May 22, 2012

Sugar’N’Spice & All Things Nice

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

Tonight’s council meeting was largely a series of self-congratulations on everything from GESAC, to quarterly reports, to VCAT decisions. We will report in detail in the days to come, but these are the ‘highlights’.

  • Burke referred to a ‘joint letter’ signed by 243 residents complaining about the Kooyong Rd/Alma Rd intersection ‘trial’. Strangely enough, every councillor who spoke referred to this as a ‘petition’ – not a ‘joint letter’. Confusion reigns supreme we guess!
  • Several councillors finally admitted that the GESAC basketball courts were currently under-utilised. This was attributed to the fact that the season hadn’t started properly as yet. The question still remains – does this mean that the Warriors are not meeting their end of the bargain and that ratepayers are subsidising this tender? It also begs the question of how long will this subsidy continue and how much revenue is being lost?
  • Since no councillor reads the blog we’re told, it must also be sheer coincidence that Tang picked up on our citing of the VCAT member’s decision regarding Etna St and the fact that State policy over-rides Council policy which refuses to classify Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre
  • Esakoff reported on the MAV conference where she focused on motions that impacted on Glen Eira. Pity that residents were kept in the dark as to council’s position on any of the motions. Surely the decision(s) on Council’s position on each motion weren’t taken in Assembly meetings since that would be illegal, wouldn’t it? Or did Esakoff simply vote on her own accord without consulting other councillors first?
 

May 22, 2012

Newton’s ‘Little Helpers’!

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

The following is taken from #5 of the O’Neill compiled set of allegations. This claimed: “That Councillor Penhalluriack is determined to terminate the employment of the CEO through non-renewal of his contract of employment based on his own personal feelings towards the CEO as opposed to the fulfilment of any KPIs or other objective criteria. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO in his employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.”

Part of the ‘evidence’ includes –

8 Oct 2010

 Councillor Lobo approaches the CEO and   informs him that he and his wife had lunch with Councillor Penhalluriack and   two guests of Councillor Penhalluriack. At that meeting the two guests had   said that Council’s problems were caused by the CEO. Councillor Lobo said   that he had disagreed with this.

9 Oct 2010

 Councillor Lobo later telephone (sic) the CEO on his mobile and   informed he (sic)  that he had forgotten to tell him that   Councillor Penhalluriack in response to a request from Lobo to vote for him   be (sic) Mayor had said: “No” and then ”I will if you get rid of Andrew Newton”.
 

May 20, 2012

GESAC: How Open & Transparent?

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

We’re not accountants. We’re just ordinary citizens looking for answers and wondering why so much secrecy surrounds the financial dealings and details of GESAC. The latest items to raise eyebrows stem from the budget and the lack of detail as to rates and charges.

The Regulations (2004) define the mandatory ‘standard statement of cash flows’ as ‘a statement which shows all cash inflows and cash outflows from all activities of a Council during a financial year’. GESAC is now open. Charges for everything should certainly be known, and known in advance, if an adequate Business Plan exists. Yet GESAC does not feature in the ‘rates and charges’ section of the draft budget. Carnegie Swim Centre does, as does every other ‘service’ – even to the extent of booking rotundas and open space. GESAC, the largest financial unit,  is certainly conspicuous by its absence.

The ‘get out of jail card’ appears to be this vague and repeated paragraph:

“The 2012-2013 budget reflects user fees for GESAC of $6.9m. GESAC will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council”

This is surely an astounding statement for several reasons:

  • It flies in the face of accountability and transparency. With no itemised figures as to income how can anyone determine the veracity of anything? Is $6.9 million simply plucked from the air?
  • It provides carte blanche to officers – again without councillor knowledge as to precise details. Delegating such authority to officers as happened with the basketball allocations is simply another example of why full transparency is required
  • What does this reveal about Business Plans – do they in fact exist?

Our argument is that throughout the entire GESAC saga the public and probably most councillors have been kept in the dark. All we have ever had are vague statements of totals – without detail, without explanation and without real justification. Below are several more statements taken directly from the budget. We ask readers to consider them carefully and to ask themselves, several fundamental questions:

  • Do the figures really add up?
  • How are they derived?
  • Are you be satisfied that this explains fully what is going on with GESAC?

“The Centre is expected to generate income of $7.07m and incur costs of $6.77m. The financial impact of the Centre in 2012-13 is an estimated operating surplus of $297k”.

“The largest additional cost increases (over and above the 2011-12 forecast figures) are as follows:  Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.7m”.

When this Council has basically ensured that the next generation of residents will have a financial millstone around their necks, then it is even more incumbent on them to provide full and transparent financial details. Otherwise residents are fully entitled to believe that secrecy is the means for covering up a gaping black financial hole and that the reported figures belong to the land of fairy tales.

 

May 19, 2012

A Very Expensive Exercise!

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

Lawyer loses bully claim

Steve Butcher

May 19, 2012

A FORMER partner of a big Melbourne law firm has lost her claim for about $2.8 million damages after a judge rejected the claim she had been systematically bullied.

Fiona Brown had alleged a long-time friend and colleague at Maurice Blackburn Cashman had undermined, harassed and humiliated her and that the managing partner did nothing about it.

Ms Brown, a mother of three, who was head of the firm’s family law department, told the County Court she had been unable to work since November 2003 and had suffered psychiatric injury.

She claimed damages for pain and suffering of about $300,000 and total pecuniary loss damages of about $2.5 million.

But, in his decision yesterday, Judge John Carmody found she had not established that Lee Formica had ”unjustifiably abused, belittled, humiliated, threatened, undermined or bullied” Ms Brown in 2003.

Judge Carmody also rejected ”any suggestion” the evidence supported the allegation of conspiracy between Ms Formica and the managing partner, Michael Brett-Young.

Ms Brown recruited Ms Formica in 2000 and she was made acting head while Ms Brown was on maternity leave.

Judge Carmody concluded from an exchange of emails and evidence given by the ”protagonists” that each was under considerable personal and professional pressure.

They had exchanged ”regrettable” emails, but he did not accept that a reasonable person would classify them as communications that would victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten Ms Brown, he said.

A later exchange of emails and related conversations he regarded as a ”classic storm in a teacup”.

Judge Carmody concluded, after examination of extensive medical opinion, that Ms Brown ”is suffering from significant depression with associated anxiety features”.

He did not find she had tried to ”deliberately mislead” the court but that at times her evidence was exaggerated and at others she ”downplayed the significance of events”.

”In short, [she] had focused completely all of her difficulties on what she perceived to be the injustice meted out to her whilst being employed at the defendant’s law firm,” he said.

He ordered costs, likely to run into six figures, against Ms Brown.

Her solicitor later told The Saturday Age they were reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyer-loses-bully-claim-20120518-1yw4q.html#ixzz1vGX1t02F

 

May 18, 2012

Keeping The Bastards Honest!

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

Despite all the protestations that no-one at Council follows Glen Eira Debates it is amazing how often our posts have engendered some kind of verbal ‘feedback’ to our criticisms in actual council meetings. Words have also, at times, given way to real action. The latest example features in the agenda items for next Tuesday night.

We recently pointed out how the ‘measures’ included in the Council Plan for the past 4 years have NEVER been implemented as required. Whilst the measures promised to report on the NUMBERS of permits granted for Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas, this was never done. Instead there was the wonderful waffle of vague percentages. Well, we are very pleased to report that for the very first time that we are aware of, the Quarterly Report in relation to this objective actually does what is supposed to be done ie. “247 dwellings approved in minimal change area and 628 in housing diversity to the end of March (figures updated quarterly)”. This stands in contrast to the nonsense that was previously stated – ie. ‘75% of dwellings approved occurred in housing diversity area’. For this belated ‘improvement’, we unashamedly take some credit.

We haven’t been all that successful when it comes to delegations. The same old ceding of power to unelected officials continues unabated. We simply repeat here something that we wrote a year ago –

“We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin,   Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have  a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such  committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that      agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide  ‘advice’. This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen      Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report      which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We   doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to  the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

There are many other differences as well –

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip).”

Nothing like this of course, happens in Glen Eira

Item 9.1: GESAC

This report bears Newton’s name. We simply marvel at the sheer audacity of the following sentence and what it could possibly imply about the intelligence of residents?

“Government grants constituted 35% of the construction contract. Glen Eira ratepayers enjoy 100% of the facility after contributing 65% of the cost.”

Surely the ‘cost’ must include $2.5 million per year in interest for the next 10 or 15 years, plus running and maintainence costs; plus staff costs; plus insurance costs; plus setting up costs; plus lost income costs; plus tendering costs; plus more car park costs; plus road changes, traffic light installation costs; plus power supply costs. At a rough estimate just on interest alone the alleged $45-47 million project balloons out to between $70 – 80 million dollars. Does this then equal ‘65% of the cost’ or are residents just being fed more and more spin?

 

PS: CORRECTION. We’ve double checked the Quarterly Reports and despite the long standing requirement to report NUMBERS for dwellings in Minimal Change/Housing Diversity this did not happen until the Quarterly Report of November, 2011.

 

May 17, 2012

Good Or Bad?

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

Announcement from the Local Govt Minister –

Administration to continue at Brimbank City Council

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Victorian Government will introduce legislation next week to extend the Administration of the Brimbank City Council through until March 2015.

The decision to extend the period of Administration was recommended by two independent reports, has considerable community support and will help to ensure a return to stable, effective representative government at Brimbank City Council.

“The weight of advice provided by independent reports was such that the best course of action was to maintain Administration while work was finalised,” Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said.

“Both reports identified that the premature return to an elected council carries the very real risk of a return to the discredited and damaging practices of the past and the derailing of numerous important projects commenced under Administration.

“Subject to the passage of the legislation a rotation and refocusing will occur amongst the team of administrators at Brimbank.

“Jo Anderson and Meredith Sussex will step down at the end of October this year, roughly in line with the general Local Council elections.

“Peter Lewinsky will relinquish his role as Chief Administrator but remain a member of the Administration team.

“It is important to put on the record my personal thanks to the current Administrators for the outstanding job they have done at the council and acknowledge the role the former Minister Richard Wynne played in the decision to appoint them.

“The community of Brimbank have been fortunate to have the skills and dedication of Jo and Meredith working for them during this difficult period,” Mrs Powell said.

“The final phase of administration will feature a comprehensive community engagement strategy to prepare for the return of an elected council.

“I have asked the current Chair Peter Lewinsky to stay on as an administrator, thereby giving the team important continuity.

“John Watson, the current Executive Director of Local Government Victoria, will retire in October and will then assume the role of Chief Administrator at Brimbank.

“John Watson is highly respected for his skills and abilities throughout the sector and by both sides of politics.

“Upon learning of his intention to retire from LGV, I asked him to take on the role of Chair of the Brimbank Administrators.

“I can think of no-one better qualified to build on the work of the current Administrators and prepare the council for elections in March 2015,” Mrs Powell said.

The third administrator’s position will go to an individual with strong qualifications in community engagement.

 

 

May 17, 2012

Sound Familiar?

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

Doyle in heated  row with councillor

Miki Perkins
May 17, 2012

Jackie Watts with Robert DoyleJackie Watts with Robert Doyle Photo: Teagan Glenane

ACCUSATIONS of  bullying  have surfaced at Melbourne City Council in a   series of fiery letters between lord mayor Robert Doyle and a  councillor.

Cr Jackie Watts, who joined the council last July, says Cr Doyle may be   engaging in ”harassment and bullying” against her and accuses him of  failing  to understand ”the basic principles of natural justice”

The spat was triggered by a letter from Cr Doyle’s office to Cr Watts  this  month, telling her he had  investigated a complaint about her by  the council’s  chief executive, Kathy Alexander.

In his letter, Cr Doyle  said he had decided not to proceed with a  formal  investigation.   But he noted the concerns were serious enough  that Cr Watts  could  be reported to either the Ombudsman or WorkSafe –  ”possibly citing  harassment or bullying”.

”The principal reason I have decided not to take a formal investigation   path is that the CEO has informed me that since her original complaint  to me,  your behaviour has changed radically and diametrically,” Cr  Doyle wrote.  He  said he was ”loathe” to take the matter to a conduct  panel or  investigation  by the chief municipal officer. ”Such public  processes can do no good to the  reputation of anyone involved,  especially yourself.

”I recognise that given your previous patterns of behaviour, you will  most  likely respond to this (final) email with a further series of  accusations,  interpretations and justifications … I will ignore it,”  the lord mayor  wrote.

Cr Watts responded this week, sending a copy of Cr Doyle’s letter and  her  response to   councillors, saying she was doing so in the interests  of  ”transparency and disclosure” and pointing out the lord mayor and  CEO had  decided not to pursue the matter.

In her response to Cr Doyle, she said his letter and earlier  correspondence  may ”constitute a course of harassment and bullying  conducted by you against  me … Having had the opportunity … to consider  your actions and demeanour  towards me it has become very clear to me  that you have no understanding or  appreciation of even the basic  principles of natural justice,” Cr Watts  wrote.

”It is evident from the tenor and content of your correspondence that  you  pre-judged the issues, to what purpose I do not know.”

A Carlton resident, Labor Party member and former community activist,  Cr  Watts has been vocal on accountability issues, moving  unsuccessful  motions  about the use of confidential items on the council agenda and overhauling   electoral policies.

Last night Cr Doyle said he believed  the matter  should have been dealt   with through internal council processes. ”It is not my job to be judge  or jury  or arbitrator or mediator … It is my job to try to resolve it  in the first  instance,” Cr Doyle said.

Cr Watts told The Age: ”It’s a sad situation where a  councillor  attempting to conduct inquiries in response to constituent  concerns encounters  such efforts to suppress them.” Ms  Alexander was  not available for  comment.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doyle-in-heated-row-with-councillor-20120516-1yrdz.html#ixzz1v5CDoNEW

 

May 16, 2012

Can We Trust Them?

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

Every year at budget time the spin doctors at Glen Eira trumpet how low their rates are in comparison to benchmark councils. We’re also informed as to how generous Glen Eira is in terms of Pensioner Rebates. Neat little graphs are included in the budget papers that purport to prove these claims. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that these tables do not represent reality. In short, the figures are manipulated, or simply, wrong. Whether this is deliberate, or another ‘clerical error’ we leave to the reader’s judgement.

The table below is an edited version of what appears on page 6 of the current draft budget – “Council Advertised Draft Budget 2001- 2012”. We’ve copied the relevant figures only.

Description

 Glen Eira

Stonnington

Port   Phillip

Bayside

Kingston

Monash

Boroondara

Yarra
Rate Increase 2011/12

6.5%

 5.10% 7.44% 6.4% 6.69% 7.4% 6.00%

4.9%
Council Pensioner Rebate

$270

 $193 $290 $193 $273 $243 $193

$323

 

Our concern is that many of these figures are incorrect AND that when it comes to providing the figures for Glen Eira the TOTAL increase is only calculated on the rate increase and does not include the charges increase. Last year’s total rate increase would have been closer to 7.5% than the 6% ultimately voted on had garbage and other increases been included in the publicised figures. Yet, when presenting data from other councils, this appears to have been added into the total. We are thus comparing apples with oranges – to the advantage of Glen Eira of course!

Hence, we believe that these figures present a totally distorted version of reality. Here is our evidence, cited directly from some of these council’s publications for last year.

  • Stonnington we’re told has a rate increase of 5.10%. Their budget however states: – “In the2011/2012 financial year the increase in general rate is 4.2 percent and garbage charges is 6.0 percent”
  • Port Phillip – The Budget proposes an increase of 7.32% ($6.037 million) in rates revenue for the 2011/2012 year.This increase comprises two components, price (6.50%) which represents the increase in the rate in the dollar and volume (0.94%) which represents new properties or assessments that were created during 2010/2011. This has been partially reduced by the increase of $90K in the pensioner rate rebate of (0.12%)”.
  • Bayside tells us: “The rates and charges increase of 5.9percent for the 2011/12….”
  • Kingston’s media release says – “The Draft Budget proposes a modest 4.95% rate rise which is one of the lowest in Melbourne’s south eastern region. Residents will also be asked to pay a separate additional 1.09% for an increase in rubbish going to landfills and the State Government’s landfill levy. (http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=2894)
  • Monash is more expansive – “To achieve the goals for maintenance and renewal of the City‟s infrastructure, as well as ensure the continued high levels of service delivery and response to external cost pressures, the SRP reflects a rate increase of 6% in 2011/12. In addition it is expected that $800K of supplementary rates from new developments will be collected. As some Statutory Fees set by other tiers of Government have not increased, or have increased by less than 3%, this has required Council to increase some fees and charges by greater than 4% to overcome the shortfall”.
  • Boroondara’s figures are: “The rate rise of 5% is a reduction on last year’s 5.25% and below the average for other Victorian councils “ http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/council-adopts-budget-council-

But the story doesn’t end there. When we look at Council Pensioner Rebates, Glen Eira can’t even get these figures right. Here’s Port Phillip’s figures for an example – “Council offers a pensioner rate rebate of $136.00 in addition to the current State Government rebate of $193.40.” That’s $329.40 and not the $290 claimed by Glen Eira.

CONCLUSION

Council is obviously free to manipulate figures any way it likes. However, it is surely incumbent upon them to ensure that comparisons are made on a ‘level playing field’ so that residents receive an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Whether these examples indicate a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, or reveal again simple incompetence, is for readers to judge.

 

May 16, 2012

Appeal Rights – Going, Going,….Gone?

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

State moves to  reduce building appeal rights

Jason Dowling
May 16, 2012

AN OVERHAUL of Victoria’s planning laws will begin next week when Planning  Minister Matthew Guy introduces legislation that could mean up to 11,000  building permits being assessed annually without the current notification to  neighbours or appeal rights. The government said the changes would apply to  ”small-scale, low-impact applications such as home extensions and small works  such as fences”.

But a detailed ministerial advisory report released last Friday indicates the  new system would also be used for new buildings and subdivisions.

Council and community groups say the public is being kept in the dark on the  extent of the planning changes, known as ”code assess”, including what rights  of appeal will remain and if residents will be notified if next door decides to  add a second storey.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the changes were code for  ”unchecked development in our suburbs”. ”It will strip away a person’s fundamental right to say no to inappropriate  development,” he warned.

Mr Guy told a parliamentary committee yesterday the planning changes would be  for ”small” building applications.

”Where we have those small-scale low-impact applications, that’s where I see  in residential areas a code assessment model brought forward and that may be for  a pergola [or] home extension,” he said. ”Home extensions constitute around 20  per cent of the 55,000 permits that go through the planning system every year,”  he said.

Mr Guy said most people did not care if they had no say over their neighbour  renovating.

”The vast majority of Victorians want to have a say on planning, not around  someone’s pergola or home extension. It is whether an eight-storey building can  be built next to them, for instance,” he said.

The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said  the planning changes should include the fast-tracking of multi-unit  developments. ”We would ask that the whole system looks at multiple storeys,”  she said. ”If we are just going to play around at the sides then we are not  going to improve the system.”

But Ian Wood from Save Our Suburbs said there had not been enough community  consultation about the planning changes. He said giving the community  notification and appeal rights on planning ”leads to better planning outcomes  and more accountability”.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said the government  should make clear the planning changes before they were introduced to  Parliament.

RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton said the government’s planning review was  a missed opportunity.

”For example, one way to reduce work loads [of councils] is to introduce  mandatory height controls in various areas so developers know that here we can  build a 30-storey tower, there we can build a seven and there it is only two,  and that would reduce the workload for councils overnight, that kind of  certainty,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said while  councils  welcomed planning changes to reduce red tape, they would not support  the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-moves-to-reduce-building-appeal-rights-20120515-1yp4b.html#ixzz1uzIEltCt

 

May 15, 2012

More Smoke & Mirrors: Booran Rd Reservoir

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

The so called ‘consultation’ announcement went up on council’s website today together with the usual indecipherable ‘design’. What’s remarkable about this announcement is:

  • The 2012/13 budget does not assign any funding to this project until years down the track – ie “$4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019”.
  • Why then is public consultation being held now – 5 years at least before anything will be done?

Here is our interpretation of these events. You have a mock consultation and get council to ratify one particular (predetermined?) plan. It is then set in concrete regardless of the fact that a new council will be coming in next year which may have a different vision. The argument of course will be –“oh we’ve already got a master plan and spent so much money on this that we can’t really change things now”. This is typical administration tactics that we observe time and time again. The identical thing happened with the Caulfield Park Pavilion and Princes Park. Master plans sit there for at least a decade before anything happens.

Please note: we do not object to master plans per se. But when funding is not available for another 5 years at least, and this council is facing a major cash crisis, why has at least $60,000 (according to last year’s budget) been spent on a design that simply might be ‘old hat’ in 5 years time? What, after all, is the rush for a decision now when the money is simply not available? Why can’t the new council make such an important decision? Or is this just another means of hog-tying any recalcitrant new councillor?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »