April 2, 2012

GESAC: Here Come The Lawyers?

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

Errors stall Glen Eira pool opening

BY BEAU DONELLY
02 Apr, 2012 01:48 PM
CONSTRUCTION of the $41 million Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is expected to be completed later this month – four months behind schedule.Head of the pools steering committee, Cr Michael Lipshutz, said builders’ mistakes and “cost-cutting” measures by developer Hansen Yuncken were to blame for the delay.“Part of the delay has resulted from our two  project managers catching the builders cutting corners and making mistakes, some of which are serious,” he said. “We’ve made them fix it because we want the highest quality finish and want the centre to last at least 40 years.”Cr Lipshutz said that while some of the mistakes posed a danger to public health and safety, most were cosmetic.

But while the council was pressing to have the centre open by the end of April, Cr Lipshutz said progress was ‘‘in the hands of the builder’’.

Hansen Yuncken will be forced to pay more than $1 million in liquidated damages for the project running late. To date, the council has paid Hansen Yuncken $36.89 million.

According to the council’s GESAC eNewsletter, the gym, indoor stadium, change rooms, child-care centre, reception and car parks have been completed.

Builders are still working on the outdoor concourse and final rectification works around the site.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said staff had started to install gym equipment.

“Once that is done and all construction work has been completed, the community will be advised of the precise opening date for GESAC,” he said.

Hansen Yuncken’s Victorian manager, Richard Hansen, said it was not appropriate to comment.

COMMENT
  • Will Lipshutz’s comments get him into trouble? – ie. ‘cutting corners’
  • Does ‘not appropriate to comment’ mean that residents should start looking out for a long and protracted legal battle? Will we be told even if this does eventuate?
  • Tender for gym equipment went out (listed as higher purchase agreement with Westpac) in July 2011. It was still being discussed in camera at last council meeting. Thus, is there a problem Houston? If not, then why the need for another in camera ‘discussion’?
 

April 1, 2012

Brothers In Arms!

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

April 1, 2012

Hyams: How Soon We Forget!

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

Featured below is only one comment attributed to Hyams following the release of the Ombudsman’s report. There were of course many comments which taken together reveal once more the thinking that is undoubtedly behind much of what has happened. It’s an election year first and foremost and the pressure is definitely on. We restrict ourselves however to only one of Hyams’ alleged statements published in the Melbourne Bayside Weekly because of the sublime irony it contains –

Glen Eira mayor Jamie Hyams said voters should take the report’s findings into account at the next election. “The decision to run is up to Frank,” he said.

Leaving aside the sheer political expediency (nastiness?) of such a comment, we simply ask: Is this the reason Hyams didn’t run in 2005 after he had been sacked by the Minister? The fear that voters would ‘take the report’s findings into account’? Three years later, when he stood for election, we presume there was always the hope that the notoriety would have slipped voters’ minds! Ah, how soon some of us do forget and would like others to forget!

 

March 30, 2012

Mulch: The Acid Test

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

One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY.  Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:

  • The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
  • The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks

Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.

Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?

Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?

We should remember that:

  • In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
  • When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
  • Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.

The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.

At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.

This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?

 

March 30, 2012

The Ombudsman’s Report: A Resident’s View

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

Based on a careful reading of the report, the public should be concerned about the role of Ombudsman in investigating people as distinct from government organisations, practices, and legislation. I’d be furious if a report was written as maliciously about me. As for the timing, designed to prejudice a matter before VCAT, one good thing to emerge so far from VCAT is that it criticized the lack of specifics in Council’s case. The Ombudsman makes the same mistakes, and adds several of his own. The overall impression is that the Ombudsman is not a reasonable person, is incapable of critically analysing information, and is prepared to use his incredible coercive powers to assist (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of a fellow bureaucrat.

Analyzing the report properly would take a similar amount of space to that of the Ombudsman’s, which would be about as tedious as his own report. For the moment I’ll just make the following general comments.

The report is not about conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council. The report makes that claim, but the contents reveal that the report is only concerned with Cr Penhalluriack. No investigation of poor governance or bullying by other members of council or council staff has been done.

Although Worksafe appears in a list of reports done by the Ombudsman, there is no appearance of Worksafe with respect to various accusations made about bullying, harrassment, humiliation. Its almost as if Council is aware that should Worksafe be involved, the behaviour of other individuals, include the Mayor and CEO, would be examined. Maybe they have received legal advice warning them not to involve Worksafe. I have previously pointed out some behaviours that constitute bullying according to examples provided by Worksafe. Incidentally, there is only one piece of evidence in the report concerning harrassment, and the victim was Cr Penhalluriack.

The expression “conflict of interest” is bandied about in the report carelessly. “Conflict of Interest” is defined in Local Government Act, which also places limitations on what is conflict of interest. Both Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman are aware of LGA 77A(4). The Ombudsman sneeringly dismisses it (“irrelevant”), but doesn’t say why. Quite simply, the Ombudsman despite *all* the evidence available to him concerning the mulch heap, doesn’t see it as a health issue. Even the CEO did though, taking some actions to soften the criticism when it emerged that the facility was a health risk and was poorly operated. The CEO, as the driving force for the relocation, is embarrassed about his failure to do due diligence about the site and its operation.

The interpretation of 77A(4) is critical to much that is at stake here–whether a perceived conflict (as defined) can “reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter”. The Ombudsman has revealed elsewhere his belief that $20 is sufficient to be capable of influencing an officer. [Unless they’re Musical Viva tickets.] The trouble with being a martinet and expecting others to follow is that it leads to poor governance. Few of us were happy that a Gang of Four (GoF) were given delegated authority for matters as important as C60. It came about because of the interpretation some councillors placed on matters as trivial as having a drink with a member of MRC executive. (MODERATORS: Sentence deleted).

There is a particularly telling section in the report, #151, in which the Ombudsman quotes uncritically a Council resolution to make certain matters public. From the resolution: “and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a Councillor or Councillors”. Of course, the legislation doesn’t state that. The legislation very clearly provides 81B(1)(a), meaning Council can apply. It is symptomatic of the carelessness plaguing both investigations and Council’s efforts, in which honesty and integrity have been sacrificed.

The Ombudsman claims repeatedly that council officers have been diverted by Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour and not focusing on what they should be. He didn’t provide any evidence or justification for saying this, although the lack of structure plans, open space, openness in decision-making does support the view that council and officers haven’t been doing what they should.

The Ombudsman also makes the extraordinary claim, without evidence, that Cr Penhalluriack’s “services on the council have not been of assistance to the good government of the City of Glen Eira”. This is an unforgivable abuse of his powers. Cr Penhalluriack has been prepared to ask questions and to analyze critically Council reports, and at least made a token effort to resist the culture of secrecy that pervades our council. Accountability is so important, it appears multiple times in the Preamble, the very *first* section, of LGA. The Ombudsman has not been elected to his office and is not accountable to the people of Victoria. If he doesn’t like elected representatives then he should advocate shorter terms for Council like we once had.

In several places the Ombudsman refers to carefully selected past incidents in an attempt to use prejudice to strengthen the case against Cr Penhalluriack. The Ombudsman should have known, given his extraordinary coercive powers, of the long history of ill-feeling between the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). He should also have known of the matter between the CEO and Cr Grossbard previously, of the sacking of Council in 2005, the members of that council who are currently councillors, of the manner in which Andrew contributed to (some may say engineered) the downfall of a previous CEO, of the embarrassing “apology” issued by Cr Esakoff to the CEO concerning the seeking of the reasons why a long list of requested reports had not been published in Council Minutes, the hissy fit he threw in public when Cr Penhalluriack asked his reasonable question. This should have been either stated or acknowledged when attaching weight to the statements he accepted uncritically and the ones he rejected when statements conflicted.

And so it goes. Instead of improving governance in Glen Eira, such as by tackling the excessive use of secrecy, the Ombudsman has chosen to add to the problem. Only he knows why.

 

March 30, 2012

Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[6] Comments 
Special Council Meeting — Tuesday 3 April 2012  
In accordance with Section 84(1) and Section 89(4A) of the Local Government Act 1989, notice is given that a Special Council meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 April 2012 commencing at 7pm in the Council Chamber, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield.
The business to be transacted at this meeting will be to consider a report entitled: “Conflict of Interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council” that was tabled in the Victorian State Parliament on 28 March 2012 by the Victorian Ombudsman and to address the report’s Recommendations. The urgent and extraordinary circumstances that require this meeting to be held with less than seven day’s notice arise because Council needs to address the recommendations in the report as a matter of urgency given that a compulsory conference is due to be held at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 12 April 2012 in relation to Cr Penhalluriak and Councillor conduct matters.
Chief Executive Officer Andre Newton
 

March 28, 2012

Penhalluriack: Ombudsman’s Report

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

From Council’s website:

Ombudsman’s Report: Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council  
On 28 March 2012 the Ombudsman tabled a Report in the Victorian Parliament. The Report is titled ”Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira”.
 [DOWNLOAD REPORT HERE]
Notwithstanding the difficulties disclosed in the Report over the last two years:
  • we were rated 1st in the State for “responsiveness in dealing with the public” (84%), May 2011
  • we won the Institute of Chartered Accountants / MAV award for Best Annual Report by a Victorian Council (June 2011)
  • we are the only organisation in the Victorian Public Sector to receive a favourable Performance Audit by the Victorian Auditor General during the current Term of Parliament. (Performance audit of investment planning and community engagement, September 2011)
  • we were rated 1st of 17 inner-metro councils by the Auditor General for Renewal of Community infrastructure (November 2011)
  • we eliminated waiting times for Kindergarten for our juniors and Home Care for our seniors (2012)
  • and we have built Melbourne’s best Aquatic and Recreation Centre (“GESAC”): under budget and about to open in April 2012.
Thank you to all those who, notwithstanding difficult circumstances, have performed strongly for our Community.

Andrew Newton Chief Executive Officer Glen Eira City Council

 

March 28, 2012

Delegations & Failure To Insist On Councillor ‘Call-In’

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

We’ve received the following email from a reader –

In planning permit GE/PP-24534/2012, the Elsternwick Club, already a privileged operator in a residential zone with a 24 hour liqour licence, machine gambling, food and its expensive and non-green bowling green (massive use of chemicals and insecticides at present well beyond that expected in a “garden” region) had applied to Glen Eira Council to have a licence to run a restaurant and cafe business for the financial benefit of its members (who will retain non-exclusive use of the bar and gambling areas as well as the green and surrounds).

The current use is already a burden to particular residents (including the correspondent) in terms of loss of amenity. The officers have advised Council that the matter be considered by the Delegated PLanning Committee tomorrow 28/3/2012, on the basis that the matter is either insufficiently significant of there have not been enough respondents.

Council sent information to the immediate neighbours including… (a) neighbour in hospital recovering from hip surgery, the corner owner spending a large amount on a major renewal without advance warning of the potential reduction of amenity, notices to new residents unaware of the potential impact a fully commercialised business might have in a previously exclusively residential area.

I doubt that anyone else except me saw the second and smaller notice of application to the Justice Dept for a second licence for alcohol provision in addition to the 24 hour existent licence for gamblers and club members (and their “guests”) in time to protest this as well.

My wife is caring for her recently widowed mother who is in hospital after fracturing her hip, I am (phrase deleted to maintain anonymity) and don’t have the time or a great deal of energy to go door to door to arouse local interest in this matter, sufficient to draw actual councillors’ attention to what appears to be an underhand way of achieving what is in reality, a highly significant and fundamental alteration to the character and amenity of our block of Elsternwick.

This area is already well served by the RSL and local pubs and restaurants. What next? Private hotels, bars, home based restaurants and shops, even brothels in our streets?

I doubt that the local business folk know that the club, which has the unique advantage of the attraction of a summer bowling attrraction and open access  machine gambling is intending to take customers from their doors. The only advantaged groups are the club and the council which may be able to charge better rates for a business than for a private club.

Is anybody out there aware of this or concerned about the subtle changes council officers are able to create without necessarily bringing matters to council attention?

 

March 27, 2012

Grattan Institute: Social Cities

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

The Grattan Institute yesterday released its insightful report Social Cities. We’ve selected a few extracts and ask readers to contemplate what can be done and how well our councillors and planners are moving in this direction – if at all? The full report is available from: http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/137_report_social_cities.pdf

“…quality of open space is just as important as the quantity. A small park that is well maintained and watered, with established trees to provide shade, vibrant flower gardens for visual pleasure, quality seating and creative playgrounds, will be used far more actively than a park that is far larger but less inviting. In fact without appropriate design, parks can be too big for comfort. In his pioneering work William H Whyte demonstrated that people prefer to congregate on the edges of public spaces (see Figure 18). So if seating and play equipment are stranded in the middle of large open areas they will not get much use, because people will feel exposed and vulnerable. This is particularly true when a park is bounded by busy roads, blank walls and fences or vacant and derelict land.

Some of the most successful parks are intimate mini-parks or ‘pocket parks’. Pocket parks are often created on irregular-shaped patches of land that are too small for building, or on vacant lots between other developments. Sometimes the developers of major projects are required to include pocket parks as part of their planning approval. In response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the City of Los Angeles is transforming foreclosed properties into pocket parks with the aim of adding amenity and raising the value of surrounding houses and neighbourhoods at the same time.

In the 1980s in the UK, Northamptonshire planner Alan Teulon pioneered the idea of pocket parks by involving local residents in identifying, creating and maintaining small, local parks. This evolved into the Doorstep Greens program that, for a small investment, has transformed more than 100 neglected public areas into popular green spaces. Strong public engagement and volunteering has helped to keep costs and vandalism down. The process of developing these pocket parks has brought local residents together and helped to foster social connection.(p.23)

Traffic

In his pioneering work on streets, Donald Appleyard showed that residents in a street with light traffic flow (2,000 vehicles per day) had three times more friends living in the street (and twice as many acquaintances) than residents on a street with heavy traffic flow (16,000 vehicles per day).

The heavily trafficked street had little or no sidewalk activity while on the street with light traffic, front steps were frequently used for sitting and chatting, and there was play and casual conversation on the pavement.

More recent studies confirm the impact that traffic has on the time people spend on the street. In New York, 44% of people who live on streets with heavy traffic say they respond by going out less often. This compares to only 7% of people who live in medium traffic areas, and 3% of people in light traffic areas. (p.36-7)

There are many ways to shift the role of streets from the car dominated default. The first and most obvious is to reduce speed limits in residential streets. In recent years the default speed limit in built-up areas in many Australian cities has been reduced from 60 to 50km/h. Road safety experts say Australia should follow the Swedish example and further reduce residential speed limits to 30km/h, a speed below which pedestrians have dramatically improved chances of surviving the impact of being hit by a car.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, a significant reduction in speed limits is predicted to have only a minor impact on average travel times (p.38)

 

March 27, 2012

Scraping The Bottom Of The Barrel

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

After being sent packing by VCAT to redo their allegations against Cr Penhalluriack, Council’s lawyers (Maddocks) have come up with the following gem in their long list of complaints. We quote:

“it is alleged that the Respondent acted unreasonably towards the Applicant’s Director Assets and Facilities by criticising him at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010, by: referring to a project in respect of stormwater harvesting in Boyd Park, Murrumbeena as a ‘ridiculous project’ and a ‘waste of money”.

We’ve double checked what occurred at this meeting and in our post of the 15th December 2010 we reported:

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed”.

COMMENT

Councillors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most efficient and responsible manner. Councillors also have the right to demand complete and full information prior to their decision making. Debates are part of the political process. What occurred on December 14th 2010 is exactly what should happen – 4 councillors questioning the lack of detail in an officer’s report. Yet, only Penhalluriack is accused of ‘acting inappropriately’ and ‘criticising’ Peter Waite. If this is representative of the quality and substance of Council’s allegations then a full inquiry is necessary to determine how and why tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in an orchestrated witch hunt against Penhalluriack. As for Waite’s ‘embarrassment’ we leave this up to readers to determine.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »