April 27, 2012

Move Over Sir Humphrey!

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

GESAC

We report that:

  • Once again no Pools Steering Committee report – even though this group are meant to meet every month and keep councillors informed as to progress
  • Of the 5 Records of Assembly (ranging over a month) GESAC is mentioned ONCE!
  • Council is still losing money hand over fist. The Financial Report lists revenue loss as now standing at $1.93 million due to the delay.
  • Also of significance is the nearly $4 million that capital works is behind schedule. Maybe the principle at work here is:  don’t spend what you promised to spend because that would drive the liquidity ratio well below the danger level of 1! Hang on to the money for as long as you can and use this to artificially boost the cash base.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

5 records of assembly are provided. We have to again question the accuracy and/or selective nature of these ‘records’. Lipshutz does not rate a mention once – it’s like he doesn’t exist. Either he is not doing his job by raising issues, or those issues simply aren’t reported. We certainly do not believe that he sits in these meetings totally mute. That then raises the question of how slanted these various records of assembly are.

We’ve gone through these and noted the number of times that individual councillors get a mention (apart from the declarations of interest).  It’s therefore fascinating as to what is put in and what is left out and the bigger question of WHO DECIDES – especially when we’re told that the meeting adjourned and reassembled but only councillors are listed. Does this mean that officers departed? If they didn’t, then why aren’t they listed as present? If they did leave then who took the minutes? Was it an independent note-taker as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?

The individual councillor mentions are:

Penhalluriack – 17

Hyams – 7

Magee – 5

Lobo – 4

Forge – 7

Pilling 1

Tang 3

Esakoff was absent for all meetings; Pilling was absent for 1.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to what this signifies. However, it should raise alarm bells as to the possible distortion(s) that these ‘records’ might represent.

C87

Overall recommendation is to go to a Planning Panel. However, the convoluted logic is worthy of highlighting. Apparently there were 59 submissions. Some favoured the Amendment, others opposed. What is important is that of these 59,

“27 submitters support the intent of the amendment but are “objecting” because their properties have not been included in the amendment”.

Since council did not INVITE comments from the community in preparing this amendment nor determining which areas are worthy of greater protection, they now turn around and argue – “This category of submissions request changes which go beyond the scope of this amendment in the form it was exhibited to the community. Any property that was not included as part of the exhibited amendment cannot now be included in this amendment.”

This somewhat patronising advice is then offered to those 27 submitters – “The suggested way forward for this category of submitters is to encourage them to put their views to the independent panel. The panel may, through their reported recommendations to Council, come to the view that some properties, not currently part of the amendment, are nonetheless worthy of NCO or DDO protection. It would then be open to Council to consider a new amendment process to include these properties.”

In other words, tough luck! We believe that the chances of the Panel investigating something outside their terms of reference is zero! Another Amendment must be devised, advertised, calls for submissions, Ministerial approval, etc. etc. As Hyams is so fond of saying, this could take years!

Our conclusion? Another tinkering with the edges of the planning scheme to deliver pre-determined outcomes that have deliberately excluded consideration of the majority of areas within Glen Eira. This is Sir Humphrey at his absolute best!

MULCH

Finally, there’s the recommendation to re-install the mulch facility exactly where it’s been – Glen Huntly. Residents are expected to believe that there is absolutely no other area within Glen Eira that could accommodate this facility and that relocation would probably cost $3 million!

We’ll comment on this in far greater detail in the days ahead.

 

April 26, 2012

‘Development’ Or More Waste?

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

From Council’s website –

Glen Eira City Council is currently finalising a proposed play space project at Murrumbeena Park on Kangaroo Road.

The proposal sees the removal of the existing playground adjacent to the main sports oval and the creation of a new play space in the eastern side of the park. The design incorporates a number of leading edge components and treatments which will make the playspace a model for future developments.

The design goes beyond any existing playground and merges traditional play equipment with interactive landscaping, family picnic areas, tree plantings and facilities. It provides areas from toddlers to more active adolescents and can be accessed by wheelchairs and prams.

In January, the Victorian Government announced a grant of $258,921 to assist in the construction of the Murrumbeena play space as part of Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program.

The project is listed as an item for consideration as part of Council’s 2012–13 Budget.

An opportunity to view the plans will be available at Murrumbeena Park Pavilion, Kangaroo Road on Thursday 24 May from 6.30pm to7.30pm. This will include a brief presentation by the play space designer and Council officers will be available to clarify any issues and answer any questions.

If you require further information, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or email recservices@gleneira.vic.gov.au

COMMENTS

  • What has happened to ‘community consultation’ re the design? One hour will definitely give residents ample opportunity to view and comment on the design, won’t it? Could it possibly be that after the fiasco of Packer Park the decision was NOT TO ENGAGE with the community and seek feedback?
  • No mention of the $700,000 that will come of ratepayers’ pockets!
  • Why are all designs produced by this council so ‘cartoonish’ and lacking in detail?
  • Risk management would certainly be an issue with this design given that the goal posts sit practically on the edge of the path/play areas. Will this mean that kiddies have to dodge footballs, soccer balls, etc? Or will council suddenly decide that they have to ‘relocate’ the sporting grounds at the cost of mega bucks? Or will we now have a 20 foot wire mesh fence to cordon off the sporting oval from the ‘development’?
  • Why are we spending $1,000,000 when this council has been classified as ‘high risk’ and we are facing a ‘cash crisis’ and a playground is already in existence at the park?


 

 

 

April 26, 2012

Reporting Standards

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

From the Auditor General’s latest report

Performance reporting by councils remains inadequate. It is focused on inputs and operating activities, and offers little insight into the impact of services and the achievement of objectives.

Specifically, a meta-analysis of 16 performance audits identified the recurring themes of:

  • • ineffective planning and budgeting
  • • inadequate implementation of initiatives and adherence to policies and procedures
  • • weak oversight and monitoring of council activities and outcomes
  • • inadequate attention to addressing persistent performance issues.

These recurring issues are, in part, a by-product of a lack of accountability for performance due to weaknesses in performance monitoring and related information. No council had developed a set of indicators that adequately measured the impact of services and achievement of objectives.

Key issues compromising the effectiveness of performance reporting at councils were:

  • • poorly expressed objectives that cannot be effectively measured
  • • indicators that do not comprehensively cover all aspects of councils’ objectives and key strategic activities
  • • indicators that do not provide balanced information about quality, efficiency and outcomes
  • • a lack of adequate policies for performance reporting
  • • limited training for councillors and staff in performance measurement and management.
  • an over-reliance on limited community satisfaction metrics for assessing services, which do not provide a sufficiently comprehensive and balanced view of performance

Effective performance reporting assures councils are accountable to their local residents and ratepayers for these important obligations. It is critical for demonstrating value-for-money, the achievement of objectives, equitable access to services, and that services are appropriate, of good quality, and cost effective. 

Principles of effective local government performance reporting  

Comprehensive

To be comprehensive, indicators should be relevant to council objectives. Objectives should be clearly expressed, measurable, and there should be a clear nexus between objectives and performance indicators. Performance indicators should also cover all critical aspects of objectives and align with services.

Balanced

Performance indicators should cover the time, cost, quantity and quality of service provision, as well as the outcomes of council activity. A single indicator is typically not able to measure each of these aspects, therefore a suite of indicators is usually required to provide balanced performance information.

Appropriate

Performance indicators should be reported with appropriate context to allow community members to interpret results. Targets, trend data and an explanation of the result should be provided to allow members of the community without technical knowledge to draw meaningful conclusions about the performance of council.

…limited improvement was evident in the quality of the performance statements produced by councils, and that non-financial performance indicators are of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents. The report further noted that councils continue to adopt a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to performance information, and that they have yet to fully implement previous audit recommendations or to produce performance reports that drive council outcomes and accountability by being relevant and appropriate to stakeholder needs.

 

April 24, 2012

Glen Eira: A Developer’s Paradise?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

The State Government’s latest report Victoria In Future 2012 has been published. (Uploaded here). The report contains population projections for the next 20 years, however it is important to note that these are ‘estimates’. Hence it will be interesting to compare with the ABS census figures due to come out later this year and their projections.

The figures for Glen Eira (featured on page 10 of the report) are:

  • A population increase of 18,000 people
  • A household increase of 9,500 residences
  • An increase of just under 4% for residents aged over 65
  • Bayside, Kingston, Stonnington, Booroondara, Manningham all have lower projected population figures!

How reliable these figures are remains to be seen of course. What it does indicate is that it is now incumbent on Glen Eira to ensure that its Planning Scheme is totally overhauled to ensure the greatest protection possible for residents.

 

April 23, 2012

GESAC & Residents: The Last To Be Told!

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

After a barrage of questions on the GESAC FACEBOOK page from residents asking for an opening date for this mega complex there has finally appeared some response from Council after nearly a month of total silence.

The straw which may have finally broken the camel’s back was this comment: “Just got a email sayhing sport stadium season starts on may 14th  Does that mean the whole centre is open then? Some communication would be helpful to those juggling memberships etc until you open.”

The answer? –“Planning for opening is well under way with GESAC staff almost complete on pre-opening activities. However, we are still waiting on the builder to provide the official date of handover so that an official opening can be communicated.”

Again we have to lament the lack of proper communication with residents by this Council. As of 5.15pm Monday the 23 April there is no word on council’s GESAC site, nor its website as to what is happening. We also deplore the fact that ostensibly it is only members have been informed via email of a ‘potential’ opening date instead of every single ratepayer in Glen Eira who is funding this centre.

Further criticism should be levelled at the content of this news and its ambiguity, if not downright contradiction. Residents have been told that there will NOT BE A STAGED OPENING because of contractual and safety issues. Now it looks like the story might have changed! But, we are still left in the dark as to whether:

1.     Has ‘practical completion’ been done?

2.     What is the definite date of opening for the entire centre?

3.     If there is a partial opening, then why were residents informed to the contrary just weeks ago?

4.     Why is Council still waiting on the ‘builder’? Surely at this late stage there should not be any uncertainty?

The entire GESAC project has been characterised by secrecy,  the appalling lack of timely information, and the failure to be fully transparent and accountable to residents.

 

 

April 22, 2012

The O’Neill Report

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

The ‘Executive Summary’ of the O’Neill report comprises 8 pages involving 6 allegations. She concludes with 7 recommendations. The report is dated 20th June 2011. This is the first of our posts on this issue.

The following points should be carefully noted:

  • Newton’s allegations were never put into writing – they remain ‘unofficial’. There has never been a formal ‘written complaint’
  • Penhalluriack (and allegedly Newton) have only received this summary report – not the full report itself.
  • Who has read the full report?
  • O’Neill wrote the allegations herself based on the documents (and ‘discussions’?) provided to her by Newton
  • O’Neill interviewed: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang, Swabey, Wait, Donna Graham (Legal Counsel for council), Hyams, Magee, Pilling, Lobo, Forge. Penhalluriack asked that 6 residents be interviewed. O’Neill only interviewed 2 residents claiming that 4 were not ‘relevant’ to the investigation.
  • O’Neill NEVER concluded that Penhalluriack was a ‘bully’ in this report. Her strongest claim was that there were instances of “inappropriate behaviour”.

The following opening extracts are cited verbatim:

“In accordance with the terms of the Glen Eira Bullying Policy, the complainant, being the CEO and the person accused of bullying, being Councillor Penhalluriack should be provided with this Executive Summary. This should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity with Councillors to ensure that both the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack are given an opportunity to respond in accordance with your Policies and Procedures. This is particularly the case as Cr Penhalluriack is about to go on leave this week.

1.1           You have instructed me via Peter Jones, the responsible Officer, that the CEO, Andrew Newton (“CEO”) has raised a number of OHS concerns that he has with respect to the provision of a safe system of work. No official written complaint has been made by the CEO.

1.2           As there was no written complaint in this matter, I met with the CEO to ascertain what his OHS concerns were. Following my meetings with the CEO, I drafted a Table of Allegations  which was approved by the CEO

1.3           Cr Penhalluriack has been given every possible opportunity to respond to the allegations. Ultimately, Cr Penhalluriack chose not to meet with me to allow me to put the allegations to him. Instead he provided me with a written submission. It should be noted that in some cases these written submission to me do not address the allegation, but instead he responds to each of the incidences that are referred to in the allegations. By declining to meet with me and let me go through the submissions with him, I have been unable to provide him with information provided by other witnesses so that he could respond to those matters or discuss with him in more detail the issues.” 

COMMENTS

We find this whole process extraordinary for the following reasons:

  • No attempt at mediation as a first port of call as recommended by Worksafe and Council policy.
  • Nothing in writing from Newton – just the handing over of a (selective?) bunch of documents
  • As the official ‘author’ of the subsequent allegations, O’Neill becomes both ‘accuser’ and ‘judge’ – a process that is highly suspect professionally and legally.
  • Why Newton’s reluctance to put anything down on paper? Another ploy to ensure that his hands are clean?
  • O’Neill’s logic is incomprehensible – ie. conclusions of guilt surely are made on the bases of the ‘incidents’ recorded and their overall credibility.  Penhalluriack is criticised for challenging these ‘incidents’ head on. Yet what else is he supposed to do – especially if such ‘incidents’ demand debunking? Common sense tells us that if the ‘incidents’ are spurious and would never hold up in a court of law, then conclusions as to ‘inappropriate behaviour’ or ‘bullying’ are highly suspect. Understanding this basic principle appears to have been beyond O’Neill. The question then arises as to what weighting O’Neill gave to Penhalluriack’s submission.
  • Finally, we’ve learnt that this ostensible ‘objective’ Executive Summary does not contain one single word that emanated from the interviewed residents. Were their comments irrelevant, or perhaps, deliberately overlooked? 
 

April 21, 2012

Promises, Promises, Promises……

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

HYAMS

“I will work for residents and serve the community. I will listen to and do my best to help with your concerns. I will work hard to end excessive rate rises, fight inappropriate development, improve consultation, end council infighting and support local business and community groups and clubs.” (26th ,February, 2003: Moorabbin Leader)

“Members have paid a two-week deposit. The yearly membership doesn’t start until it opens,” he said. “Overall I don’t see that it’s going to cost them any extra because their memberships will start later and run later.” (16th January, 2012: Caulfield Leader)

“”I thought, given all the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the community to reappoint the chief executive.” (18th April, 2005: Caulfield Leader)

LIPSHUTZ

On C60 – “The proposal is an arrogant and greedy attempt at grabbing land for its own use and not utilising it as originally intended under the crown grant,” Cr Lipshutz said. “They basically want to take a section of Caulfield and create a village. It will be an ugly conglomeration of medium-density development with no recreation areas.” (20th November, 2006: Caulfield Leader)

ESAKOFF

“GLEN Eira’s new mayor, Margaret Esakoff, has pledged to tackle councillor infighting during her 11-month term. …… When she was elected in 2003 she pledged to stop the “infighting” and “divisiveness” at city hall. She told the Leader she would try to be “fair and reasonable to all” and bring the councillors together more often to foster a better working relationship within the chamber”. (3rd January, 2005: Caulfield Leader)

 

April 19, 2012

Freedom Of Information

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

The Auditor General tabled his report on FOI and Public Sector bodies several days ago. We’ve copied some extracts from his findings below. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20120418-FOI/20120418-FOI.pdf

“Freedom of information (FOI) is a cornerstone of a thriving democracy. FOI upholds the public’s fundamental right to access information held by the government. The community’s ability to scrutinise public sector activities and hold the government of the day accountable for its decisions is affected by the transparency and accessibility of government information. 

Since the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) was introduced, both the number and the complexity of requests for information have increased considerably. In 2010–11 there were 34 052 FOI requests, compared to 4 702 requests in 1984–85, the first full year the Act was in operation……

Since FOI legislation was introduced 30 years ago, Victoria has gone from being at the forefront of FOI law and administration to one of the least progressive jurisdictions in Australia. Over time, apathy and resistance to scrutiny have adversely affected the operation of the Act, restricting the amount of information being released. As a result, agencies are not meeting the object of the Act, which is ‘to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access information’.

The public’s right to timely, comprehensive and accurate information is consequently being frustrated. The Victorian public sector’s systemic failure to support this right is a failure to deliver Parliament’s intent.

The prevailing culture and lack of transparent processes allow principal officers— secretaries and chief executive officers of agencies—to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities. Principal officers are not being held to account for their agency’s underperformance and non-compliance.”

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

Given recent events at VCAT, and Council’s repeated failure to answer public questions directly and comprehensively, we believe that many of the Auditor General’s findings are also applicable to Glen Eira.

The 2010/2011 Annual Report contains some revealing statistics –

In 2005/6 the number of FOI requests totalled 13. Of these, 3 were granted full access and 5 partial access.

In 2010/11 the number of FOI requests burgeoned out to 37 (with council claiming that 10 were ‘determined’ not to be FOI requests) and only one application was granted full access.

It is at least encouraging that residents are beginning to exercise their rights in applying for FOI when they are not satisfied with council responses to their questions. It is, however, concerning that the culture that is currently attributed to state agencies also appears to be alive and well and thriving in Glen Eira. Hardly surprising we say, when so much relies on secrecy and behind closed doors decision making!

 

April 19, 2012

Who Are The Real Bullies?

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

20th September 2011

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

In accordance with the O’Neill Recommendation (a) to further protect the Health and Safety of staff in City Management, Cr. Penhalluriack’s access to this work area be suspended and the Director of Community Services be authorised to send the attachment letter to Cr. Penhalluriack (Attachment B).

DIVISION

Cr Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion

FOR                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                            Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Hyams                             Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                          Cr Magee

Cr Tang                                  Cr Pilling

                                                   Cr Lobo

 

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

 

April 18, 2012

How Can We Believe Them?

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

Full and honest responses to public questions are difficult to find in Glen Eira. Spin, dissembling, and verbal gymnastics are the hallmark of what repeatedly occurs. Our comments in this post relate to one specific question:

“At the Council meeting of February 28th, both Crs Esakoff and Lipshutz moved motions asking for ‘Requests for Reports’ on the Lord Reserve/E.E. Gunn Pavilions and removal of the Caulfield Park depot respectively. Did both of these councillors provide written notice to other councillors prior to calling for these reports as mandated by the ‘no surprises’ clause within the code of conduct and the council resolution passed on the 22nd November 2011?” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “You have misrepresented both the Code of Conduct and the resolution of 22nd ovember 2011. While Clause 2.4.3 of the Code of Conduct requires Councillors to demonstrate ‘commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises’, there is no requirement for prior written notice. As both Councillors, prior to making their requests for reports, verbally foreshadowed their intention to do so if another motion was successful, there was no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The resolution of 22nd November “strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” The motions were not submitted in writing, but clearly arose during the course of the meeting, as they were requested in response to the resolution passed at item 9.7, which introduced a matter to Council’s budgetary discussions.

Therefore, Councillors Esakoff and Lipshutz did not act in contravention of the resolution of November 22nd in making their requests for reports, as your question implies, and nor did the remainder of the Councillors in unanimously supporting those requests.”

We do not accept this response as an accurate reflection of what occurred on the 28th February. The requests for reports by both Lipshutz and Esakoff were NOT a ‘natural’ outcome of the discussion on the Victory Park pavilion and nor was there any mention of other motions. Simply stating that a request for a report is ‘foreshadowed’ does not adhere to sufficient notice. Here is what happened –

LIPSHUTZ: spoke about priorities and how this would mean ‘dropping things off the budget and putting other things on the budget. Called the motion ‘aspirational’ and that there were plenty of other ‘aspirational’ projects he’d like to see done such as the removal of the depot from Caulfield Park. Said that he would foreshadow seeking a report on this later. ’If I was cynical and I’m not, I would say that this is an election year ….councillors coming along with their own pet projects.….we need to look at this overall’ Echoed Tang and Esakoff about the necessity for ‘consultation’ with the clubs. Ended up by arguing that ‘what this motion does is places the issue of Victory Park on the table’ but he also stated ‘I don’t think it binds us….it is aspirational’. Ended up by again referring to an election year and that councillors will have to work out their priorities.

ESAKOFF:  Stated that this solved some things but she still had ‘concerns’. Worried that it was being ‘rushed through’ (She’d) ‘like something to come back to us in writing not necessarily to a council meeting’ about the E.E Gunn and Hex Pavilion. She said that ‘I would like something by way of a report’ on female facilities at these ovals. Worried that this motions would cause ‘a great deal of angst’ (from clubs)’ because they are waiting, not lobbying, because they ’know there’s a strategy in place’. Couldn’t therefore vote for the motion because it wasn’t ‘right’.

Please note that in neither of these statements is there any indication that ‘prior notice’ was given to other councillors which is in accord with the ‘no surprises’ policy. Secondly there is nothing in these statements which logically tie in with the eventually passed resolution on the Victory Park pavilion.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this council’s attempt to fudge the facts and to excuse the clear breach of their own rules is this email written by Cr Neil Pilling to other councillors following the meeting of 28th February. We cite this in its entirety –

From: neil pilling
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:14:41 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
To: Cr. Jamie Hyams; Cr. Jim Magee; Cr. Oscar Lobo; Cr. Margaret Esakoff; Cr. Steven Tang; Cr. Cheryl Forge; Cr. Frank Penhalluriack; Cr. Michael Lipshutz; Cr. Neil Pilling
Subject: reports requested tonite and the ‘no surprises’ agreed CR guidelines

Hi All,

Looking back on tonights proceedings and the reports requested in hindsight both the Depot and Lords/Ee gunn reports should have been at least discouraged and not sought.

They both controvene our agreed policy of giving due notice in writing as articulated in a motion passed late last year- This was voted for unanimously from memory so as to prevent ‘reports on the run’ and also i feel to  prevent ‘tactical manouvers’ in a council meeting to undermine motions put.

Whilst the subject matters of both reports is reasonable , this lack of notice is something feel we should guard against in future,

regards Neil”

We leave readers to draw their own conclusions as to the honesty and governance that occurs in Glen Eira, and in particular the role of the Mayor in permitting such tactics to go unchallenged.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »