of fences’ and a ‘failed miserable playground which is only used during racedays’. Quoted Southwick as claiming this is a Greens/Labor council. Magee then said that the works are part of the ‘warm season grasses’ program and that Lipshutz moved that motion and ‘the last time I looked Cr Lipshutz was not a Labor person’ and he doesn’t remember Lipshutz ‘sitting next to me in an ALP meeting singing ‘Solidarity forever’. Thought that it was ‘disappointing’ that Southwick ‘does say these things’. He could have rung council but instead said something in parliament and Magee will now say something back and Southwick will probably do the same and it is all ‘very childish’. ‘What’s important here is that we are all working for the benefit of our community’ and getting more open space. ‘If Mr Southwick had kept his promise and opened the centre of the racecourse’ then council wouldn’t need to ‘pull down’ the trees because there would be enough sporting grounds. Claimed that the ‘last thing’ council wants to do is remove the ‘loving’ trees. If Southwick ‘wants to condemn us for it, then I condemn him’ and ‘this is his fault’, ‘his inaction, his broken promise’. Southwick didn’t ‘open the centre of the racecourse’ and left council ‘with no alternative’. Said that ‘it’s atrocious that we have to do something like this to a beautiful park like Caulfield park – but we have to’ and ‘it’s Mr Southwick’s fault, not council’s’.

 

December 18, 2013

Rewriting History Again & Again!

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

Readers will remember that we queried the accuracy of the last set of draft minutes in that the Sounness comments on the removal of Caulfield Park Trees were omitted – despite the fact that other councillor statements were included in the draft minutes. Selective editing and the rewriting of history all over again. Sadly, the minutes (as drafted) were accepted without any single comment by any councillor!

When it came to the minutes of assembly meetings, the following occurred. Lipshutz and Magee moved to accept. Lobo then said:

LOBO: quoted the draft minutes from the 29th October where Hyams brought up the issue of ‘councillor conduct’ and said that ‘these minutes are not a true reflection of what happened’. Went on to say that ‘next year’ council needs to ‘review’ how it does things because it’s pointless to put in ‘a line which has no sense’ and ‘we can’t remove things from the assembly of councillors just because we don’t like something’. Concluded by saying that he wants a ‘proper process’.

HYAMS: claimed that Lobo ‘seems’ to want minutes to ‘record specific comments’ but the minutes only ‘record’ the ‘topics covered and nothing more’ and he thought they were ‘fine’.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that the minutes were ‘perfectly correct’ and that Lobo doesn’t ‘understand’ the purpose about listing topics only.

MOTION PUT: Lobo voted against.

COMMENT

The minutes of councillor assemblies are merely another tool in the armoury of this administration and its compliant councillors. Far from only recording broad topics, the minutes have been used to either place pressure on individual councillors who have not toed the party line, or to further the public relations agenda in portraying council as simply ‘wonderful’. Hyams and Lipshutz really need to revisit some of these minutes to see the complete mistruths of their above statements. Here are just some examples of what we mean and ask readers to contemplate whether these ‘minutes’ are in fact indicating far more than mere ‘topics’.

Minutes of 5th July, 2011 – Hyams – Leader newspaper story on the community satisfaction survey. Said that he had telephoned the Editor of the Caulfield Lead who had conceded that the paper had misinterpreted the facts and had corrected the story of their website. Cr Hyams said that the newspaper had indicated that they would print a corrected story in their next edition.

Magee – GESAC basketball courts allocations. Asked officers to provide councillors with a copy of the ‘brief’ that has been given to the legal practitioner following the Resolution adopted by Council at the 28 June 2011 council meeting (Agenda Iem 12.4 refers)

Hyams – that public questions on matters relating to particular long running issues at Caulfield Park may not constitute harassment under Local Law 232 (j) (iii). How to deal with this issue from hereon.

26th July, 2011

Penhalluriack – Nic Varvodic. Council decision to declare his public questions to be harassment. Need to change the Local Law

9th August 2011 – 12.2 ‘confidential’ – Magee access to two other legal opinions and his conversation with the Ombudsman

PLEASE NOTE: In our report on the council meeting of 27th November, Lobo mentioned his ‘interview’ with the Municipal Inspector. Magee jumped up with a ‘point of order’ (upheld by Pilling) and Hyams then had his say – “Went on to say that ‘the last time’ he spoke with an ‘integrity agency’ he was told all discussions were confidential and commended Magee for the point of order in order to prevent Lobo ‘from breaking that law’.

Our knowledge of such investigations is that not only are discussions ‘confidential’ but investigations themselves are ‘confidential’ and participants are not permitted to reveal their participation. Yet here we have an official record of assembly that confirms Magee’s ‘interview’ with the ombudsman! The Records of Assembly are therefore never an innocuous list of topics discussed. They become as we said another weapon in the attempt to ensure that all councillors toe the party line and thus power and control remain vested in those that compose and distribute the minutes!

PS: AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES

Lipshutz moved to accept with amendments to certain words. Sounness seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: repeated the officers’ report that the committee met 4 times during the year and looked at many issues. Emphasised tenders and how ‘this council has got an outstanding record’ when it comes to tenders. Risk management is another area that the council is ‘outstanding on’ and Newton even gives presentations in NSW on risk management. He felt that ‘overall we are kicking goals’ and ‘rated number one’ by various bodies.

Sounness reported on community grants. Okotel then asked a question.

OKOTEL: asked about item 4 of the audit committee meeting minutes where it referred to risk A’; ‘B’ and ‘C’ what ‘these things actually refer to’.

NEWTON: said that the ‘internal auditors’ raised these issues so that they are ranked according to ‘importance’ and ‘A’ is ‘most serious’ and down the scale. These things are ‘reviewed at every meeting, so every meeting knows’ what actions have been taken.

COMMENT

Okotel’s question raises a number of important issues regarding governance, communication, and work done by councillors. There are several ways of interpreting this question:

1. Most importantly – the Audit Committee does not communicate its deliberations and problems back to full council. It remains a closed shop with Lipshutz, Magee, McLean, Gibbs, and Newton running the show and controlling the flow of information?
2. Okotel after being a councillor for one year does not really know what is going on in Audit Committee meetings?
3. Okotel may be asking for the ‘benefit’ of the community. However, that begs the question of why such reports are couched in double-dutch so that the community would not have the foggiest of what the A, B, and C refers to.
4. Has Okotel been performing her duty by asking such questions ‘in-house’ and privately, or has she only picked up on this after one year on council? Or, has she asked and not been provided with an adequate response, so she is now forced to ask in a public forum where a response is required. We note that Newton’s response was certainly bereft of much detail!
5. The Audit Committee has been pronounced by councillors as the most important committee on council. If other councillors do not know what the hell goes on, if they aren’t provided with regular updates, then we can only speculate as to how on top of things the entire group of councillors really is.

We finally note that in the countless records of assembly published for 2013 there is NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ITS DELIBERATIONS.  So, either there are no reports back to all councillors or, as Lobo tells us, the minutes of assemblies are nothing more than fiction!

 

December 17, 2013

Council Meeting Marathon!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Detailed reports on tonight’s council meeting will follow in the days ahead. However, readers should note the following outcomes:

  • The Kornhauser application accepted unanimously and not one single word stated about student accommodation/shared housing. Lobo even declared at one point that ‘rabbis would love’ him now!
  • The so called greens see nothing wrong with the Gordon St 8 storey 55 unit development because it’s close to transport and will ‘enliven’ the area. Lobo/Magee motion to refuse got up by 5 votes to 4. Voting against refusal – Lipshutz; Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
  • The most important items (ie. proposed amendments for large lot sizes and the revisiting the C87) took about 10 minutes in total! Passed unanimously. Our view is another ‘victory’ for developers and deceiving the public.
  • A sporting allocation policy that changes nothing and still cedes all control to unelected officers
  • Audit committee report nothing more than self-congratulations and how wonderful Gibbs and McLean are.
  • CCTV funding from government refused. Voting to accept – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel.
  • Many public questions demanded that councillors provide INDIVIDUAL answers to specific queries – in other words, tell residents of their views and why they voted or felt the way they did. No councillor had the guts to address the questions and state what their actual views were. Instead it was all about ‘councils’ views.
 

December 17, 2013

Back To Square One!

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

cctv

 

December 15, 2013

Double Standards?

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

This council has had no qualms in spending tens of thousands of dollars in pursuing Frank Penhalluriack over an alleged boarding house violation that in effect was only in existence for several weeks. It would appear that the same diligence, persistence and consistency of law and principle does not apply to all residents and properties. We are referring to the new application for 8 -10 Springfield Avenue, North Caulfield. What councillors are now being asked to do is grant a ‘retrospective permit’ for an ‘education centre’ and we believe a ‘shared accommodation’ site.

The question of  double standards centres on the following:

  • If there is a component of this ‘education centre’ that provides a 10 month course and offers ‘accommodation’ for these students (some of whom are from overseas) does this constitute a ‘boarding house’?
  • Why has council turned a blind eye to this and not pursued the owner in a manner that is commensurate with the approach taken to Penhalluriack? We refer readers to the boarding house registry where they will find that NO PERMIT exists for this property (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/types-of-rental-agreements/public-register-of-rooming-houses?rs=Glen+Eira+City&sz=20&pg=1&ct=4
  • Why does the Ron Torres report not mention the fact that the 10 month course also offers ‘accommodation’. All that we are told is: The intensity of the current version of the proposal has been reduced compared with the previous version that was refused. For example, the 2 week intensive MerkosWomen course will not be offered and a maximum of 10 women will be enrolled in the 10 month course rather than 15. Whilst the maximum number of boys is not proposed to be reduced, the hours of operation will no longer include any Sunday classes. Similarly, there will be no evening classes for the MerkosWomen that were part of the original application.
  • Yet, the current website of Merkos Women, makes it absolutely clear that the site provides for live-in accommodation, and according to the VCAT member the 10 month course charges US $12,000!

Participants are provided with beautiful accommodation in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community. The accommodation includes comfortable shared bedrooms, modern formal and informal lounging areas and a large kitchen in which the girls are guided in preparing communal based meals and are given the opportunity to explore the cultural aspect of food preparation. For the hotter summer months, there is a swimming pool and outdoor area.

Source: http://merkoswomen.com.au/general-info-for-overseas-participants

This ‘new application’ is ‘retrospective’. In other words the site has been operating for years without the appropriate permits. And what has council done? Very little it would seem! The earlier VCAT decision even included this admission by Council’s representative (Mr Leary) – Council’s Enforcement Officer having apparently had problems in the past with being granted access on to the subject land. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1157.html)

As to the merits of the ‘new’ application we only reiterate that for years neighbours have complained to council about the operation of this site as a school and they have basically been ignored. Now council proposes to grant a permit despite traffic concerns, and entirely overlooks the question of whether or not the site is in part operating as ‘shared accommodation’. Thus our question of double standards and why the law is not applied equally to all?

Finally, we draw readers’ attention to the following Age/SMH article and especially to the alleged council position as stated in the penultimate sentence – The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2nUskMgpk

 

December 13, 2013

Agenda: Stuff Ups & Spin

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

Apologies for what is an exceedingly long post but which focuses on 2 vitally important Amendment proposals that basically admit council’s previous stuff ups, plus the public relations exercise on the C60 and Caulfield Village. Please refer to the actual agenda items on council’s website for other items including – walking strategy, sporting ground allocations policy, and some very interesting in camera items concerning the Audit Committee.

Caulfield Village Development

Rocky Camera’s report is in response to the following Request for a Report passed at last council meeting – “That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield  Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another method used by other councils.”

We note at the outset that the request for ‘methods’ is not really addressed by Mr Camera’s response and ‘structure’ planning is mentioned only twice in passing, in the entire 6 pages of script! Instead, the report is a follow up to the Akehurst comments from this council meeting and the admission that residents’ opportunities to ‘object’ to the Caulfield Village are dead and buried!

Once again there is plenty of misleading information. Even though Probuild has formally announced its intention to build 1500+ units, this report still maintains – “Caulfield Village will contain 1200 dwellings’ and ‘improvements to three main road intersections’. The report then continues with assurances that “details” are known and this followed (of course) ‘extensive community consultation’. Probuild could not have employed a better public relations firm that Glen Eira City Council in spruiking the development as evidenced by the following highly dubious claims.

This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village. This certainty even extends to the location of new roads, infrastructure upgrades, and the use of laneways. If any person is unaware or unsure of the future development of the Caulfield Village, they simply just need to turn to the Incorporated Plan. In this respect, the community’s involvement in “helping shape the future of the area” has occurred.

The degree of detail and certainty far exceeds what a structure plan could offer. At best, structure plans are policy documents, providing general guidance on future development. The framework for Caulfield Village, with precise controls, and a rigorous ‘recipe’, means there is already absolute certainty about what the extent of future development will be.

Thus, after a page and a half of unfounded assurances, the real truth emerges. All residents will be able to do regarding the Development Plan is submit ‘comments’. They will not have any objection rights to VCAT. The best residents can hope for is that someone with common sense realises that 1500+ units as opposed to 1200+ units, does in fact constitute a marked departure from the Incorporated Plan. The domino effect should then be applied to traffic, etc. But all we’re told is:

if the developer deviates from the Incorporated Plan (‘recipe’) and proposes, say, taller buildings than what is specified in the building envelope. In this case, a full town planning process, together with typical third-party rights must be undertaken. That is, if a proposal contains taller buildings than the agreed envelopes, or departs from the Incorporated Plan, the community needs to be further consulted.

What will be interesting is how ‘deviates’ is defined and by whom and what constitutes a ‘deviation’ from the sorely lacking detail of the Incorporated Plan!

There are several other admissions most notably that the open space levy extracted from the developers only amounts to $4m for the residential components. Given that the law at the time permitted up to 5% Council has again let the big boys off very cheap at 4%! Mention is made of the possibility of ‘back dating’ rates, but we assume that this will be calculated on the miniscule rates that have been part of the Planning Scheme since 2006/7 and not the uppermost limit currently available. Another present to developers!

We urge residents to read this report very, very carefully and to note the following:

  • The first development plan is already in the hands of council and will be made public early 2014
  • After so many assurances that ‘precise details’ are known about the future of this area, the recommendations confess that the C60 in effect only supplies ‘broad parameters’!

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND HERITAGE CONTROLS

If ever there was an admission of a total stuff up then Item 9.9 is the living proof. This harks back to Amendment c87 where the Neighborhood Character Overlays were introduced into the planning scheme. Readers will remember that councillors in their wisdom promised those residents who asked that their areas be included, or not excluded, that they could present their case to the Planning Panel, only to find that the ‘terms of reference’ could not be altered. Hence, all those individuals who believed council found out to their horror that their claims were not relevant to the deliberations of the Planning Panel. We also remind readers that both residents and councillors were not given the opportunity to put in any recommendations – it was all done ‘inhouse’ by officers and through the Planisphere report.

Well now (a year later) there is a massive public relations exercise about to happen, where a handful of residents from that time will get a look in. The proposals are minimalist in the extreme – a couple of more houses added to the heritage listing and basically one more street included. Of course, none of this will happen in the short term, given the length of time it takes for Amendments to get through. We simply ask why this couldn’t have happened right from the start? Why does it take this council attempt after attempt to get something close to ‘correct’?

LARGE SITES – NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

This is nothing but a confession that the zone reforms are another major stuff up and this is purely a limited attempt at ‘damage control’ given the outcry from developers. It does not excuse, nor solve the problem as we see it because:

  • The proposed amendment only addresses lots that are larger than 2000 sq. m. What if block of land is 1000sq.m for example?
  • With no minimum size prescribed in the planning scheme we can have subdivisions upon subdivisions so the myth of two dwellings per lot may stand – but the overall effect would mean 2 dwellings on each subdivision. There is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent this and we believe it is already happening.

There is much, more more of significance in these agenda papers. As per the norm, major issues are all presented at the one time so that real discussion, debate, and the prospect of intelligent and careful decision making is jeopardised. We even wonder whether councillors have taken the time to actually read all 377 pages!

PS: We’ve neglected to mention the Elsternwick Plaza item. At last council meeting the following resolution was passed – “That Council not accept VicTrack’s revised offer and continue to advocate for finalisation of the lease as per the original plan.”. This was after the Lipshutz/Hyams motion was defeated. However, being persistent little councillors, we now find that Newton has undertaken further negotiations and that there has been some ‘movement at the station’. This new recommendations DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE EXISTING RESOLUTION. We presume that the motto of the gang is that if you don’t succeed first time around, try, try, try again! It will be fascinating to see if councillors have got the gumption to stick to their original motion or whether they will cave in as per usual. This item just happens to be 9.20 – last cab off the rank when ‘determination’ and ‘stamina’ have been well and truly exhausted by everyone! Ah, the games that we play!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »