October 8, 2013

Do You Want This Man?

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

The Local Government Act requires that if a council intends to advertise its CEO position then that must be done 6 months prior to the termination of the current CEO’s contract. Newton’s contract expires in early April 2014. As far as we know, council has not placed another miniscule advertisement in The Age, nor have they made any public announcement on their website. We can only conclude, since the 6 month deadline has passed, that once again this group of councillors have decided to renew Newton’s contract without advertising his position. What we don’t know is whether they have handed Newton another 2, 3, or the maximum 5 year contract.

That will make it contract after contract that has never been advertised; contract after contract where we, the salary paying public, have no idea of Key Performance Indicators, no idea of the voting figures, and no idea of how Newton measures up against any standards. All we ever get is the party line that he is doing a good job so why look elsewhere. The simple answer to this is: how do you know that someone else might not do a better job if you don’t even bother to look and test the waters? In our view, no position anywhere should be for life. More importantly, best practice dictates that there is a ‘time limit’ for CEO’s in any major organisation. Newton has been there since 199/2000. During this time his rule has been mired with controversy after controversy; legal threats; and let’s not forget the sacking of council. We know of no other council that has had to endure 3 formal Municipal Inspector Investigations, and heaven knows, how many ombudsman official and ‘unofficial’ investigations. Coincidence? Perhaps, but possibly also a reflection on the one constant throughout this entire time – Newton.

More importantly from residents’ points of view, under his stewardship, every vestige of real transparency and accountability has been eroded and reduced to nothing – secrecy and a culture of ‘we are right’ over-rides every facet of good governance. Oh, we acknowledge the puerile argument that officers do not vote and that it is councillors who make resolutions. However, what pressures are brought to bear? What tainted information is provided upon which to base such decisions? And why on why are certain councillors continually voting en bloc for the vast majority of Newton’s anti community recommendations?

Several years ago, 586 residents signed a petition requesting that councillors advertise the CEO position in order simply to ‘test the waters’ and see who else is available. We remind readers that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz voted against the acceptance of such a petition – a first, we believe in Glen Eira – and hence emblematic of the undemocratic culture that now rules Glen Eira Council.

 

October 7, 2013

Trees V’s Concrete: Guess What Wins In Glen Eira!

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

Storms are an act of god. Falling tree limbs may also be an act of god. What is not an act of god is ensuring that large, mature trees become unstable because you have hacked their root systems to pieces so that any breath of wind is likely to topple them over. That is not an act of god – especially when you have been warned that this could happen. That’s the story of the GESAC car park extension in Gardener’s Road. Council killed off one huge gum almost immediately; last week’s winds completed the job with the remaining 2 huge gums being downed.

Council should be mightily relieved that no-one was killed or injured and that cars just happened NOT to be parked directly under these massive trees. We’ve previously shown photos of the damage done to the roots. Here are the latest shots of the downed trees. Residents may well ask why trees are always second to concrete in Glen Eira and whether or not indifference, if not straight out negligence, ensured the demise of these particular trees.

downed 4

downed1  downed3

downed5

 

October 4, 2013

Collusion & Deceit?

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

It is our firm belief that further consultation (on residential zones) could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community. (13th August, 2013)

Thus spoke Council as part of the answer to a public question! The villainy is further compounded by the Minister’s mandatory release of his ‘reasons’ for approving Amendment C110 under Section 20(4) – that is, without public consultation. We’ve uploaded the complete Ministerial statement here and highlighted some choice sections below. What is absolutely clear is:

  • Council’s continued responses to public questions were at worst entirely dishonest and, at best, deliberately evasive and disingenuous
  • ‘Negotiations’ between the department, minister, and Council had been ongoing well before the announcement of August 5th 2013
  • The Minister’s statement reads exactly like something that would have been composed by the public relations arm of Council and he merely signed off on it.

Here are some extracts and residents should question the failure of governance that has spawned this amendment  –

The Glen Eira City Council has requested that I prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C110 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, with exemption from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

The Glen Eira City Council gave effect to its Housing and Residential Development Strategy (Strategy) with the introduction in 2004 of Amendment C25. Work on the Strategy commenced in October 2000, and included a community notification and consultation process. Nine community workshops attended by approximately 50 people also contributed to the development and refinement of the Strategy. The Strategy was adopted by the Council in 2002.

Exemption of the amendment under section 20(4) will enable a prompt decision on the adoption and approval of the amendment and will allow for the orderly application of residential zoning controls for this planning scheme, based on previous strategic work. It will avoid the need for a further notification, exhibition and consultation process, which is considered unnecessary given the strategic basis for applying the new zones can be found within the existing planning scheme.

As the Glen Eira City Council has requested the amendment, the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.

I consider that further notification through the formal statutory process is unnecessary. Consultation has been conducted during the development of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy and in relation to Amendment C25, which introduced the local policies upon which the application of the new residential zones is based.

 

October 3, 2013

How Do You Like Them Apples?

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

We urge readers to carefully consider the following map which reveals in all its gory details the consequences of the new residential zones. Please keep in mind the following:

  • All white areas here are Commercial – meaning that there are NO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER
  • Brown areas are 4 storeys
  • Blue areas are 3 storeys, and
  • Green areas are supposedly eligible for only 2 storeys

zones

What this carving up of the municipality, plus the addition to both the brown and blue zones, actually means is that residents living alongside, behind, or opposite certain streets will now be confronted with the view of 3 storeys hovering near, over, and around their properties. Council’s so called ‘transition buffer’ is nothing more than spin and semantics. There is no ‘buffer’ unless you consider that recessive storey setbacks even come close to any form of ‘transition’ that will not impinge on the social, and environmental amenity of neighbours.

Adding to the sheer lunacy is that council, for whatever arbitrary reason has decided that it is okay for the 11th house on one side of Mahvo street to be 4 storeys, the 12th house 3 storeys but the 13 house can remain as the equivalent of minimal change. To compound the stupidity, we then have on the opposite side of the street, only the first 8 properties that are deemed suitable for 3 storeys! This same outcome is evident for all of the areas marked in blue – ie Oak St., Loranne St., Burgandy St., etc.

This pattern is continued throughout Glen Eira. No real strategic justification has been provided for such decisions, and certainly no real safeguards accorded to the 13th and 9th house in Mahvo street. No everyone from the 13th and 9th property will suddenly decide to subdivide and build 2, two storey units. Hence it is conceivable that all such streets will have 3 storey and 4 storey apartments towering over single storey homes. All that has happened is that a magic wand has been waved across Glen Eira and the past policies transferred holus bolus into the new zones (plus some major additions and all without major and long overdue review). And we again remind residents that councillors allowed this to occur in secret, and without proper recourse to the community itself. That is definitely NOT ‘representing’ one’s constituents.

 

October 1, 2013

Hyams & More Weasel Words!

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

According to today’s Leader article, the Alma Club site development is now ‘settled’ when resident objectors agreed to new amended plans put in by Monark Pty Ltd. The upshot is that instead of 75 units, there will now be 69, and one townhouse has been ‘downgraded’ to 2 storeys. The other ‘win’ is that instead of the original intention of 4 visitor parking spots, there will now be a ‘generous’ 10 spots (Even under the abysmal ResCode standards, the number should be a minimum of 14).

‘Mediation’ in this instance is far from an appropriate term when one considers:

  • The huge financial pockets of Monark as opposed to residents
  • The potential costs of a 3 or 4 day hearing at VCAT when residents would feel obliged to hire their own barristers, planners, urban designers etc. The costs involved are prohibitive for any group of residents faced with opposing a Goliath such as Monark.
  • The real failure of council to support residents via its planning scheme and the absolute, total, failure to introduce schedules into the new residential zones which would not allow something like this to ever happen again.

How far removed this council is from residents and how little thought and effort has gone into ensuring the protection of residents’ amenity, is encapsulated by the alleged remarks of Hyams. The Leader article reports him as stating: We’re pleased that the parties have worked together to achieve an outcome that’s satisfactory to everyone’.  When a financial gun is held to your head that’s not our idea of a ‘satisfactory’ outcome! One of the objectors in fact retorts with this alleged comment: It (the outcome) gives some benefit to the neighbouring residents but it’s still not an ideal solution for the site’.

We remind readers that:

  • Council had the opportunity to purchase this site in an area deficient in open space for the bargain basement cost of $3 million. The decision not to purchase never went to a council meeting, and was not noted as being discussed in assemblies. Someone, other than the full crop of councillors made this decision. So much for good governance and transparency.
  • There is nothing in the old planning scheme or the new residential zones which will prevent a repeat of such events. Glen Eira has kept its options open when it comes to the size of lots, even if they happen to be in minimal change.
  • We also do not accept for one moment council’s claim that it was the Minister for Planning who ‘decided’ unilaterally and arbitrarily to remove the minimal change zoning from this land. Given all the huge developments that Guy has not interfered with, it is inconceivable we believe that he would involve himself in something so paltry as a 7000sq metre piece of land – unless he was consistently urged to do so!

Any resident who believes that this council has done its utmost to protect our suburbs is living in a fool’s paradise. The best, and most recent example of this comes with a comparison to the Kingston draft residential zones where they have included 10 specific schedules into their Neighbourhood Residential 1 Zones – following months of consultation of course!. Glen Eira could only manage 2 with no limitation on subdivisions or the number of dwellings that could then be erected. Kingston’s objectives are to negate this cramming of countless units onto a single block of land. Here are their schedules on this. Without such limitations, the Alma Club scenario can, and will be repeated countless times in the very near future. Any block of sizeable land under this regime represents an open invitation to developers.

Here’s what Kingston have done:

“Rather than rely on the default of two dwellings per allotment a series of schedules be developed which provide for the following outcome:

Schedule No.

Lot size

 No. of Dwellings

1

 Under 500m2 and/or recently developed greenfield areas

1

2

 500m2 – 899m2

2

3

 900m2 – 1199m2

3

4

 1200m2 -1499m2

4

5

 1500m2 – 1799m2

5

6

 1800m2 – 2099m2

6

7

 2100m2 – 2399m2

7

8

 2400m2 – 2699m2

8

9

 2700m2 – 2999m2

9

10

 3000m2 or above

10

But Kingston don’t stop there. There is also a nice little dig at Glen Eira –

The approach taken by the City of Glen Eira in its approved Amendment is to first rely on a subdivision application of larger lots in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and then additional development application(s). Such a City of Kingston approach is considered time consuming and costly for the land owner(s). Further by needing to instigate a subdivision application first, it is likely to create an increased potential number of disputes between neighbours due to the lack of clarity about the eventual development outcome and as a consequence create additional constraints on resources and discontent with planning processes.

The approach recommended for Kingston will allow Council through its strategic planning to have a much clearly understanding of ‘development capacity’ across its areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential.

In our view, it is precisely this lack of ‘clarity’ which is the desired objective of Glen Eira Council. Like everything else, when nothing is set in concrete, then all is permitted. When the policy is to evaluate on a ‘case by case’ basis, then chaos and inept planning is the inevitable outcome.

Finally, to return to our erstwhile Mayor, we remind readers that on one of his pre-election promises there was this noble sentiment – Take advantage of the new government planning zones to achieve maximum protection from overdevelopment for our neighbourhoods.

Need we say any more?

PS: WE NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE FOLLOWING KINGSTON INITIATIVES THAT LEAVE GLEN EIRA FOR DEAD –

  • Glen Eira has 25% permeability quota, but only for its equivalent to minimal change. Kingston has decided that 40% is required and not just in its minimal change areas but also for its Growth Zones. In these latter zones there is the stipulation of 30% permeability requirement for each of its 3 Residential Growth Zones
  • Also incorporated into this amendment is the Open Space Levy of 5% across the board and 8% for businesses. Glen Eira is still stuck on 0.25% for some areas. Even if the new Open Space Levy is recommended, it will take another amendment to make this law. That could be years down the track as Hyams likes to tell people. In the meantime developers will continue to get away with paying nothing or a mere pittance.
  • And last but not least there is this commitment from Kingston which is unheard of in Glen Eira –Although the Advisory Note indicates that Councils with existing Local Planning Policies could immediately begin a Planning Scheme Amendment and potentially seek the Minister for Planning’s consent to exempt public notice, this approach has not been followed by Council. The Council has chosen to ensure that community feedback on how the reforms are best implemented in Kingston is sought. The Planning Scheme Amendment is also to include community consultation.

    As a consequence of the consultation period which ran from the 17 June – 26 July 2013, a total of 153 submissions were received. A detailed briefing on the submissions was provided to Councillors on the 5 August 2013 and copies of all submissions have been made available to Councillors.

    Council has maintained the view that it is important that this initiative is broadly promoted across the Kingston Community and opportunities for the community to participate in firstly understanding the reforms (Stage 1) and secondly commenting on the Planning Scheme Amendment which introduces the reforms is provided (Stage 2).

 

October 1, 2013

Consultation Stonnington Style In The Leader

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

stonnington

 

September 30, 2013

Words Of Wisdom Or Newtonspeak?

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

Below we feature the ‘discussion’ from Tuesday night’s council meeting on a 3 storey development in Centre Rd. We certainly would not dignify this by employing the word ‘debate’. Please read and laugh at the nonsense continually perpetrated on residents under the guise of ‘informed decision making’!

Pilling moved motion to accept. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: noted that this was housing diversity, 3 storeys, 2 shops, and car parking will mainly be ‘out of hours’ so there’s a waiver for car parking. ‘All in all, this is a very modest proposal’ for an area that ‘can take’ extra ‘diversity’.

OKOTEL: agreed with Pilling and that the proposal is for 8 dwellings and 2 shops in 3 storeys but the ‘original application’ had been for 4 storeys but ‘because of council’s concern’ this was now reduced.  ‘Given the other buildings nearby’ of 4 or more storey developments so this is ‘not an overdevelopment’ and if it went to VCAT ‘it would be highly unlikely’ that the permit was refused.

LOBO: said he visited the site on two days and the proposal was ‘good’ and no objections, there is a ‘major concern’ of the laneway which is used as a shortcut to go to the pub for ‘glasses of beer’.  People from neighbouring municipalities also use this laneway to avoid the busy intersection. So residents ‘will suffer’ from both noise and ‘space’. 2 other developments are on the cards and there will be about 17 or 18 ‘rubbish bins’  from ‘businesses’ ‘kept near the parking area’. There will be a ‘lot of stench because food smells’. Talked about the need to ‘find ways to have a compromise’ and that the planning department had told him that the laneway is not council property.  The question then becomes ‘what to do with the traffic’ that uses the laneway? ‘I’m not against the development but I’m against the process’. ‘We have to get process right’ because this makes council ‘transparent’. If the process isn’t right then ‘it is assumed we are not transparent’.

MAGEE: ‘it’s not a nice development’ and they are ‘taking out one shop and squeezing on 8 developments’. ‘But it is in the right position’. To answer Lobo, Magee said that there is a ‘waste management plan’ and on process ‘I think the process is right’ because of what they’ve implemented which is a ‘very stringent process’. If council wants to ‘encourage development in shopping strips’ he can live with 2 shops instead of one, even though he ‘wouldn’t be racing out to buy one of the units’ . For anyone living close to shopping centres then they ‘know what happens in the laneway’. Admitted that the extra traffic would be ‘imposed on those residents’ living close by and when they bought their properties 10 or 20 years ago they ‘certainly did not see this happening’. In 30 years he’d never ‘gone up that laneway once’ and certainly not to get a ‘glass of beer’. He will support the application because ‘you can support it without liking it’ and ‘developer does have the right’ to go for ‘the maximum’ and ‘the planning scheme allows that’. So that’s the policy and he will ‘support it’.

HYAMS: as a ward councillor here he needed to say something and he supported most of what’s already been said. Stated that the question that councillors have to ask is whether the application ‘complies with the planning scheme’. If yes, then ‘we approve it’. Since the plans now remove one storey it won’t ‘impose’ on height and bulk. The waiving of visitor and retail parking spots is ‘justified’ because the spot now for office is only one and replacing this with a ‘shop won’t make any difference’. On the visitor spot, well ‘people tend to have visitors mostly when’ the shops are already closed and there’s ‘more parking around’. Said he’d been down there and there’s timed parking until 5.30 so that when visitors do come that time period will have expired and they can park there. The problem with the laneway will be solved by ‘screening’. Waste management plan will take care of bins and there will be a construction management plan too so the laneway won’t be blocked. ‘We’re told’ that overshadowing ‘won’t affect solar panels’. Dentist next door was worried about impacting on their business but ‘that’s not part of the planning process’. Said there was an agreement between developer and objectors about installing skylights and ‘they can agree if they want’ but it’s ‘not something by law that we can put in the planning permit’. So ‘I don’t necessarily have to like it but if it fits into our planning scheme’ then it will be approved.

PILLING: in response to Lobo’s concern about ‘amenity’ reiterated that there is a waste management plan and construction management plan which will ‘try to protect residents’. Laneway and managing traffic is long term and important and that’s ‘an ongoing’ process. There are problems with ‘traffic volumes in side streets’ so ‘that’s a long ongoing issue’. Application ‘does comply with planning scheme’ so ‘on that basis I will certainly be supporting the motion’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – LOBO AGAINST.

 

September 28, 2013

Rome Was Built Quicker!

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

To put it bluntly, the Local Laws Committee comprising Lipshutz, Hyams, Okotel and Lobo is an absolute joke. It’s worth pointing out that to the best of our knowledge no other council in the state has a Local Laws Committee. So why does Glen Eira? Our take on the existence of this committee is basically to ensure that the all important meeting procedures (and hence the anti-democratic nature of this council) remains intact. The committee is also useful in stalling, and sabotaging anything that might be regarded as ‘populist’ but contrary to the wishes of the ruling clique.

As current practice stands, it is able to function in what amounts to secrecy.  We have good reason to believe that other councillors don’t always get to see the officer reports that go to this committee, or are fully briefed on what happens within the committee. It is the usual small enclave of the chosen few. In short, there is no scrutiny from full council. This covers other important committees as well. The minutes are anything but minutes. No officer reports ever make it into the public domain. All that happens is that motions are passed that the recommendations be accepted. End of story and another failure to be transparent and accountable. With no public discussion, no information provided, and no debate within chambers we have the antithesis of good governance.

Not only is this committee at the forefront of maintaining the status quo, but also in ensuring that nothing ever gets done. Below is a table comprising extracts from the minutes of the last 3 Local Law Committee meetings. We direct readers’ attention to:

  • the failure to bring matters to full council as stated last December (ie alcohol zone in Centre Rd)
  • the repetition, month after month so that in 9 months absolutely nothing is achieved
  • No evidence whatsoever is provided for the decisions made
  • No mention in any records of assembly – alcohol zones; organised sport, and only 4 mentions of a tree register in 9 months. So either these records of assembly are complete fabrications, or very little of what happens in the Local Laws committee gets reported back to all councillors. There’s even one notation where Delahunty asked what is going on with the tree register and the committee (12th March, 2013).

PS: We can even go as far back as the 13th August 2012 to find the Significant Tree Register on the agenda of the committee. Tabling the ‘minutes’ of these committees is also a monumental task it seems since it often takes up to 3 months for the few words to be placed before the public.

3rd December 2012

6th March 2013

6th May 2013
Tree Protection

The Committee discussed the draft tree protection papers and reviewed drafts prepared arising from the last Local Laws Committee meeting. Extensive discussion arose regarding amendments. The members agreed that a scoring system was not appropriate.

The Committee discussed and recommended a number of changes to the draft local law and the tree evaluation process.

Action: amend draft law as recommended by the Committee – Jeff Akehurst, Robyn Taft

 

 Classified Tree Register

The latest drafts of the Tree Protection Local Law and associated documents were discussed.

The main issue discussed was the right of appeal/internal review.

Further work required – agenda item for next meeting.

Action – Corporate Counsel to attend to amendments and provide advice on review mechanisms.

 Classified Tree Register

The latest drafts of the Tree Protection Local Law and associated documents were discussed.

The main issue discussed was rights of appeal/internal review.

Further changes were requested to be made to the draft to incorporate provision for appeals.

Action – Corporate Counsel to attend to amendments.
Alcohol free zone for Centre Road Bentleigh

The Councillors discussed the merits of having an alcohol free zone in Centre Rd Bentleigh, which had been requested by local traders.

The Committee agreed that the matter would be referred to the Council for discussion.

 Alcohol free zone – Bentleigh

Report considered regarding installation of alcohol free zone in Centre Rd, Bentleigh. Committee agreed that Victoria Police are best placed to deal with alcohol related behaviour. They have the powers and training to deal with this issue. Council may be able to act as owner of land rather than through a Local Law.

Action- Corporate Counsel to investigate the possibility of erection of signs prohibiting consumption of alcohol on Council land.

 

 Alcohol free zone

The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government.

No further action.
Local Law 326 – permit for use of Council Land

The Committee discussed various options with respect to amending Local Law 326 . Those options were:

To revoke Local Law 326 and draft a new provision which would provide for priority of use to allocation holders but otherwise for substantially unfettered access to Council parks and gardens subject to certain limitations or

(ii) The incorporation of guidelines for the application of Local Law 326.

The Committee agreed to recommend the incorporation of guidelines for the applicationof Local Law 326 which guidelines would provide assistance in determining the activities that would be regarded as a breach of the Local Law.

The Committee agreed legal advice should be obtained on incorporation of the guidelines into the local law.

Action: obtain legal advice – Robyn Taft

 Local Law 326 – Activities where permit is required

Report considered. Further work required for next Local Law Committee meeting.

Action – Corporate Counsel to redraft proposed guideline.

 Local Law 326

Draft guidelines to support Local Law 326 were discussed.

Further amendments to the draft were proposed in order to make it clear as to how that provision is to

be interpreted.

Action – Corporate Counsel to draft amendments to guidelines.
  Smoke free zones

Discussed the possibility of introducing smoke free zones. The State Government has raised the possibility of action on a State-wide basis rather than municipality by municipality.

Action – Corporate Counsel to provide advice to the next meeting on current situation with State legislation on smoking prohibition.

 Smoke Free Zone

The State Government has foreshadowed legislation on smoke free areas. Committee agreed to wait until the legislation was amended and re‐visit then.

Action – Corporate Counsel to advise Local Law Committee when legislation has been amended.
  General Business

  • • A Frame signs on cars; and
  • • Meeting procedure.

Action – Corporate Counsel to confirm unroadworthiness status of vehicle with an A frame.

 A‐Frame Signs on Cars

Report considered. Report detailed various legislation that relates to this issue.

Committee agreed that the introduction of a Local Law was not warranted at this time.

This issue to be monitored for possible future action.
 

September 27, 2013

Being Dragged Screaming Into The 21st Century?

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

We feature 2 more items from Tuesday night’s council meeting – the Delahunty Request for a Report on recording council meetings and the non-answer to a public question. The latter comes from the now published minutes.

DELAHUNTY: said that there had recently been a ‘flurry’ of councils providing recordings and videos of their council meetings. ‘I think it’s a great idea’. If people can’t show up to the meeting then they can watch it at their leisure. It will also help people ‘understand the values we impart’ and ‘how we come to a decision’ and ‘helps with participation’. Not fully supportive of visual recordings but if the issue is to be investigated then ‘might as well’ have all the information up front. ‘What’s said is most important’. It’s ‘moving into the area’ of ‘what other municipalities are doing’ and it’s ‘old fashioned’ to ‘expect people to rock up’ to council meetings all the time.

MAGEE: likes the idea but didn’t at first. Residents often ask ‘what happened at the council meeting?’ and he can’t always remember what was said. Recording would therefore be ‘an opportunity for people to look back at particular items’. Said that he’s been watching the videos of Kingston and Dandenong ‘and they are atrocious’ so ‘we would really have to life our game if we looked like that’. In those council meetings the Mayor tells the gallery that it’s being recorded so there are legal questions that could be added to the report. Since the town hall is a ‘heritage building’ then every ‘infrastructure we put in we have to be very careful of’ and that ‘maybe we can’t facilitate’ the recordings. Thought that in 2013 ‘there is a need’ for recordings.

LOBO: ‘excellent idea’ and it’s like a ‘performance report on a monthly basis from residents’. They can be seen by residents on ‘how we perform’. ‘We should not be scared’. ‘Directors have to be appraised by Andrew Newton’ and for councillors when people want to ‘look how they behave, professional or unprofessional’ then the recordings will tell them.  ‘Even if a mayor acts unprofessional…has to be seen by the residents’. Residents ‘should know’ so when the elections come up they know (hand gestures) who to vote for (the implication).

DELAHUNTY: would be amazed if there was any consequences about heritage. Couldn’t see how placing a tripod with a camera in the corner could be a heritage problem. Hoped that councillors would support the call for a report which was to tell them if they can do this and not the merits of doing it.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PUBLIC QUESTION

Subject: Marara Road Reserve
“Glen Eira Council has a written strategy, as part of the Open Space Strategy 1998, to plant out the Marara Road Reserve with indigenous species so as to form a corridor for native fauna to move to and from the parks of Glen Eira, a strategy
widely accepted by ecologists. Earlier this year, after rows of exotic trees were planted in Marara Road Reserve, the council explained that the 1988 written policy had been superseded.
1. If the 1998 policy is superseded then where is this decision recorded, and
2. who made the decision, and
3. why was the policy superseded, and
4. when was the policy superseded? “
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Since the finalisation of the 1998 Open Space Strategy, Council has completed the trail.
In the recent past Council’s Park Services Department planted shade trees along the shared path in Marara Road Reserve, a combination of Acer platanoides and Fraxinus pennsylvanica both exotics.

Council’s arborist selected these species because:
 They are medium to large trees when mature providing good shade;
 They are suitable for the soil profile in the park;
 They do not have aggressive roots, unsuitable for planting near the path;
 They do not cause excessive leaf litter that may cause a hazard to path users; and
 They are not prone to tree diseases present in the current tree population in the area.

Although the strategy did specify native trees, natives were not appropriate in this instance because the larger native trees:
 Have aggressive root systems that would damage the path over time; and/or
 Have woody fruit litter which may cause the path to become slippery; and/or
 Are susceptible to leaf skeletoniser pests which are current active in the area.”

At this point the following exchange took place –

DELAHUNTY: Wondered if she ‘could ask a question’

HYAMS: ‘You can make a statement’ or give your own answer ‘but you can’t ask a question’

After giving her statement Hyams then said ‘it’s been pointed out to me that’ this isn’t a ‘policy, it’s a strategy’

Delahunty then went on to state – “I don’t feel that the answer given there actually answers the substance of the question which was has the policy been superseded and so in my statement what I will seek to do is ask that question myself and put that through our Councillor request system and see if I can’t get an answer to that question to Mr XXXXXX (omitted)  of Balaclava Road Caulfield North.”

 

September 26, 2013

More Fun & Games

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONCERTS

Sounness moved motion that Friends of Caulfield Park receive $1000 for promotion, performers, etc. and that receipts be provided and that this is only a ‘once off grant’. Lipshutz seconded.

SOUNNESS: went over history that FOCP had applied for a grant but not all of their application was in line with grant guidelines. Felt that the group’s objectives were directed to the ‘wider community’. Also said that the motion ‘is exceptional’ and that the FOCP have to become ‘sustainable’ and ‘it should not be a continuation of funds’ for them to continue holding these concerts. They should ‘actively’ look for other means of support such as through ‘advertising’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Caulfield Park was our ‘premier park’ and that last year’s concert was ‘very successful’. He ‘liked the idea’ of using the bandstand but council shouldn’t just give community groups this money since ‘if they want to do’ these things then they ‘should raise the money themselves’ and ‘become sustainable’.  Thought the project ‘was good’ in that it’s ‘community based and will be good for the community’. Stated that council was using ‘ward funds to do this’ and that this has ’caused some concern’ in other councils since ward funds are ‘discretionary’ and therefore they can be used in ways that are ‘not so transparent’. Glen Eira in contrast is ‘putting it to the whole council’ so that it is fully transparent and ‘all above board’. He therefore supports the motion but it’s impoortant to ‘recognise quite clearly that this is a one off’ and won’t happen again ‘next year’.

ESAKOFF: stated that she ‘continued to hold the view’ that the Community grants process got it right that the FOCP were funded for the bandstand itself but not the rest. Went on to talk about the Arts and Culture program and how Glen Eira holds a broad range of events ‘which includes entertainment in our parks’. Thought that this bandstand series organised by FOCP ‘duplicates what council does’ and for her wherever the money comes from ‘it is still ratepayer money’ and shouldn’t be used for a ‘duplication of what we do’. She didn’t ‘want to be a killjoy’ but she needs to be convinced that ‘this is not a duplication’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Esakoff raised important governance issues about the use of discretionary ward funds. Didn’t think that this was ‘duplication’ since the bandstand has been ‘underused’ in the past. Said that the concerts achieved what ‘council hasn’t managed to be able to do’ since council does things ‘on a very large scale’ and this is different. Said that it’s ‘fantastic’ that a community group is willing to run with this and ‘do something positive’. She was confident that this would ‘become a self-sustaining event’ and councillors can help with advice and support.

PILLING: said that concerns had been raised but it’s transparent since they’re deciding this ‘tonight’ in open council.

LOBO: ‘I have the floor’. Said that it’s important to encourage people but ‘at the same time we should not eat the flesh on the bone and throw the bone’ to ‘wolves’ or being ‘licked by dogs’.  Said that definition of professional is ‘to behave as one should and not as one feels’ so those who make decisions have to make these decisions ‘with their mind’ and not ‘their heart’. Stated that he ‘wasn’t very happy with this small piece of bone’ and it’s like being a deputy mayor where ‘nothing is given’ but just ‘a bone is thrown’.

HYAMS: defended Esakoff by saying he didn’t think that anyone ‘should be called a killjoy because’ they’re trying to ensure that ‘council funds’ are used properly. He also thought that Esakoff wasn’t referring to the concerts in the park but to the smaller events like spring music series’ and this could be what she was referring to when saying ‘duplication’. Esakoff agreed with his interpretation. Agreed with the motion and stated that last year an individual artist was granted funding to a mosaic and that wasn’t within the guidelines but they still granted her the money. This ‘is similar’ because it ‘does provide benefit to the community’. Asked that the motion be amended to include the wording ‘ward funds’ and this was accepted by mover and seconder.

SOUNNESS: saw this as 2 issues – ward funds and supporting community groups. This is transparent and making good use of the bandstand for the community. Wanted resources to be used better and this was one way of doing it. Went through what the program would be and said he was ‘proud’ to support Friends of Caulfield Park.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. ESAKOFF VOTED AGAINST.

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

URGENT BUSINESS

Lipshutz moved the motion that the Local Law committee make some recommendations regarding the ‘operation’ of Urgent Business. Okotel seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: reminded everyone that the Notice of Motion had been rejected recently because with Urgent Business the ‘system worked very well’. It works now that if something crops up between the issuing of the agenda and council meeting it can have the status of ‘urgent business’. The committee will look at the issue and make recommendations on ‘how best to deal with that’ and then report back to council.

OKOTEL: did not say anything.

SOUNNESS: wanted to ‘clarify’ the ‘nature of urgent business’. Read out the relevant clause from the Local Law and said that there was not ‘great clarity’ as to what could be considered as urgent. Went on to question whether ‘sunshine’ is urgent and wanted more ‘clarity’.

DELAHUNTY: was happy for the committee to ‘have a look at it’ as this might address ‘some of the gaps that were found without having a notice of motion’ but then the logic says if gaps were found then why not have a notice of motion? ‘It doesn’t seem to be necessary to me’ and would involve ‘a lot of work for really no gain’. ‘But then, here we are’ and ‘onward’!

COMMENT: how informative! and what happened to the usual Lipshutz slogan – ‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT’?

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Pilling moved motion and included that public be ‘involved’ in restoration options. Magee seconded.

PILLING: Went over the ‘consultation process’ and how this was ‘thoroughly done’. Hoped that councillors would support his motion.

MAGEE: said that this had come up 5 years ago and that there had been at least 3 decisions on the conservatory in the recent past. Said that it was now ‘very, very clear’ what people wanted. They wanted it maintained, restored and ‘they want to use it’ and that was ‘talked about 5 years ago’. ‘And here we are in 2013’ and he hoped that they were going to vote to ‘restore it’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘that’s the process, that’s how it should happen’ that people are asked. ‘I really want to see the community involved in this’ so that in ‘ten years time’ if it comes up again. Wanted community groups to put forward their ‘great ideas’ and that it ‘encourages interaction’. ‘It’s a very clear outcome now’.

LOBO: ‘yes this is democracy, although we ask again and again and again’. To keep asking again and again is an ‘unnecessary process’. The $600,000 from Centenary Park ‘could be used here’. Referred to a letter he had received which criticised his statement that Australia was not democratic. ‘I disagree with him. Yes there is democracy’ but he’s concerned about the ‘processes’ and ‘they are wrong’. Decmocracy should not ‘be made up as you go’.

SOUNNESS: conservatory is a ‘scrappy piece of plastic’ but it will be nice to see it restored. They’ve now got the results of the survey and ‘I’ve got nothing further to say’.

HYAMS: was pleased that ‘we went through this process’ because previously the results were either ‘in favour of the coffee house or inconclusive’. Also ‘last council did change its mind a bit’ but ‘now we have this survey. It is conclusive’ even though ‘it is not what I thought was best for the community’ but was ‘more than happy top go along’ with these results.

PILLING: acknowledged that there were divergent views from councillors but they were motivated by the desire to use ‘the conservatory better’ and ‘this has been justified by the consultation’. Ultimately ‘this is a win for everyone’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

COMMENT: Many things remain unclear.  The current budget allocated $105,000 for ‘restoration’. Exactly what does ‘restoration’ mean? Is this enough to cover the replacement of rotting timbers, paintwork, plantings? Is an extra sum of money even budgeted for? If not, where will this money come from? And the most vital question – when will this ‘restoration’ start and when will it be finished? We remind readers that many ‘capital projects’ undertaken by this council magically seem to fall behind schedule not by months, but by years! We won’t be holding our breath to see work start on this!

Last but not least, a word on ‘transparency’. When one counts up the number of items which are NEVER TABLED at council then it is fair to say that Glen Eira is far from ‘transparent’. According to the above discussions, ‘transparency’ involved information being laid on the table and discussed openly – as suggested in the ‘ward funds’, and ‘consultation’ results. It’s just a pity that this maxim receives so little coverage from both administrators and their all too complaint councillors on far too many occasions.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »