June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

  • Lipshutz and Forge were absent
  • The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
  • Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
  • Lobo did not utter a word
  • Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
  • Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the  lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’.  ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being  paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

 

June 26, 2012

Here We Go Again!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

The fun and games are back on with this typically buried announcement on Council’s website. It reads under the heading of Special Committee Meetings:

“Notice is given of two meetings of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee to be held at 7pm on 10 July 2012 and 7pm on 31 July 2012 in the Council Chamber Glen Eira Town Hall. The meetings are expected to be closed to the public.”

Questions that immediately spring to mind are:

  • Will Penhalluriack still be excluded from this ‘committee’? If so, then what is the justification for this discrimination since the contract negotiations are now past with Newton’s re-appointment?
  • What are these meetings about, and why the need for two of them? If it’s about the contract then that needs to be made clear. If it’s about performance appraisal then this is indeed strange since Newton’s term only began in April 2012 and basically only one performance appraisal per year is recommended by the government.
  • Secrecy remains in the way this council operates and in its total failure to be upfront about anything it does. If it wasn’t this advertisement would be in plain view on the home page for all to see. We at least congratulate council on its consistency!
 

June 25, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Traffic

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

We’ve repeatedly stated that where there’s a will, there’s a way. This is abundantly clear when it comes to traffic management, road safety, and parking innovation. Glen Eira’s approach has been, and remains, ad hoc and ineffective. We present below how other councils approach these issues and how they actually PLAN, fund, and develop strategies to deal with 21st century dilemmas. We ask readers to compare this approach to what our administrators and councillors come up with.

Such comparisons are even more important given that today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly features a news clip stating that Council is ‘advocating’ to the State Government for action on Carnegie Station since “long delays and associated traffic congestion may hamper a retail development being built north of the line.”!!!! Good to see that Council has its priorities right! More to the point, this identical “advocacy” features on Council’s homepage which hasn’t been updated since October 2008!

In stark contrast we present two documents: a Media Release and a Municipal Parking Strategy (uploaded here) from Moonee Valley Council.

Media Release

Wednesday, 16 May 2012 

Plan in place to review traffic and parking around the city

Last night, Moonee Valley Councillors adopted a long term plan to review and improve parking across the municipality.

The plan involves dividing the municipality up into 22 Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) precincts and rolling out a timeline of scheduled reviews for each one.

Moonee Valley Mayor Cr Jim Cusack said the LATM precincts were identified a few years ago.“Last year we incorporated them into our new Municipal Parking Strategy,” Cr Cusack said. “The Municipal Parking Strategy (MPS) adopted late last year provides a set of tools to effectively manage traffic and parking around the city now and in the future.

“The inclusion of the LATM precincts in the MPS will allow Council to develop a more strategic and proactive approach to managing traffic and parking in Moonee Valley.“Council is taking a local area approach when it comes to traffic and parking in order to help coordinate and integrate parking initiatives around the city.

“The use of LATM precincts allows Council to address specific neighbourhood needs, whilst keeping an eye on the wider parking and traffic trends and issues across the municipality such as through traffic. It also enables Council to have a systematic approach to particular traffic and parking challenges such as school zones, encourage parking demand to be spread throughout an area and plan for capital works associated with traffic and parking improvements more strategically.”

“Moonee Valley is a city in transition. As Melbourne grows, our population continues to increase and the level of usage of our road network changes. We want to meet local needs and also take into consideration the wider community and help our residents, workers and visitors move towards more sustainable travel practices.”

Portfolio holder for Traffic and Transportation Planning Cr Narelle Sharpe said Council decided to review two LATM precincts per financial year.“The review of each LATM precinct is a lengthy process as it entails traffic and parking analysis as well as consultation with the local community,” said Cr Sharpe. “With 22 LATM precincts, we needed a set of criteria to help us prioritise the review and implementation program of each area.

“The ranking system we adopted reflects our focus on safety. It is based on numerous criteria ranging from resident and community concerns, traffic volumes, traffic speed and accidents, to more proactive criteria such as the number of activity centres and number of facilities that generate a lot of pedestrian and car traffic like railway stations, schools and community centres.

“To ensure the ranking is fair, we adopted a weighting system so that LATM precincts with a larger number of streets are not artificially advantaged.

“The Fletcher and Newmarket LATM precincts were identified as the highest priority precincts and therefore will be the ones Council will review first.

“Traffic management projects have already been developed for the 2012/13 financial year and we will work towards completing these as soon as the budget is finalised and approved.”

A map of the LATM precincts as well as details of the criteria used, the weighting system and scores of each Precinct are available on request.”

 

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

 

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

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

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

  • These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
  • There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’  “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah!  Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors.  All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

 

June 21, 2012

The Stats: Cars & Dwellings

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has started releasing its data from the last census. Many residents, and a few councillors, have stated that they would prefer to wait for all the figures to come out BEFORE a Community Plan is ratified. The reasoning is clear. Unless we know hwo many people, how many cars, how many dwellings, how many aged, etc. planning can be hit and miss.

We present below two sets of figures:

1. The number of dwellings and their composition (ie family, lone person households) as well as the structure of these dwellings.

2. The number of cars per family/dwelling

Both sets of figures provide some startling results. For example: lone person and single parent households represent nearly a third of all Glen Eira residents making this an extremely high proportion who will be hit the hardest by continual rate rises. Then there are the number of cars per family/dwelling. Again, if anyone wanted ‘evidence’ as to our reliance on the motor car, then it is here in spades. Yet, the question needs to be asked: what is council doing about traffic management, pedestrian safety, bike safety, etc. etc.

Please have a look at the tables and offer your thoughts. Click on the tables themselves to enlarge.

 

June 21, 2012

Hansard: More ‘Window Dressing’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

20th June -Second reading: Jeanette Powell

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) —

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 will make a variety of amendments to local government legislation to improve the operation of councils. It includes amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Amendments to the Local Government Act will improve the conduct of council meetings and clarify decision-making processes. This includes inserting a clear statement in the Local Government Act about the way council decisions may be made. Council decisions may only be made in a properly constituted council meeting or, if council has delegated its decision-making power to a committee or officer, by that committee or officer.

A council decision must not be made in an assembly of councillors, such as in an advisory committee or in a councillor briefing.

The bill will remove an unenforceable provision that makes it compulsory for all councillors in a council meeting to vote. This will be replaced by a provision specifying that a majority of the councillors in the meeting must vote in favour of a motion before the motion can pass. This will allow a councillor to abstain from voting in a meeting, but the abstention will not alter the number of votes required for the motion to pass.

A councillor who has left the meeting because of a conflict of interest, or who is otherwise absent, is not counted as either having voted or as an abstention for the purpose of this provision.

The bill also includes some specific procedural improvements for conflicts of interest. These include allowing a councillor with conflicts of interest in sequential items before council to make all his or her disclosures before the first item, rather than having to re-enter the meeting to disclose for each one. A councillor who has a conflict of interest in an item in the council plan will be able to vote on the final council plan if, and only if, council has previously voted to include that item in the plan and the councillor disclosed the conflict of interest when the previous vote was taken. It is important that all councillors are able to participate in approving the council plan.

Some amendments deal with processes to be followed when dealing with alleged misconduct. New provisions will allow the appointment of a probity auditor, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development.

A probity auditor may only be requested by a chief executive officer or a mayor. A council does not require the ability to request a probity auditor, as it has the power to appoint a probity auditor at its own discretion. The role of a probity auditor would be to monitor internal council processes where there has been a formal complaint of bullying, victimisation or harassment against the chief executive officer. The probity auditor may also provide advice to the council.

A probity auditor’s area of interest will be limited to council processes in relation to the complaint. He or she will not deal with the substance of the complaint, which will continue to be subject to any relevant judicial, administrative or contractual arrangements. At the conclusion of an audit, the probity auditor will provide a report to the council, the mayor, the chief executive officer and the secretary.

In regard to councillor conduct matters, an amendment to the VCAT act will help clarify some issues in councillor conduct hearings. An existing provision, which requires the council to pay the costs of individual councillors in a VCAT hearing, will be limited to situations where the council is the applicant in VCAT or where the council voluntarily becomes a party to the matter.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove a possible inducement for individual councillors to apply for their councillor conduct panel matter to be referred to VCAT so that council will have to pay their legal costs. It will retain the protection for an individual councillor when the council has initiated action against him or her in VCAT.

The members of a councillor conduct panel are required to be parties to any application to VCAT when there has been an application for a review of the panel decision. The bill will extend the term of office of panel members to the end of any such VCAT hearing. This is to ensure that panel members continue to be subject to immunity under the Local Government Act and they continue to be paid by the council.

A significant amendment in the bill will require each chief executive officer to publish a summary of election campaign donations, disclosed by candidates in the council’s elections, on the council’s website. This will include the name of each donor and the value of the donations made by each donor. The bill will remove a provision making it an offence to defame a candidate in a council election. This is an inappropriate and ineffective provision. Defamation is treated as a civil matter in state and federal elections and should be the same in local government elections.

The bill will alter the meeting requirements for regional library boards. Currently regional library boards must comply with meeting requirements that apply to councils, which imposes some unnecessary burdens. The bill will allow members of a library board to attend meetings by electronic means, subject to approval of its local law by the member councils.

Significant reforms are proposed to legislation relating to the levying of differential rates. This is in response to a recent trend for councils to use differential rates in ways that discriminate against particular industries or businesses by imposing artificially high rates on them. The bill includes a head of power for the minister to issue guidelines on the appropriate uses of differential rates. Councils will be required to have regard to the guidelines when setting differential rates. If the minister considers that the imposition of a differential rate will be inconsistent with the guidelines, he or she will be able to seek an order in council to prevent the levying of a differential rate in respect of the particular type or class of land. The bill will require councils to publish details of  differential rates on the internet as well as increasing, from 30 to 60 days, the time allowed for a person to seek a review in VCAT about the way their land has been classified for differential rating.

An amendment is also proposed to the way penalty interest is calculated on unpaid rates and charges. In future, penalty interest will only be payable from the date when each quarterly instalment is due. This will apply even when a council allows payment in a lump sum. If a lump sum is not paid on time, penalty interest will be calculated as if the rates were being paid in instalments.

The bill includes a number of administrative changes. Members of council audit committees, who can have access to confidential and sensitive information, will be required to lodge regular returns in which they disclose their interests. An obsolete provision, preserving long service leave rights in a way that is inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, will be repealed.

Provisions allowing councils to dispose of unregistered and abandoned vehicles will be amended to mirror provisions in the Road Management Act 2004, applying to VicRoads. This will include having to take reasonable steps to notify a vehicle’s owner before disposing of the vehicle.

As titled, this bill will make a number of miscellaneous amendments to local government legislation. Some of these amendments are quite significant and the bill will substantially improve the administration of local government in Victoria.

I commend the bill to the house.

 

June 20, 2012

Local Government Act

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Today’s Media Release from the Minister for Local Government –

Improving the Local Government Act

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell has today introduced the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 into State Parliament.

The Bill amends the Local Government Act (the Act) to correct a number of shortcomings in the legislation and provide better governance for local government.

The Bill deals with, amongst other things, differential rates, election campaign donations, processes regarding complaints about council Chief Executive Officers and council costs in VCAT hearings into councillor misconduct.

The Victorian Coalition Government will develop guidelines for the appropriate use of differential rates by councils and empower the Minister to seek an Order in Council to stop councils applying differential rates that are inconsistent with the guidelines.

There will be a six month public consultation process regarding the new guidelines before councils determine their budget for 2013.

“There are concerns regarding the growing use of differential rates by councils,” Mrs Powell said.

“”In my view the Act currently provides councils with insufficient guidance regarding the application of a differential rate.

“A significant increase in the use of differential rates by local councils has created a complex web of different rates for similar ratepayers across Victoria.

“There is considerable variation in the application of differential rates between councils with 14 councils levying no differential rate, 39 councils having four or more differential rates and six councils have at least 10.

“Some differential rates are only applied to a small number of properties. 36 councils have differential rates that apply to less than 30 properties.

“The Bill will also improve the public transparency around campaign donations in council elections.

“Candidates are required by law to disclose all election campaign donations, in money or in kind, that are valued at $500 or more.

“In future, each council will be required to publish a list of all donations disclosed by candidates on the council website.

“The Bill also includes amendments to provide for a probity auditor to oversee handling of a complaint about the conduct of a Chief Executive Officer.

“The amendment will give all parties to a complaint confidence that proper processes are being followed by allowing the Mayor or the CEO to ask the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to appoint a probity auditor to monitor the council’s processes.

“The Bill will also reduce the incidence of councils having to pay the legal costs of councillors in VCAT misconduct hearings.

“Under the changes a council will only be liable for a councillors costs when the council is the applicant in VCAT or has requested to become a party.

“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,” Mrs Powell said.

COMMENT

Without seeing the actual draft legislation it is difficult to comment. However, a few initial thoughts:

  • Removing Council’s liability to pay for VCAT cases into councillor conduct issues is fine. However, this would appear to totally ignore the current problems. As it stands, a Councillor Conduct Panel is conducted in secret, behind closed doors. We believe that it must be an open forum so that accountability is achieved.
  • Secondly, Councillor Conduct Panels do not permit the presence of lawyers. They are chaired by Municipal Association Members only. We again think that if someone’s reputation is on the line then they should be entitled to a proper legal defense.
  • Rulings on various matters that are brought to Councillor Conduct Panels should not remain the domain of ex-bureaucrats. Independence is essential, not only to be seen to be independent, but independent in reality . The ‘boys’ club’ of ex ceo’s and high flying bureaucrats is  far too entrenched we believe to leave such matters entirely up to them. Ideally a former judge or magistrate should chair and conduct these investigations.
  • We will have to wait and see exactly what the role and function of a ‘probity’ investigator is defined as. If it relates strictly to financial matters, then again we do not believe this goes far enough. Currently the majority of the LGA focuses on councillors and their responsibilities. Very little is directed towards staff. The Act must be reviewed and residents must have confidence that the exact same legal strictures that apply to councillors, also apply to employees and are spelt out precisely. The latter’s accountability and transparency must become a formal legal requirement.

All in all, we live in the most interesting times !

 

June 19, 2012

Racecourse Machinations: A Little History

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

The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.

We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:

  • On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
  • Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.

What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!

It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.  What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.

WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.

POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.

In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.

It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).

COMMENT

There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!

 

June 19, 2012

C60: Closer & Closer

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[13] Comments 

From today’s Australian Financial Review

John Stensholt

A decision on the winning bid for the $1 billion Caulfield Racecourse re­development in Melbourne will be made by the end of July after the recent shortlisting of three developers vying for the project.

Lend Lease, Mirvac and a joint venture between the private developer Beck Property Group and construction company Probuild have lodged bids and made presentations last week to the Melbourne Racing Club committee.

A decision on the winning bid is expected to be made towards the end of July, with Melbourne Racing Club chief executive Alasdair Robertson telling The Australian Financial Review he hoped to give a recommendation to the committee by July 19 and make a public announcement of the winner shortly afterwards.

Mr Robertson described the quality of the binding proposals lodged by each of the three finalists as “excellent” and said that each will “integrate the racecourse with the surrounding community, which is very important to us”.

The Caulfield Village precinct, one of Melbourne’s largest inner-city residential projects, will be built on a five-hectare carpark adjacent to the historic racecourse.

The planning scheme amendment to allow for the project to go ahead was announced by Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy in June 2011. Mr Guy announced the development would include 1200 dwellings, 10,000 square metres of office space, 15,000 square metres of retail space including a supermarket and about 2000 carparking spaces.

Mr Robertson said the finalists for the project had mostly stuck to the mixed-used plans, though some had allowed for a higher amount of townhouses compared to apartments.

“It’s important that the project is incorporated with the nearby areas and they have done that. There are links to the Monash University campus and the nearby cafe and restaurant precincts and plans for a public art space as well. We’re partners remaining on the site throughout this so it has to be of high quality.”

Mr Robertson said the project will take about 10 years to complete, and construction is likely to begin next year. About 5000 jobs are expected to be created during the building period, which will be completed in three stages.

One precinct will probably contain a new entrance to the racetrack, office, apartments and serviced accommodation units, while a new boulevard with a supermarket, ­dining and specialty shops will provide a link between Station Street to the rail underpass to nearby Caulfield Station. A third sector will house medium-density dwellings.

The racecourse is already undertaking a $1.8 million revamp of its infield which includes barbecue facilities, a children’s playground, fitness area and running track, and a junior football field. Mr Robertson said the facilities would be open to the public on most race days.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »