March 13, 2013

GESAC & Letters To The Editor

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

gesac

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

 

March 12, 2013

From A Resident

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

“How many years does it take for a building to be constructed?  How many times can a planning permit be issued or revised.  Why can’t the planning permit for this property be found on councils planning register? How long does a public footpath have to be unsafe before council does anything?

The multi-storey building in Koornang road which includes 26 units and shops has been under construction for years and years and years.  How can this be?  Surely building permits and planning permits must expire.  There has been so little movement with this development over so many years.

Who owns this property and why are they not forced to finish it and tidy up the site and repair the damage to the footpath?  Has anyone from council ever looked at this site? Does it comply with public safety requirements?

Should we be suspicious about this never ending construction process?  Does the owner have some special privileges that put the site outside public safety compliance?   Questions I can’t answer but maybe someone else knows what is going on and can explain why Carnegie has been blighted by an unfinished construction site for so many years and residents have had to put up with the unsightly mess and the very unsafe footpath.”

photo3

photo

photo2

 

 

March 11, 2013

We Are Biased!

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

Several comments on the GESAC issue have prompted this response. We freely and proudly admit that we are biased. Our bias is always towards open, accountable and transparent government. These features are sadly lacking in Glen Eira Council and nowhere moreso than in the dealings over the development of GESAC and the sporting allocations for the basketball courts. It is certainly time that this Council ‘comes clean’ in disclosing exactly how ratepayer funds are being spent. It is certainly time that fact replaced spin, and that secrecy was put to bed.

Here are the ‘facts’ and questions –

  1. Council continually talks about the $41.2 million CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Figures on total costs (including oufittings, higher purchase agreements, road restructuring, electricity substations, and countless other items) have never been fully itemised, nor added up into one single figure and made public in a manner that clearly shows the precise amount that this has cost.
  2. How many staff are currently employed by Council? 50 or 250 and how much is this costing?
  3. Did council pay any GESAC hired staff throughout the duration of the 5 month delayed opening? How much did this cost?
  4. How on earth can council sign itself up to a 15 year fixed loan on 8.04% and which would now cost $4 million to convert to a fixed and variable rate? The argument of course is that council had the ‘best consultants’ – was there no contrary official legal/financial advice proffered?
  5. How good are these ‘consultants’ when well over $1 million unbudgeted funds have been spent on car park extensions and relocation of playgrounds?
  6. Why has there been no ‘consultation’ with local residents and why oh why were there no traffic studies undertaken prior to the Gardener’s Rd debacle? How safe is this latest encroachment into public space?
  7. Why, if it exists, is the sport allocation policy, and its criteria not in the public domain?
  8. Why were the Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes a total joke in terms of actually informing the public as to what was going on?
  9. How many GESAC members have not renewed their memberships? How many complaints and/or negative comments has council received regarding entrance prices and general high costs?
  10. How much does daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cost – ie insurance, cleaning, chemicals, heating/cooling etc?
  11. How detailed and frequent were/are reports back to councillors on operations?
  12. Why have councillors not honoured their public statements that an EOI process would be undertaken in 2012 – that is a year following the Warriors allocation?
  13. Why have councillors allowed employees to consistently run the show?
  14. Why are teams for individual sporting grounds no longer on the website?
  15. How many NON-LOCAL teams does Glen Eira house on its sporting fields?
  16. How many locals are members of both the Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association?
  17. How much has already been spent on lawyers on the ‘liquidated damages’ issue and is Council facing the prospect of a huge pay-out if they lose the case?

There are probably countless other questions that need to be asked. We do not hold out much hope that this lot of councillors will have the nous, or courage to ask them – especially not in public! Again, this stands in stark contrast to what is happening with the Pool in the Mornington Shire. For those interested we ask them to peruse this Notice of Motion (verboten in Glen Eira!) from one of their councillors. It makes for fascinating reading. See: http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/Governance_Agendas/131203ca_add_41_NOM127.pdf

 

March 10, 2013

Would Our Lot Ask These Questions?

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

Councillors have been away for their ‘budget retreat’ recently. No doubt they have been ‘nursed’ along in the process of determining their ‘priorities’ for the budget. They’ve undoubtedly also wrestled with how to pay off GESAC at the fixed rate of 8.04% for the next 15 years. On top of this there’s the $7.1 million superannuation liability that also has to be paid off. Whilst other councils are contemplating paying this in one lump sum to avoid the high interest repayment, we suspect that Glen Eira does not have this option. Imagine borrowing another $4 million or so – that’s if anyone would even lend them this amount! We’re also pretty confident that the question of a top heavy and extremely well paid administration, plus consultants galore, and an unprecedented and constant staff increase with the advent of Newton, would not have figured prominently in these deliberations! It’s therefore really refreshing to read the following from a Monash City Councillor and makes us contemplate the question – would our councillors dare ask these questions? More importantly, would they ever get the answers?

Source: http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/news/bulletin2013/february/councillor.htm

Untitled

 

March 8, 2013

Who Runs The Show?

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

We have commented numerous times on the significance of delegations and the implications of handing over total control to unelected employees. This is not to say that we expect councillors to do the work of 1000 employees – that is an impossibility and nor is it desirable. However, we do expect that the elected representatives of the people fulfil their function in proper oversight and strategic decision making. Recent controversies over sporting allocations are a case in point. Planning delegations are another instance where councillors literally do not know what is going on since most planning decisions are made by these employees with no input from councillors.

The mantra that has continually been used by this administration to intimidate and ward off councillor involvement comes from Section 76E of the Local Government Act. It reads as follows:

76E. Improper direction and improper influence

(1) A Councillor must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.

(2) A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff-

(a)  in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or

(b)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act; or

(c)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function the member exercises or performs in an office or position the member holds under another Act; or

(d)  in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice in a report to the Council or special committee.

(3) This section does not apply to a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act.”

In a nutshell we are told in part 3, that Council has the power to decide what is delegated and what is not. In other words councillors have the legal authority to determine every single delegation.

The Act goes on to specify what ‘delegations’ actually are –

Delegations

(1) A Council may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of its staff any power, duty or function of a Council under this Act or any other Act other than-

(a)  this power of delegation; and

(b)  the power to declare a rate or charge; and

(c)  the power to borrow money; and

(d)  the power to approve any expenditure not contained in a budget approved by the Council; and

(e)  any power, duty or function of the Council under section 223; and

(f)  any prescribed power.

(2) The Chief Executive Officer may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of the Council staff any power, duty or function of his or her office other than this power of delegation unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) The instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer may empower the Chief Executive Officer to delegate a power, duty or function of the Council other than the power of delegation to a member of the Council staff.

(4) The Council must keep a register of delegations to members of Council staff”.

One other section of the Act, (114) refers to the Local Law, yet there is nothing that we can identify which delegates authority to officers in regard to sporting allocations. It is also high time that planning delegations were totally revamped and processes put in place that ensured councillors had a say in DPC decision making. So, the questions must then become:

  • When will councillors show some backbone and assert their mandated authority?
  • When will this council actually be run by elected representatives rather than employees?
  • When will councillors fulfil their rightful role in representing the interests of residents?
  • When will councillors ensure that open, transparent and accountable government occurs in Glen Eira?
 

March 7, 2013

Residents Are Expendable

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

We’ve featured the Gardener’s Rd conversion into a GESAC car park previously. A comment from a resident’s relative has prompted us to revisit the issue. What is clear is that when it comes to fixing up council’s howlers residents do not matter. They are expendable, irrelevant, and not even worthy of “consulting” with, despite the chaos that is about to descend on their doorsteps. There has been no traffic investigation before the decision was made; no real accounting for why the original design got it so horribly wrong and no problems in suddenly finding $600,000 that is not budgeted for from a council that is cash strapped!

Here’s the comment and some updated photos.

“My parents live on Gardeners Rd, and I grew up there. My grandfather had the house built in 1952, and my Mum has lived there since then, since she was 9 years old. She was given the house by her parents, after she and Dad got married. I and my 4 siblings lived there till we grew up and moved out. I now live in East Bentleigh not far away with my family. We had the best environment as kids. Beautiful Bailey reserve across the road, and “the pools” in summer. I used to take my kids to the pools and the park too, until recently. We were all devastated when we finally lost the 15 year fight to save the pools and GESAC was built. I hate it. I will never go there, and neither will my kids. We call it BALLSAC. We watched in horror as it was built, half the reserve was turned into a carpark, and the playground was removed and replaced with the junk that’s there now. It’s been devastating to see this happen. And now…NOW… they’re carving up the whole street and turning it into a carpark!!! Right in our street, right outside our house. Mum and Dad, and all of us, and all the neighbours, are devastated. Mum and Dad say they are going to sell up and move, out of sadness and disgust. They were never consulted, no-one in Gardeners Rd was. I’d like to ask the councillors, “How would you like this done to YOUR street? Outside YOUR house?”. What a bunch of (MODERATORS: word deleted). I’m so upset but feel powerless to do anything. Is there ANYTHING that can be done? Can we stop it, get an injunction? Does anybody know? We need legal help. I really can’t believe it and I’m so so sad. This is breaking the hearts of so many people and the Council doesn’t give a shit. What has the world come to? If anyone has any ideas or some legal skill please reply.”

P1000052

P1000061P1000060

P1000057

 

March 6, 2013

Planning: ‘Reformed’ Zones

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

The committee appointed to ‘investigate’ the proposed new zones has had its report finally made public – together with the government’s response. A quick perusal of the documents indicates that nothing major has changed. What is unique about this ‘consultation’ is that there were 2,083 SUBMISSIONS – surely a record! It’s also worth noting that at the last parliamentary sitting the government promised to table ALL submissions by February 5th. Yesterday’s Hansard records a letter from Matthew Guy which states in part: “Regrettably, the Government is not able to respond to the Council’s resolution within the time period requested by the Council. The Government will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.”!!!

We urge all residents to read the documents contained in the Media Release below since it is a foregone conclusion that Glen Eira Council’s mandatory ‘consultation’ process will be the typical rubber stamping process that has occurred time and time again.

Reformed residential zones bringing new certainty to Melbourne’s neighbourhoods

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

Sweeping reforms of residential planning zones are one step closer as Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the Victorian Coalition Government’s final details on the reform of Victoria’s residential planning zones.

After a detailed consultation process with over 2,000 submissions from individuals, businesses, councils and community groups, the Coalition Government will now establish the three reformed residential zones on 1 July this year.

A key feature will be the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone which will be the strictest planning zone in Australia, aimed at protecting existing suburbs’ neighbourhood character.

“The Coalition Government’s reforms to residential zones reflect what communities have been calling for, for many years – certainty for neighbourhoods and protection from inappropriate development,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what Melburnians love about Melbourne. Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability which are too valuable to ignore.

“At the same time the new zones will clearly define the appropriate locations where growth and density should occur,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) on zone reform has suggested a number of improvements to the residential zones as initially proposed last year, to ensure the protection of community amenity and provide clearer rules and greater certainty for the community.

“The improvements recommended by the MAC further protect residential amenity and neighbourhood character and are supported by the Coalition Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Today’s announcement is about the right development in the right locations and the package of residential zones will deliver this for local communities.”

The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will provide the strongest protections for local neighbourhood character for the first time in Victoria’s planning history. Key features of the zone include:

  • implementing local neighbourhood character policy to provide increased weight to local planning policy;
  • limiting increased residential development through lot size restrictions; and
  • providing an eight metre mandatory height limit.

In contrast, the Residential Growth Zone will be applied in areas determined appropriate for increased growth and density and provide for medium density developments.

Minor commercial uses will be permitted in the Residential Growth Zone to provide additional local services to the population, subject to strict conditions.

“Local communities will now know and clearly understand where growth can and will occur, unlike the previous haphazard approach that was allowed to foster under the previous Labor Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.”

The Coalition Government will work with local councils between March and May to further develop the implementation procedures and criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Development will also provide technical assistance to local council’s in implementing the residential zones.

Implementation of the residential zones will commence on 1 July 2013 and will be completed over a 12 month period.

A copy of the MAC report and the Coalition Government’s response can be found at: www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/reszones

PS: An email from a reader –

Mailand/ Architektur/ Bosco Verticale

 

March 4, 2013

Burke & ‘Pay Back Time’?

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

At the outset we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we have no interest in football allocations per se. What does concern us is the lack of transparency in any of the decision making that surrounds sporting ground allocations. The article at the conclusion of this post comes from today’s online version of the Australian Jewish News. It is quite feasible to draw the conclusion that this is ‘pay back’ for the Ajax – Caulfield Bears saga of last year in that Ajax did not get their sought after allocation.

As stated above, we have no problem with this. What is a huge problem is:

  • All is left in the hands of Burke and his underlings with no need for accountability, nor transparency
  • There is no POLICY that is in the public domain
  • There is no published criteria to account for the decision making
  • Councillors are out in the cold with no role, no say, no nothing
  • Such ‘secret’ and unilateral decision making is fraught with danger and the real potential for nepotism, secret deals, intimidation, and woeful decision making as with GESAC.
  • Councillors MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS if their credibility is not to go completely out the window!

By way of contrast, here is part of the Banyule Sporting Allocation policy where the criteria used to decide who gets what is public and easily accessible –

criteria

Numerous other councils don’t seem to have any problem whatsoever in publishing their policies. As always, Glen Eira keeps everything under wraps – that’s if it even exists, and if it does, the promises in the Community Plan to publish ALL council policies are not adhered to. Here are some other Councils’ URLs for residents to check out –

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/14457%20Sporting%20Reserves%20Allocation%20Policy%202011-2014.pdf

http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/experience-moonee-valley/sports-grounds/~/media/Files/Experience%20MV%20Documents/Sports%20club%20information/2010_11_Seasonal_Allocation_Policy.ashx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Sportsground_allocation_policy.pdf

http://whatmattersmanningham.com.au/document/show/63

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/mccwr/publications/policies-strategies-plans/policy%20-%20council%20resolved%20-%20allocation%20of%20sporting%20grounds%20and%20pavilions.doc

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/freestyler/files/Draft%20-%20Sportsground%20Allocation%20Procedure.pdf

Governance is at an all time low in this council as we’ve repeatedly stated. This is just another example of why drastic change is required.

AJAX allocation battle resurfaces

March 4, 2013

IN a major blow for the AJAX Football Club and the local Jewish community, Glen Eira City Council has denied the club from relocating to Princes Park, instead granting access to Old Haileybury’s Thirds and under-19 teams.

AJAX president Ian Fayman expressed his disappointment at the decision, pointing out that even though the club plays in a different municipality to the juniors, it deserves the right to function as one club at the same home ground.

“The argument is that the seniors and juniors are different clubs,” Fayman told The AJN.

“But they have the same jumper, the same sponsors and the same logo, and the community sees them as one club.”

Fayman accepted that the re-allocated club must be from within Glen Eira, but questioned why the opportunity to join the juniors and seniors was overlooked.

“If an allocation has to be from within the Glen Eira municipality, why is it not AJAX?” Fayman asked.

“It’s the most obvious decision that the junior club should have its senior teams at the same home ground to make a strong pathway, which is a policy of AFL Victoria, and so that the local community can follow.”

In response, council spokesman Paul Burke said that the main reason AJAX was overlooked is because it is based in the Port Phillip municipality.

“As the AJAX [senior] Football Club is not a tenant in Glen Eira, council did not contact them in relation to the coming football ­season, just as council did not contact other clubs that are tenanted outside of Glen Eira,” Burke told The AJN.

“[And] to ensure that sports fields can sustain the wear and tear from match play and training, existing tenant clubs are sometimes required to use grounds other than their home grounds for either training or matches.”

The other major disappointment for Fayman and the club is that no public expression of interest was undertaken, which he said the council committed to in a previous letter to an AJAX representative.

“The question is, why a public and very transparent process was not implemented,” Fayman said.

“It cannot be accepted that a decision has been made without a public process.”

He also noted the success of last year’s community day, which attracted around 1500 people,  as an indication of public support.

“The key example is the community day, where the local community wanted AJAX to be there,” Fayman said.

“We have 72 per cent of our members as voters in Glen Eira, and where do Haileybury’s members reside? Yes they are an internal club in Glen Eira, but their school is based in Mentone.”

PS: And here’s the Leader take on the story –

Ajax Football Club denied the chance to reunite juniors and seniors at Caulfield

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 05, 2013 12:00AM
Ian Fayman and Eugene Routman .

President of the AJAX Senior Football Club,  Ian Fayman with player, Eugene Routman. Picture: Paul Loughnan, Leader

AJAX Football Club is furious its seniors have been denied a move to Princes Park in Caulfield.

The club says it was trying to unite its junior and senior players in Caulfield but Glen Eira Council has overlooked it in preference for another amateur club’s third team.

The council has given the Saturday tenancy to Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club.

AJAX Senior Football Club president Ian Fayman wants the council to review its decision, hold a public forum and consider shared tenancy at Princes Park.

“AJAX juniors and seniors have the same logo, the same jumper, the same ethos, the same community base,” he said.

“Speak to anyone in Glen Eira and ask is it one club or two and everyone would say, ‘Of course it’s one club’.”

AJAX juniors have trained and played at Princes Park for two decades, while the seniors train and play outside the municipality, in Albert Park.

The club has long wanted to have its senior in the Caulfield area.

Glen Eira Council does not consider the seniors an “existing” tenant.

AJAX controversially offered another club, the Caulfield Bears, $175,000 last year to leave Princes Park so it could play there. The money was never paid.

The council’s community relations director Paul Burke said the council proritised the needs of Glen Eira clubs first.

“AJAX Senior Football Club is not an existing winter tenant in Glen Eira and has never been a tenant in Glen Eira,” he said.

In a letter to Glen Eira Council, Mr Fayman said the council had reneged on a promise AJAX would be consulted about the new ground allocation.

“The AJAX Junior Football Club, which is the current existing tenant on Sunday of Princes Park, was not given any opportunity to make an application for Saturday ground allocation,” he wrote.

“We believe AJAX FC is the local community football club that represents the local community interests and should have at the very least been given the opportunity to make a formal application to have its senior teams play from the same home ground.”

Mr Burke said the council had not called for “new” tenants.

“Council is not offering a new tenancy.

“We are accommodating the requirements and needs of existing tenants,” Mr Burke said.

AJAX Junior Football Club president Daniel Antman said as long as the council considered the seniors an outside club the dream could never be achieved.

“AJAX is one of the few clubs in the region that has a senior club based outside the region, for reasons beyond our control and desire,” he said.

Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club did not wish to comment.

COMMENT: ‘New tenants’ is an interesting phrase to say the least! The Old Haileyburians are fielding an entire ‘new’ team – the thirds! The game of semantics is alive and well in Glen Eira! See: http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3232-36895-0-0&sID=61506&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=22252086

 

March 4, 2013

When Will The Bullshit End? – #2

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[15] Comments 

Only 2% of planning applications come to the full council for decision. Hence, 98% of all decisions are made by officers either through the Delegated Planning Committee or under ‘managers’. These committees are held during work hours, and officers have already made recommendations as to accepting or rejecting the proposal. Objectors are given the opportunity to attend, but we suggest that their chances of altering the recommendations at this late stage are basically buckleys and none!

The INDIVIDUAL decisions of the DPC are NOT MADE PUBLIC, except for those which result in an appeal to VCAT and are therefore listed in the regular VCAT Watch as an item on every Council Meeting Agenda. Official figures state that the number of VCAT appeals each year totals approximately 160  – that means that THE DETAILS of about 1000 decisions made by the DPC or ‘managers’ are not made public. Residents therefore have absolutely no idea why these 1000 applications were accepted, or rejected. No minutes are made public (or maybe even kept) and the criteria, decision making processes used to assess each application is also top secret. There is no tabulated, clear or regular reporting on any of these decisions. Other councils report fully every month so that residents know exactly what decisions have been made under the planning delegations. Below is just one example from Kingston which goes on for pages and pages. In Glen Eira this doesn’t happen. The ‘secret society’ of officers keeps everyone, and we believe even councillors, in the dark! If councillors do not even know what applications have come in, nor when DPC meetings will be held, nor are they invited to attend, then all pretense of these councillors actually representing their constituents is a myth!

Pages from Ordinary_Council_Agenda_25022013

At last week’s council meeting a public question on this exact issue was asked. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?”

Here is the council response to the question –

“Your statement is not correct.

Council’s Planning Application Register is publicly available on Council’s website. This Register contains details of all Glen Eira planning applications lodged and the decisions made. This is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker.

The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

COMMENTS:

  • The statement IS CORRECT! Council’s Online Planning Register DOES NOT tell us whether decisions were made by the DPC, COUNCIL, or a ‘manager’. It also does not ‘tabulate’ any results as noted in the Kingston and other councils’ versions. A user must first enter a street name, or suburb, and then hunt through all the resulting ‘hits’. Unless someone is willing to spend hours on scouring every single entry in the database they will not know which properties are, or were up for consideration and they certainly won’t know who made the final decision to accept or reject. The question asked for links between individual planning application decisions with those responsible for making the decision. To therefore say ‘there is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker’ is not answering the question but just affirming the current inadequacies of the situation.
  • Again, the Services Report is a useless document that is almost indecipherable and reveals nothing in terms of what the question is asking. We challenge any reader to make sense of the following which is taken directly from the last Services Report. Not only are they illegible, but neither link individual applications to decision makers.

Pages from February05-2013-MINUTESPages from February05-2013-MINUTES-2

  • A ‘new’ version will apparently materialise in March. We do not hold out much hope that this will be any more informative, nor decipherable. Will this link property address and decision makers? Will any information of value actually be forthcoming – or will it be another exercise in sham information provision?
  • Finally, the comment needs to be made that this is the direct result of councillors signing away their oversight roles via the delegations to officers. We reiterate – there is no councillor call in; there is no clear criteria as to when applications will go to full council; no councillor attends DPC meetings; councillors we expect don’t even get a full report on upcoming applications and most importantly THERE IS A TOTAL FAILURE FOR COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. This isn’t surprising. When councillors can’t even open their mouths and insist that public questions are answered appropriately then there is no reason why the ‘bullshit’ of reporting on planning applications should be any different!
 

March 1, 2013

When Will The Bullshit Stop? – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[14] Comments 

We have literally had a gut full of the way this council treats its residents in terms of their responses to public questions. Whilst falling legally short of outright lies, each response is deliberately vague, misleading, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally non-informative. Residents have to read between the lines in order to come within cooee of the truth.

What is even more offensive is that 9 councillors sit there in total silence and accept these carefully crafted works of fiction without anyone questioning the content of the responses. That is not what these people were elected to do. They have a legal and moral responsibility to provide sound oversight of council operations. That includes ensuring that everything that goes out in their name is accurate and bona fide. Moreover, it is their responsibility to ensure that what residents were promised over a year ago is delivered. They are also responsible for ensuring that council resolutions are in fact carried out! (more on this in a moment)

In this post we will examine several of the public questions asked at the last council meeting and illustrate why residents should be outraged at the duplicity of the responses and the failure of these councillors to ensure that open and transparent government occurs at Glen Eira.

QUESTION 1 & 2 ON GESAC BASKETBALL COURT ALLOCATIONS

There were 2 different questions demanding answers on what was promised in December 2011 – namely that the GESAC court allocations would be ‘reviewed’ in a year’s time. Pilling on his blogsite had this to say when the decision to award the WARRIORS the contract was made 15 months ago – “This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again”. (December 15th, 2011) We’re now well past 12 months. Not a murmer from council about reviewing anything or undertaking a new season’s allocation!

Below are the questions and to save space we will only include one of the ‘answers’ SINCE THE SECOND RESPONSE WAS A VERBATIM REPEAT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION MINUS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH REGARDING FEMALE PARTICIPATION. We therefore have the totally farcical situation where two different questions are asked but they each receive an almost IDENTICAL ANSWER!

QUESTION 1 –

“With limited basketball courts available throughout Glen Eira can Council tell ratepayers when the seasonal allocation process, spoken of in the December13, 2011 minutes, will begin for the 3 court GESAC facility. If not why then are girls not given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC?”

 

QUESTION 2 –

“Can council please inform me of why the twelve month seasonal allocation for the use of GESAC basketball courts is no longer a process being adopted. In the minutes dated 13/12/2011 seasonal allocation is referred to as the on-going process for future allocation. Further to this question , who has made this decision and can an accurate audit be done on the finances of the basketball operation as per the contract originally agreed to with the occupying basketball association.”

 THE ‘RESPONSE’

“As advised at the Council Meeting on 24 July 2012, the indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, development programs, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.

Girls are given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC. I have been advised that there are currently 120 girls of various ages in the Warriors Basketball Program. GESAC has more than 10,000 members. A majority of members are female.”

COMMENTS: Sifting through the meaningless verbage of this answer, we find the truth! It is contained in this single sentence –“ The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.” In other words, the promises made over a year ago will not be acted upon, much less fulfilled. The Warriors will have permanent allocations – unless they fold!  Our questions then become:

  • Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is this not ratified by council?
  • Why is there still no definitive answer as to whether ratepayers are in fact subsidising the current court usage or, whether the current occupiers of the courts are fulfilling the complete terms of their contract?
  • It is entirely disingenuous to compare the GESAC basketball courts and other sporting ground allocations in the same breath. They are NOT IDENTICAL. GESAC allocations represents a formal contract involving the payment of monies on a regular and weekly/monthly basis. Other sporting allocations we believe simply require a ‘permit’ and money is handed over at the start.
  • Much of question 1 and 2 remains unanswered. Not a word about financial audits, and not even one single word about ‘when’ the new allocations for anything will start! And not a single word about who is responsible for deciding that GESAC and a game of ‘organised’ frisbee are identical and will be treated identically!
  • Under what precise piece of legislation are officers granted the right to make such unilateral decisions? Where in the delegations is this signing over of authority documented?
  • Why are councillors so incapable of simply moving a motion that states clearly that GESAC basketball court allocations will be decided by council resolution!
  • And why oh why do these 9 councillors allow such garbage to go out in their name without the semblance of public protest?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »