July 27, 2012

Public Questions & Right Of Reply

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

“The minutes of the 20th March record that at that time, Council had spent $65,000 on legal advice relating to Cr Penhalluriack. What is the total amount invoiced up until the 22th July 2012? Further, will council’s legal fees be paid by ratepayers or by Council’s insurance company?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “On 20 March 2012 in response to a question from a Councillor, I provided the following information:

“Approximately $65,000 has been paid to date in relation to the matters you have raised in your Councillor Question. It is not possible to gain a cost estimate at this stage because that will depend on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct.

In this regard, it is relevant to point out that all expenditure here is due to Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour. This behaviour led councillors, including you, to unanimously resolve to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

It included behaviour towards officers, which was found to be inappropriate by an independent investigation by a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety.

Cr Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this matter from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT will also significantly increase the cost.”

Eight days later, the Ombudsman tabled his Report in the Victorian Parliament: “Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council”. The Ombudsman recommended that Council amend its application to the Councillor Conduct Panel or make a further application to the Panel to make a finding of misconduct against Cr Penhalluriack.

At a Special Council Meeting on 3 April 2012, Council resolved to make an application to the Councillor Conduct Panel based on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. The resolution was unanimous. Cr Penhalluriack elected to have all applications referred to VCAT rather than be dealt with by the Panel.

The matters are scheduled to be heard by VCAT starting on 13 August 2012.

You have asked for the total amount invoiced to Council up to 22 July 2012 on legal advice relating to Cr Penhalluriack. That amount is approximately $147,000 (inclusive of GST).

Council’s Annual Report will disclose the amount incurred by Council during the 2011-12 year which was approximately $124,000 (exclusive of GST).

It is expected that Council’s costs will be paid by Council. It is expected that, under current legislation, Cr Penhalluriack’s costs will also be paid by Council.

A significant part of the cost relates to Cr Penhalluriack’s decision to escalate the matter from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.

On 20 June 2012 the Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill into Parliament to amend the Local Government Act. The Minister said:

“The Bill will reduce the incidence of Councils having to pay the legal costs of councillors in VCAT misconduct hearings. A council will not be liable for costs when an individual councillor has applied for the matter to go to VCAT instead of a councillor conduct panel.

Councillor Conduct Panels are the appropriate forum to deal with most councillor misconduct matters, as they specialise in councillor conduct matters and involve less cost to ratepayers.”

Council supports the Minister’s decision. It is important for all ratepayers to realise that a large part of the costs of this matter are caused by the decision by Cr Penhalluriack alone to escalate the proceedings from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.”

RIGHT OF REPLY:

Statement under Section 232(2)(f) of the Local Law.

Cr Penhalluriack stated:

“I refer to the Mayor’s reply to a public question from (xxxxxxxx) in relation to a dispute in which the council has brought allegations against me. In fact it is not the Mayor’s reply; it is on behalf of all nine councillors. Similar misleading statements were made to council, and recorded in the minutes, on the 20th March this year.

It is incorrect to say that council’s expenditure is due to my behaviour. There are now only four allegations against me — it is VCAT, and not the Mayor, who will determine whether I have engaged in any misconduct. Some thirty allegations were made against me at three separate Councillor Conduct Panels. At the first hearing I was given leave to be represented by solicitors, in which case the fees would be paid by council — or more precisely by council’s insurers. At that hearing I asked for the matter to be mediated. The Mayor, Cr Esakoff, refused that invitation so the matter proceeded. I then asked for the matter to be referred to the VCAT, which is my right at any time before a decision is handed down by the Panel. The chairman thanked me personally for not extending the hearing and wasting the Panel’s time.

Subsequently council raised two further lists of allegations and brought two further applications to two fresh Councillor Conduct Panels. I referred each to the VCAT not, as the Mayor alleges, to add to the costs but in order to save both cost and time. The Mayor’s comments are both mischievous and misleading.

None of these three applications has originated from me. At all times council has been the Applicant and I have been the Respondent. Prior to the matter going to VCAT I had always offered to mediate any alleged misbehaviour and it has been the councillors, the CEO and the senior officers who have always refused to discuss a settlement.

The Mayor says that “a large part of the costs of this matter are caused by the decision by Cr Penhalluriack alone to escalate the proceedings from the Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.” That is incorrect. The cost of a hearing at VCAT is significantly less than that of a Councillor Conduct Panel since the judiciary is financed by the State, whereas council is obliged to pay for the two-person Councillor Conduct Panel, and the Registrar.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the ratepayers will have to pay the cost of council’s external legal advisors, together with the cost of the salaried staff members. I understand council has recently employed another senior lawyer. I have no such internal support base, but instead have find the time and the necessary resources to counter the large number of false and misleading allegations brought against me by council.

PS#2 – Apologies, we inadvertently left the following sections out!

I expect council’s insurers will pay my legal costs, so they will not, as wrongly indicated by the Mayor, be a burden on ratepayers.

Finally it is relevant that council has conceded that most of its allegations were unwinnable, and has withdrawn all but four, including allegations referred to by the Ombudsman. These will be heard in open court at the VCAT on Monday 13 tAugust 2012.”

PS: It’s also worthy of noting that once more the minutes fail to provide an accurate picture of what occurred. Penhalluriack stated unequivocably on 2 occasions that he ‘disassociated’ himself from Council’s responses. He also requested that this ‘dissent’ be included in the minutes. They are not! Hence, we have a situation where a councillor’s request, so that minutes provide an accurate and truthful accounting of events, is ignored. The acid test of course will come at next council meeting and residents can judge councillors on whether or not they vote to accept these minutes as ‘accurate’ or not. We also note that in the past on the rare occasion that Pilling has voiced some objection to a public question response, plus one from Penhalluriack himself, these objections were included in the minutes. Consistency would not appear to be the forte of this administration – especially in the current circumstances!

July 26, 2012

Newton V’s Penhalluriack: $271,000 And Rising!

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

We’ve titled this post “Newton v’s Penhalluriack’ since this is the crux of what we believe to be at the heart of the entire matter. Whatever the personalities of these two individuals, whatever their differences of opinion, we do not consider the expenditure of $271,000 (and rising) on “legal advice” by this Council is justified under any circumstances. The amount that has been spent by council is nothing short of scandalous.

The running costs were revealed as a result of a public question, which we will present once the minutes come out – together with Council’s response and Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’. First however, the following facts need to be made clear:

When a councillor is sent to a Councillor Conduct Panel (CCP) the legislation states that there is to be no legal representation. It is intended to be ‘secret’ and ‘informal’. The findings of such a Panel are then to be included in Council Minutes. Ostensibly this sounds reasonable, except that in Glen Eira’s case ‘legal advice’ had already reached thousands and thousands of dollars (ie O’Neill Report and countless lawyers on forwarding the documentation to the CCP) prior to any actual hearing. The same privilege is not afforded to the defendant (respondent)
The members of such Panels are assigned from a list compiled by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). Many of these members, if not all, are former local government bureaucrats, including former CEOs. Hence it is plausible to suspect that the culture, mentality and ‘old boys system’ may be well entrenched. In a recent case at Hobson’s Bay that ended up at VCAT for example, the MAV selected member was challenged and had to remove himself from the case since it turns out he was the previous CEO of Hobson’s Bay!
When a CCP is held, the 2 MAV members are paid for by council. Their fees for a single day (in 2008) totalled over $1500. Again, such hearings may go for many days.
The CCP may do one of two things – order the case to VCAT for consideration of ‘serious misconduct’, or make its own findings. The defendant may request that the case goes immediately to VCAT. Legal representation is permitted at VCAT.
Under all jurisdictions, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘natural justice’ must apply. The current system has many flaws we believe, as outlined above – in particular the ability of council to enlist legal advice prior to any formal allegations yet not have the accused afforded the same resources. This goes against the fundamentals of our justice system. It should, if justice is to be seen as truly ‘even handed’.
Finally it’s worth questioning whether Council (and hence ratepayers) have actually received ‘value for money’ from all this legal advice? Allegation after allegation has been whittled down to just four. The main substance of the O’Neill report has bitten the dust big time and at the first VCAT hearing Council was ordered to go away and reduce its mess of allegations into something that was succinct, logical, and presentable. We assume that the lawyers were paid regardless of these deficiencies! Now we face the situation of more lawyers and the potential for a 7 day hearing at VCAT. How much will this cost? And for what?
Should any blame be assigned to councillors for their role in all this? Charged with dealing ‘prudently’ and ‘responsibly’ over council finances how on earth can they ever justify this kind of expenditure on a case that really boils down to Newton vs Penhalluriack?

July 26, 2012

Community (Dis)Satisfaction Survey!

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

Esakoff moved to accept ‘as printed’ with Pilling seconding.

ESAKOFF: Began by stating that ‘it’s impossible’ to compare this set of figures with any previous results and read out several sections from the actual report to support this statement. ‘results appear to be very good’…….’overall performance rated at 91% which included very good, good and average’. Esakoff went on with other purported figures – ie higher than state average in many areas and in comparison to inner Melbourne councils ‘good or very good’. Claimed that satisfaction ratings were ‘generally higher’ for those areas ‘under Council’s control’ and lower for those areas that have ‘shared responsibility’ (with the State Government that includes) ‘parking…..high density development’. Said that council’s community forums on the Council Plan are ‘fully reflected here” with ‘waste management ….recreation facilities at 77%’. Went through other results such as footpaths, customer service – all these services which ‘rated very well, as usual’….’all in all a very good result for Glen Eira’ and need to improve areas that didn’t do so well and ‘maintain areas’ that did well.

PILLING: ‘good report’. Commented that Glen Eira does well against the other councils in the group. Thought that this was a ‘positive change in strategy’ (ie new methodology).

LIPSHUTZ: Thought that council needed ‘to look’ at the areas where they ‘weren’t so good’. Highlighted page 6 as the ‘areas where we can improve upon’ …’traffic and parking are two big ones….town planning…..communication….that comes through in our community consultation’. These things council has sought to ‘address in our community plan’….’those are the things that substantiate the direction that council is taking’….’within twelve months or more we will see further improvement’….

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Lipshutz in that the report ‘let’s us see the areas where the community would like us to improve’. Emphasised that only 6% of surveyed people said the council ‘was poor or very poor’ versus 64% who said it was ‘good or very good’. Claimed that a comparison could be made with previous years on ‘general direction’ and 20% claimed it had improved ‘and only 7% said it had deteriorated’…..’outstanding result’….’anyone who seeks (to present this in any other light is) ‘simply being dishonest’…’does let us know where we do need to improve….take that on board’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We congratulate councillors (Hyams, Esakoff, and Lipshutz) once again on their incredible sleight of hand manoeuvrings. First, trot out all the supposed ‘positives’, then make minimal mention of the ‘negatives’ with the promise to ‘improve’. We take issue with:

Esakoff’s spurious and misleading statement that the areas where council scored lowest are those that comprise ‘shared responsibility’ with Government. Apart from MAIN ROADS, Council is 100% responsible for all other roads in the municipality. Traffic management on these roads is totally Council’s domain. With planning Council has the ability to amend its Planning Scheme. Again we reiterate that this is a council without structure plans, without parking precincts, without height limits and has never even attempted to introduce any of these elements into its planning.
Lipshutz’s argument is equally fallacious. Yes, keep your eye on the components that need improvement. But then to go on and argue that since this survey “substantiates the direction that council is moving’ is quite laughable. There is ‘no direction’ whatsoever, except more of the same! The council plan fails dismally to address issues of parking, over development, etc. There’s also the simple fact that these major issues are nothing new. Council has been told over and over, year after year, that these are major resident concerns. To then claim that further improvement will be ‘in the next 12 months’ is quite remarkable.

Finally there is one very revealing set of figures in this survey. Respondents were asked to name areas/issues they thought were important and then to rate Council’s performance against these expectations. No councillor really highlighted, much less mentioned these results. We provide them for residents and emphasise that there is an incredible difference between what residents expect, value, and rate highly, with how they assess council’s actual performance in these areas. For us, this is the most telling result from the survey! (Full survey uploaded here)

“Services on which rated importance exceed performance include:

– Planning & building permits: performance 53, importance 73 = -20 net differential

– Planning for population growth in the area: performance 53, importance 72 = -19 net differential

– Traffic management: performance 55, importance 72 = -17 net differential

– Community consultation and engagement: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential

– Council’s general town planning policy: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential

– Parking facilities: performance 56, importance 69 = -13 net differential

– Elderly support services: performance 67, importance 79 = –12 net differential

– Informing the community: performance 61, importance 73 = -12 net differential

– Lobbying on behalf of the community: performance 54, importance 64 = -10 net differential

– Disadvantaged support services: performance 64 , importance 73 = -9 net differential

– Environmental sustainability: performance 63, importance 72 = -9 net differential

– Condition of local streets and footpaths: performance 68, importance 75 = -7 net differential

– Family support services: performance 66, importance 71 = –5 net differential

– Enforcement of local laws: performance 65, importance 68 = -3 net differential

– Waste management: performance 79, importance 81 = -2 net differential

AND

It is recommended that Glen Eira City Council pay extra attention to areas where it is underperforming on a relative basis in comparison to the State-wide and Inner Melbourne Metropolitan groups such as Consultation and Advocacy……”

AND

Glen Eira City Council should also pay particular attention to the service areas where importance exceeds performance by more than 10 points, including:

– Planning and building permits

– Planning for population growth in the area

– Traffic management

– Community consultation and engagement

– Council’s general town planning policy

– Parking facilities

– Elderly support services

– Informing the community

July 25, 2012

The Dog’sTail Keeps Growing!

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

The fun and games began with several of the first items on last night’s agenda – a petition, committee minutes, records of assembly minutes, and the motions to accept them. This is what happened.

The petition was from a group of traders who queried why unnecessary footpath works were taking place outside their shops. They highlighted the impact this had on their businesses in these hard financial times as well as the fact that there had been no warning, no consultation, and no justification for the necessity of these works. We conclude: another perfect example of this council’s failure to consider, much less consult with residents prior to spending their money on arguable needless works! We also note that the names of the traders weren’t mentioned!

Pilling moved that the minutes of the Community Consultation committee and the Arts & Culture committee be adopted but that the minutes of the Environment Committee be ‘deferred until next Council Meeting’. Esakoff seconded. Pilling’s argument for deferring one set of minutes was that the last Environment Committee meeting was ‘long’ and ‘a lot of issues’ were discussed. He stated that draft minutes had been circulated but 2 members were overseas and there was some ‘conjecture’ and that it was important to get ‘some different views’ on ‘what was recorded’. He therefore wanted to defer until everyone was back. Esakoff then reported on the other two committees. Motion was passed unanimously.

Next item was the Records of Assembly. Penhalluriack requested that one record be ‘treated separately’. The motion was then put by Magee that this occur. Penhalluriack then spoke about the minutes of 19^th June and the references to himself in these minutes. He moved that the records be accepted except for the part which stated: “Cr Penhalluriack – raised a matter of rumours being circulated saying that he is costing the Council a lot of money by fighting the Ombudsman and Council. In relation to the recent media coverage aboutjk an illegal rooming house operating from a property he owns, Cr Penhalluriack said that backpackers were using the property and that he did not know who they were.” Penhalluriack wanted to amend this so that it read that he did raised the issue of rumours. He had ‘received an email from journalists’ and that he had said that ‘these rumours are malicious’…..’one councillor in particular had affected his reputation’….’backpackers had left a mess’….’he was not costing Council anything….as Council was taking action against him’…’it is tough being Cr Penhalluriack in this council’…..’Mayor reminded council’ that there’s independent ‘legal advice’. Forge seconded.

Penhalluriack then went on to speak to the amendment. He said that the original draft minutes had been ‘discussed around the table’ at the Assembly and the ‘majority said that should remain as is’….’for some reason….the minutes were changed’ and that’s why he was moving this motion.

PILLING then spoke against and said that he’s got a ‘bit of an issue’ with what Penhalluriack wants to put in the minutes. He said that council wants ‘clarity’ in minutes and what Penhalluriack wants to put in represents a ‘discussion’ and not just ‘items’. It’s important to be ‘consistent’ …’irrespective of personalities’…’and conjecture’….(Penhalluriack is) ‘setting a precedent here and treating this issue in a different way to other issues’ so he’s voting against it.

MAGEE: stated that he couldn’t see anything wrong with ‘having more detail’…..’takes anything away from the report’….’makes it clearer for people to understand’. Conceded that there is a ‘system where we’re consistent’….’but when a councillor decides that he wants more information’….’I would certainly find it difficult to vote against that’ since it’s really about the ‘transparency of the minutes’. More detail helps people who are reading it. ‘I do understand that over the years we do have a protocol…..is important to be consistent…..(overall being individuals that Council) ‘has to accommodate those issues’.

HYAMS: agreed with Pilling that ‘if we start putting in verbatim speeches by councillors’ that means that any councillor who thinks he’s got ‘anything good or popular to say’ that the argument would then be that this should go into the minutes. Referred to the Act that only demanded topics and conflict of interest disclosures so ‘we already go far above what’s required’ and therefore should ‘keep it to our usual practice’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he supports ‘minimalistic reporting’….’but unfortunately the author of these minutes does not’. Said that the records of assemblies for ‘week after week after week’ there is ‘Cr Penhalluriack verbatim’. Magee then raised a point of order that since Burke was absent it wasn’t fair what Penhalluriack was saying because the individual wasn’t present to defend himself. Hyams than warned Penhalluriack to ‘try and not say anything that might need to be defended’. Penhalluriack said he handed named anyone and that ‘the minutes as written’ have been ‘inconsistent’. He then referred to the immediate item above the one he read out which simply said ‘Cr Lipshutz –….. Statue’….’that means almost nothing to anybody’ (referred to a statue by Boyd that was in the front garden of council has now been removed and put outside GESAC) ‘Unless you have that information….that means nothing’…’what I’ve quoted to the meeting was in the original set of minutes….and let’s not forget he who writes the minutes writes history’…..’Ive been asking for a long time…whether we follow the Local Government Department’s recommendations (on minutes) or go along the path we’ve been going along for quite some time’.

Hyams put the motion to the vote. For – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge. Against Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling, Lobo. Motion defeated.

COMMENTS: Pilling’s inconsistency, if not straight out hypocrisy is quite unbelievable here. His argument for deferring the Environment Committee Meeting minutes was that it was a long meeting, many issues discussed and that people were overseas – so presumeably everyone should have a right to voice their opinion on the final set of minutes. According to Penhalluriack, the majority of councillors agreed to the draft version of the minutes, yet these were changed presumeably by Burke. How then can Pilling argue on the one hand that there should be consensus about minutes and then within a few nano-seconds basically disown this very same argument when it comes to Penhalluriack?

Interestingly, we have commented previously on how many of these Records Assembly feature (in far greater detail than for anyone else) every single utterance by Penhalluriack. We also commented at the time that we find it impossible to believe that Lipshutz sits there quietly without ever opening his mouth – judging by the number of times he is named in these minutes.

In the end, this entire episode is distasteful and further proof of the manipulations and how desperately there must be a complete overhaul of the way that minutes are drafted, presented, and doctored by this council. There simply is no consistency across any committee meetings or assemblies. Truth, transparency and governance are the inevitable victims in such shameful practices.

July 24, 2012

Academy Awards All Round!

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

Residents have nothing to fear. That is, if we want to elect actors, spin doctors and install administrators who cannot answer questions directly and instead rely on semantics and deliberately misleading statements – then look no further. The vast majority of the current crop of councillors and those officers who pen the responses to questions fit that bill to a tee! Or as Cr. Lipshutz has stated- all must belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda – say something often enough and even they may blissfully come to believe their own nonsense.

Tonight’s council meeting proved once and for all how orchestrated, rehearsed and unethical this entire council is. In what turned out to be a major talk fest of bubble and squeak, two important things were revealed:

Council’s legal advice in pursuing Penhalluriack now totals $147,000 PLUS another $120,000+ from early on. This will be paid by ratepayers and not council’s insurance company. We remind readers that the bill will escalate even further when the VCAT hearing gets underway in the second week of August. Certainly a very hefty price to pay in the attempt to silence one councillor!
The Ajax footy team will have their 1^st September Anniversary celebration, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will now go to the bottom of the allocations listing. You simply can’t screw Burke and hope to get away with it unscathed in Glen Eira.

We will report on all this (and more) in detail in the days ahead. The performances overall were truly outstanding and gain our unqualified support for Academy awards.

July 24, 2012

MRC: Back To The Future!

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

Radical Plan for Racecourse

Andrea Kellett

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is set for a dramatic shakeup. The new chairman of the reserve’s board of trustees, Glen Eira councillor Jim Magee, has vowed to end racing’s stranglehold on the land and return it to the people. He also wants to make the board “more accountable” and end the days of “secrecy” surrounding management of the crown land.

“The racecourse belongs to you and me not the MRC”, he said last week. He is also looking to increase the Melbourne Racing Club’s annual rent on the reserve land from $77,000 to a “more realistic” $1 million and phasing out training at the racecourse.

“I will put together a licensing agreement for what the centre of the racecourse can be used for and as part of that I want to see more public access and the moving of training from the racecourse” he said.

He has sought legal advice about changing the way the board of trustees operates, including making meetings open to the public.

Cr Magee intends to hold a board meeting next month where he will call for a vote on many of the changes.

Melbourne Racing Club spokesman Jake Norton said the club did not wish to comment.

PS: LEST WE FORGET!!!!!!

From the minutes of 15th March 2011

Crs Penhalluriack/Forge

That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to meet with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land. The Mayor shall open the meeting and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position. The meeting shall then be open for all Councillors and MRC representatives to contribute. The meeting shall be minuted.

DIVISION

Cr Penhalluriack called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR AGAINST

Cr Penhalluriack Cr Pilling

Cr Forge Cr Tang

Cr Magee Cr Esakoff

Cr Lobo Cr Lipshutz

Cr Hyams

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That Council authorize Andrew Newton, Chief Executive Officer, Cr Margaret Esakoff, Mayor, Cr Michael Lipshutz, Chair of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee and Cr Jim Magee, member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, to meet with representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to put Council’s position in relation to the improvements to the centre of the Racecourse, after which they will report back to Councillors promptly and in detail. Any decisions would be made by Council resolution.

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED.

July 22, 2012

Between A Rock & A Hard Place

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

In allowing officers to exercise full control over sensitive and community oriented issues such as sporting ground allocations, councillors have now found themselves literally between a rock and a hard place – do they support the community or the questionable decision making capacity of officers under delegation? First there was, and continues to be, the farce of the GESAC basketball allocations which resulted in ratepayer funds being wasted on legal advice upon legal advice, and the issue dragging on for 6 months or so. Now we have another instance of dictatorial decision making by the Sports Department (Linda Smith and her master Paul Burke) in their refusal to allow the Ajax footy club to hold a community event to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the junior footy club on September 1^st.

The outcome is a lengthy so called ‘report’ appearing in this week’s agenda. Once again, it does not bear any officer’s name and basically seeks to justify the decision to deny Ajax the opportunity to celebrate this anniversary via dissembling, half truths and selective publication of correspondence. We’ve uploaded the report for all to read.

A few salient points need to be made regarding this ‘report’.

Much is made of seasonal allocation to sporting clubs and the need to submit an expression of interest each year for ground allocations. We question the mentality and efficacy of such a system. Surely all sporting clubs need more than a year’s notice to ensure the growth of their clubs and to facilitate proper planning? Contracts are surely written with caveats that would allow the suspension of leases because of anti-social behaviour so this shouldn’t be an issue?
Allegations were made at last council meeting that grounds are not for sale to the ‘highest bidder’. Ajax is now accused of entering into a private arrangement with the Caulfield Bears for a ground swap and a financial ‘incentive’ to improve the pavilion facilities. The report states that this disadvantages other clubs and that all pavilion redevelopments are funded by Council. Funnily enough, Council did not seem to have any problems in accepting close to $1,000,000 from Maccabi in order to allow this group to build the Leo Haskin Tennis Pavilion and associated courts. In fact, Maccabi proudly writes –

“Maccabi Victoria Sports Foundation oversaw the fundraising, planning and construction of the Leon Haskin Tennis Centre which opened in February 2008. This state-of-the-art home for the Maccabi Tennis Club features eight Plexicushion courts, a Pavilion and Club Room, providing a fantastic venue which will be a magnet for Jewish tennis players, and will serve the wider Maccabi community and the local community for many years.”

http://www.maccabi.com.au/VIC/Page/259/Sports-and-Social-Facilities.cfm

The report also goes to great lengths to drag up ancient history on the Caulfield Bears – going as far back as 1999. Apart from being totally irrelevant to what is happening today with this club, and the issue of a community event for one, single day, we just have to wonder: if the club has really been as bad as all this, then why has their tenancy been renewed year after year? Why haven’t they simply been chucked out?

There’s much more that could be said about this report. At the heart of this issue is the question of control. What stands out clearly is that the biggest crime committed by Ajax and the Caulfield Bears is the fact that they got together and worked out a mutually beneficial agreement to the exclusion of the power brokers. God forbid that clubs should be talking to each other and actually sidelining the bureaucrats. That is the ultimate threat to their power base.

We end with this letter received from Ajax which logically and sensibly reveals how slanted and totally irrelevant the officer’s report really is. Councillors, through their temerity and continued blind support of officers, show again and again how they fail to represent their constituents.

“Dear Councillors,

I have read the report supplied by the Council Officers in response to a previous request from an earlier Council Meeting.

Council at its last meeting was considering the reasons for rejection of the request for a Community Day-and the fact that those reasons were not relevant to the actual request for a one day use/hire of a public facility.(Paul Burke’s letter of 27/6/2012)

The Council then requested a report on:

1. The activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

I wish to make the following comments , so that you all have the opportunity to consider both sides, before you make an informed decision whether to allow the AJAX Football Club’s request or reject it.

I will restrict my comments to the only relevant matter- Ajax Football Club’s request to hold a Community Day,at Princes Park, including 2 games of VAFA senior AJAX football to celebrate the 40 years of the existence of the AJAX jnr Football Club, which is a tenant at that facility.

The Officers’ report begins with comments about the facilities at Princes Park-and elsewhere.ie the general aspects of open public space within the Glen Eira Municipality.

We agree that the upgrade of facilities at Princes Park are fantastic, and were done to allow football to be played there.

The Council’s own web site encourages the use and hiring by the public and sporting clubs, of Council-owned Public open spaces and parks-including Princes Park.

Local Parks

No matter what your age, our parks and reserves have something for everyone.

There are plenty of reasons to be out in one of the 67 parks in the municipality — from wide open spaces to shady hollows and playgrounds of all shapes and sizes to attract the young to barbecues that provide a meeting point for families and walking tracks for the more energetic.

Enjoy the flowers, marvel over the exotic trees, relax in a delightful rotunda or simply enjoy the fresh air.

With so much on offer, the recreation opportunities in Glen Eira are almost limitless. Take a look at these great parks and reserves.

The fact that the applicant is a tenant at Albert Park is irrelevant to the request to use/hire Princes Park for one day.Glen Eira Council allow anyone to hire public facilities. (our emphases)

The report then refers to an Agreement between Caulfield Bears and AJAX and then spends several pages on Caulfield Bears/Koornang Park/liquor licences etc etc

There is a financial agreement between two football clubs One is the Ajax Senior Football Club Inc (“Ajax Seniors”). It has ground allocations at Albert Park, owned by the State Government, and located within the municipality of Port Phillip ……………………………

The agreement would appear to constitute a contingent liability on the part of one club and a contingent asset on the part of the other club and would need to be reflected in the clubs’ financial statements from the time that the agreement came into effect.

There are several other comments made in the report about the Agreement.But Council Officers have not seen the Agreement and it has nothing to do with the request to have a Community Day on 1/9/2012.There is no “contingent asset nor liability” and it is in fact totally irrelevant to the issue currently at hand for Councillors consideration and determination. (our emphases)

The Officers make many implications and assertions that are wrong and irrelevant about the Agreement.The Officers admit they have never seen the said Agreement.So it is wrong for Officers to make comments about an Agreement that :

1-they have not seen

2-that is irrelevant to the request for senior footy to be played on 1/9/2012.

It is critical that Council only considers the relevant matters as regards to 1/9/2012 and a Community Day with senior footy on Princes Park-on one day.Nothing else is at all relevant.Any Agreement between 3rd parties that do not concern Council I believe should not be raised at all nor considered.The officers’ report finally correctly states that the Agreement has no effect on Council processes and decisions.So why is it raised at all? (our emphases)

Princes Park is owned and controlled by Glen Eira Council for the general public.This Community Day request is not about seasonal ground allocations-this request is to have a one day community event to celebrate the 40 year anniversary of the AJAX junior football club, which is in fact a tenant of the Glen Eira Council at Princes Park.The AJAX junior players would have the best possible opportunity to see their senior teams play competitive footy at their own “home” ground on a Saturday, and they could aspire to play for that same club in future years.It is policy of Council to support and encourage junior and senior teams where possible to play from same ground to encourage that pathway.

The report rightly concludes:

5. Recommendations

That Council note that a financial agreement between a Glen Eira based club and a non-Glen Eira based club has not had any effect on Council’s systems of allocation of grounds or improvements to pavilions

So the Agreement does not effect Council’s allocations, systems and decisions.So the Agreement should be totally ignored.

In fact the report clearly does not set out ANY…..

……. activities or functions that may be displaced by a Community Day, including senior football, being held at Princes Park on September 1,2012

There are no activities nor functions displaced by the AJAX Football Club Community day on 1/9/2012 at Princes Park.The Council officers’ own report clearly answers the specific request by Councillors from the previous Council meeting.There are no reasons to reject the request for a Community Day.

So the request should not be rejected nor denied.In fact it should be actively encouraged and supported by Council.

Hence the only fair and reasonable conclusion is that the request to hold a Community Day on 1/9/2012 including 2 senior AJAX Football Club VAFA games should be allowed as no other Club, activity nor functions is displaced-on that day.In fact the majority of the local community would support and encourage this Community Day. (our emphases)

The fact that the proposed game is currently scheduled at Albert Park is irrelevant . Anyone can hire the open public spaces in Glen Eira.

AJAX jnr. Football Club is a tenant of Princes Park.

AJAX jnr.Football Club is celebrating 40 years since it began.

AJAX Football Club is the only Jewish football club.

A large proportion of rate payers in Glen Eira Municipality are Jewish and keenly follow the AJAX football club where their children, family, friends play footy.

The Jewish Orthodox community could walk to the game on Saturday.They can not do that at Albert Park.

The Council encourages the use and hiring of Public open space by any persons-there are no restrictions on hiring of open space for events and functions.There should be no discrimination.

This would be an event that the Jewish community would fully support.The Councillors would be seen by the voting community in a very positive way as Council would be facilitating the use of a state of the art facility, built and improved at substantial public expense for the specific use-football.

No one else is effected.no other activity or function is displaced.

The South Caulfield Cricket club does not need the centre pitch to Mid-October.There is ample time to have ground ready for the cricket season allocation.

This is a simple and straightforward request to celebrate a milestone event-40th anniversary of a tenanted club- on one day that does not effect anyone else.No one is displaced nor disadvantaged.It would be a great and memorable event for the Glen Eira Council.The Council would be paid for hiring of the facility.

We would ensure the facilities are properly cleaned after the event.

The Council web site sets out the guiding values.

Our Organisation

Our guiding values

Community focused, responsive and inclusive

We work to develop a tolerant and caring community, where everyone can feel they belong and participate in the decision-making that leads to achieving the best possible health, safety and lifestyle options within the City.

Accountable and relevant leadership

We consult, listen, and take note of community views to determine its priorities and needs and then acts through open, transparent processes that are financially and environmentally responsible and sustainable. We constantly work to find innovative ways of providing services measured against recognised benchmarks to improve services and set improved standards that will meet tomorrow’s increasing demands.

Community wellbeing

Glen Eira City Council, with an increasingly diverse community, treats all people with respect and dignity, providing equal access for all to services and resources. We operate to identify gaps and lift standards, currently not being met by other community providers or levels of government, within the constraints of its limited resources.

I hope and expect the Council will agree to approve the request as it would be consistent with, the Report provided by the Council Officers, and with the general policies of Council.

If any of the Councillors would like to meet with me to further discuss any matters about this request I am available to come to Council Chambers at mutually convenient times.

Thank you for taking the time to consider both sides.

Yours sincerely,

July 20, 2012

Unbridled Arrogance!

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

The agenda for next Tuesday night is out. It must go down in history as one of the most arrogant pieces of work ever to issue from this administration. When councillors pass resolutions and these resolutions are not carried out to the letter by council’s employees, then proper governance is truly dead in Glen Eira. Two important officer reports again have no names attached to them (rule by nobody!); specific requests are either overlooked or summarily dismissed in a tone that is condescending and totally unacceptable.

For this post, we will concentrate only one of these instances – the rest will follow once we’ve had time to properly digest the full implications of such arrogance.

At last council meeting, Lobo sent back the officers’ report on his request for the aboriginal flagpole. He specifically asked that the new report include ‘costs’. This second time around there is no ‘report’ as such, but an attachment from an Assembly of Councillors meeting dated the 17^th July. We cite one paragraph from this in its entirety –

“The costs of these three options are not material. The issue is not so much cost but what is appropriate and what the community would prefer? Those are matters for judgement by elected representatives.”

What in effect this is saying is:

We will not answer your question
To hell with your council resolution for answers, and
Logically it is untenable. How can councillors decide on any option without knowing costs?

In the great scheme of things, this issue is trivial, inconsequential, and certainly doesn’t warrant the attention it’s been receiving. However, what it reveals about the workings of this council, its culture and mentality of administrators is priceless. It clearly indicates that for officers they will brook no opposition to their plans – even if that means not fully adhering to council resolutions. Councillors and their requests are mere flies in the ointment.

Over to you councillors. Will you accept this further slap in the face, or assert your legal rights and electoral responsibilities?

July 19, 2012

Just A ‘Little Help From My Friends’

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

This is a contentious post because it asks the most basic questions – how should a council support its residents? What is the best way for a council to ensure that it is protecting the amenity of its residents? How much money should be expended on defending council planning decisions and supporting resident objectors? Is it better for example, to spend half a million dollars on erecting concrete plinth curbing in Caulfield Park, or using this money for expert testimony at VCAT? How much money should a council spend in defending its decisions at VCAT?

Glen Eira spends practically zilch on outside ‘experts’ – except when it suits their agendas! We’ve taken the time to go through various councils’ VCAT appearances and to note how often they employ outside expertise. We draw no conclusions as to outcomes. We’ve simply gone through sequentially 20 decisions for each of Glen Eira, Kingston, and Bayside and ask readers to once again compare how Glen Eira operates, in stark contrast to these other councils. They do not appear to have too many qualms in hiring experts to defend their cases. They spend rate-payers’ money trying to defend council decisions and supporting residents. Glen Eira cannot claim the same.

Below are tables for each council. Please note that the 2 times that Glen Eira hired ‘outsiders’, these cases involved the MRC where council’s lawyer practically did all the work for the MRC, and its ‘valuer’ when a resident objected to increased valuation on their property. All the rest of the time council officers have presented the case. It then becomes highly questionable whether these same officers, who possibly recommended the permits or conditions, can actually then turn around and argue against the original recommendation!

VCAT HEARING	COUNCIL REPRESENTATION
Pascoe v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Younes v Glen Eira	Officer
Baxas v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Imperium Design v Glen Eira C	Officer
Furman Construction (Vic) Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Fredman Malina Planning v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Chipp v Glen Eira CC (Correction)	Officer
Sharp v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Healy & Anor v Glen Eira CC & Anor	Mr I Pridgeon, solicitor, Russell Kennedy
Mokro Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Arch 10 Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Blue Wolf Development Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Glenhawk Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Cullity v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Delanex Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Popov v Glen Eira CC & Ors	Officer
Elfman v Glen Eira CC	Officer
Stanjkiewicz v Glen Eira CC & Ors	Officer
Glavinic v Glen Eira CC	Mr John Kennedy, of Patel Dore Valuers Pty Ltd appeared for the respondent municipality. (Note: this was about a resident contesting Council’s rate valuations!)
Gryngras v Glen Eira CC & Ors	Officer
Homes v Glen EiraCC	Officer
B Central Development Group v Glen Eira CC	Officer
McCabe Architects Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC	Officer

BAYSIDE

APPEAL	REPRESENTATION
Asmar v Bayside	Mr B Mcilrath, Solicitor, of Maddocks
Roach v Bayside	Officer
Premier Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside	Officer
Tan & Anor v Bayside	Officer
Haileybury v Bayside	Mr Jason Kane, Barrister by direct brief.
Hotel Brighton Pty Ltd v Bayside	Ms Kim Piskuric, solicitor, of Maddocks
Baker v Bayside CC	Officer
Diecke v Bayside	Officer
R K Tech Studios v Bayside	Officer
de Silva v Bayside	Officer
Gyopar Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside	Officer
Spernat v Bayside	Mr B McIlrath, Solicitor, Maddocks
Manotti & Ors v Bayside	Officer
RJL Properties Pty Ltd v Bayside	Mr Jason Kane, Barrister by direct brief.
Clarendon Property v Bayside	Mr Jason Kane by direct brief.
Chambolle Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside	Mr J Kane of Counsel by direct brief, and Ms N O’Leary, Statutory Planning Co-ordinator. Evidence was called from Mr B Raworth, Conservation Consultant and Historian of Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd.
Peter Wright & Associates Pty Ltd v Bayside	Mr Darren Wong, Solicitor of of Maddocks.
Nates Adams & Associates Pty Ltd v Bayside	Officer
Foy v Bayside	Mr J Kane, Barrister, Direct Brief
Abdou v Bayside	Mr Jason Kane, barrister, direct brief

KINGSTON

APPEAL	REPRESENTATION
Pace Development Group Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 831	Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.
Takla & Anor v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 820	Officer
Rodlink Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 694	Mr Redmond McNamara, town planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd. Evidence was called from Mr Chris Coath, traffic engineer of GTA Consultants
Transpacific Waste Management Pty Ltd v Kingston CC & Ors	Mr Ragu Appudurai, Solicitor, and Mr Stefan Fiedler, Solicitor, of Russell Kennedy. They called the following witness: Robert Henry Amaral, Geotechnical Engineer
Fastnet Consulting Pty Ltd v Kingston CC (Correction)	Ms. Maggie Ene, Town Planning Consultant, Brown & Tomkinson
Frederick Nudel & Associates v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 611	Officer
Tsganas v Kingston CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 602	Mr R McNamara, Planning Consultant, Hansen Partnership
Camelia Woods Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 551	Mr Cameron Gentle of Hansen Consultants.
Guastella v Kingston CC (Correction) [2009] VCAT 2015	Mr Peter Soding (planner) of Tixxis Pty Ltd
Di Cosmo v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 93	Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner of Hansen Partnership
ARPC Consultants Pty Ltd V Kingston CC & Ors	Mr Gary Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership
Pace Development Group v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 38	Mr Stuart Morris QC, barrister, assisted by Mr J Dabscheck, solicitor, Maddocks He called the following witnesses: Mr Robert McGauran, architect and urban designer, McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd Mr Craig Czarny, urban designer, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Mr Chris Coath, traffic engineer, GTA Consultants
Boxtel Homes Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 3	Mr G Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership.
Boxtel Homes v Kingston CC [2011] VCAT 2208	Mr Gary Wissenden, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.
Rushworth & Ors v Kingston	Officer
Taylors Development v Kingston	Officer
PMC Developments Pty Ltd v Kingston	Ms Fiona Slechten, planning consultant of Brown & Tomkinson Pty Ltd.
Bjbac Pty Ltd v Kingston	Mr Cameron Gentle, town planner, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd
Murray v Kingston	Mr Peter Soding, Town Planner of Tixxis Pty Ltd.
Salemi v Kingston	Mr Redmond McNamara of Hansen Partnership

July 18, 2012

When Minutes Aren’t Minutes!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment

Almost half of the 2010 Municipal Inspector’s report concerned itself with council ‘minutes’. Councillors were cautioned to ensure that an independent minute taker was present at councillor only meetings; that all minutes include resolutions. The drawback was that there was no ‘breach of the Act’ even though minutes were doctored, changed, amended repeatedly.

Two years later, nothing much has improved in this area. If anything it has got worse. Advisory committees now often come under the umbrella of ‘records of assembly’ so all that is legally required is noting those present, the subjects discussed and if there are any conflict of interest declarations. The Pools Steering Committee is the perfect example of this. Even worse is that a perusal of the records of assembly feature numerous ‘amendments’ and the deletion of phrases. The most frequent advocate for this is Hyams. The Sport & Rec meeting of several years ago is clear testimony to how much is censored and left out.

Then there’s the question of consistency of reporting. The Environment Committee has arguably the most ‘extensive’ minutes, although when a community rep on this committee lamented that the minutes needed to be far more expansive, she was told that minutes aren’t Hansard. In contrast, other committee minutes such as the Pools Steering Committee are lucky to consist of 100 words most of the time. There simply is no consistency, no procedures, and no mechanism within Council’s Local Law Meeting Procedures which ensures full transparency and accountability for all meetings.

One way of doing away with this problem of accurate reporting is simply not to hold any committee meetings. The Finance Committee has been allowed to evaporate, as has the Roads Special Committee, the Racecourse Advisory Committee, the Animal Management Committee, and so on and so on. The latter 2 have not met for over a year we believe.

Such is governance in Glen Eira. Secrecy is all and accountability the poor relation. What minutes are published admittedly do not have to be the equivalent of Hansard, but they must be a truthful and accurate account of what went on. We assert that this principle has been flagrantly abused.

Glen Eira Debates