March 26, 2012

Newton V’s Penhalluriack

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

Hardware rebel  faces anti-bully drill

Melissa Fyfe and Jason Dowling
March 26, 2012

THE rebel hardware seller who went to jail over Sunday trading laws in the  1980s has been ordered to undergo anti-bullying training after an independent  council report found he had bullied and harassed the Glen Eira City Council  chief executive.

Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has denied the report’s findings,  claiming he is the victim of a “kangaroo court” and says chief executive Andrew  Newton is trying to get him kicked off council. “He doesn’t like me because I  ask too many questions,” he told The Age.

The bullying report — completed last June by workplace lawyer Tracey O’Neill — was kept secret from the community. The findings have emerged only now among  the documents filed in a misconduct case against Cr Penhalluriack, to be heard  in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal next month.

The council has already spent about $65,000 on legal costs for inquiries and  proceedings relating to Cr Penhalluriack.

Ms O’Neill, who investigated Mr Newton’s allegations against Cr Penhalluriack  on behalf of the council, found the hardware store owner in breach of the  councillors’ code of conduct, which states they must not “harass, bully, vilify  or discriminate against colleagues or members of the public”  and must “conduct  themselves constructively”.

The report found Cr Penhalluriack had humiliated the chief executive officer  by making derogatory public statements about him and placed unnecessary stress  and pressure on him to resolve a personal matter regarding his hardware  store.

Ms O’Neill found council officers felt “under attack” from Cr Penhalluriack  who, she said, had been behaving unreasonably towards them for  “a significant  period of time”.

Ms O’Neill also noted Cr Penhalluriack had challenged her (Ms O’Neill)  in a  “confrontational and aggressive manner”. She concluded that while she did not  consider Cr Penhalluriack malicious, “this does not alter that he has engaged in  repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety”.

Glen Eira Council has faced a string of controversies in recent years. In  2005 the then Bracks government sacked the council after a scathing report found  it had degenerated into a hotbed of  “personality clashes, politics and egos”.  More recently there have been controversies surrounding councillor actions on  planning issues and the council’s decision to close a mulch facility. The  Ombudsman’s office is also believed to be investigating some areas at the  council.

Cr Penhalluriack — who in the 1980s famously opened his Caulfield hardware  store outside the regulated times to highlight what he saw as outdated trading  hours — has now hired expensive lawyers to fight the misconduct case. He  said  it was unfortunate but he was “adamant” ratepayers would pick up the bill and  blamed the impasse on Mr Newton for not going to mediation.

The councillor has also filed a Workcover claim against the council, saying  the situation is making him sick with stress. He told The Age he blamed  his recent hospitalisation for a heart problem on his elevated stress  levels.

Cr Penhalluriack said he might regret some things said in anger, but denied  bullying or harassing anyone at the council. He acknowledged that before  becoming a councillor he had battled with the council.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hardware-rebel-faces-antibully-drill-20120325-1vsit.html#ixzz1q8KJdeKh

 

March 24, 2012

For The Record

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

The table below comprises:

  • decisions made by this group of councillors (Dec. 2008  until February 2012)
  • decisions which represent mere ‘tinkering’ with the original applications
  • not included are all those decisions which were simply passed without such ‘tinkering’
  • not included are those decisions which Council did refuse (that will come in a separate post)
  • not included are those decisions which councillors went against officers’ recommendations – (again, a separate post)

Our constant claim has been that this Council is not doing enough to protect its residents – especially in so called Housing Diversity Areas which dominate this table. Reducing the number of units, or even the number of storeys, is applying cosmetic treatment rather than the required radical surgery – the complete makeover of the Planning Scheme.

We further restate our belief that many decisions made over these years have nothing to do with existing planning policy, but resident opposition. It would seem that anything over 40 objections suddenly has traction, especially in 2012 with the election looming large. Our sacrosanct planning policy is  thus receiving a hell of a battering from certain councillors suddenly aware that their jobs may be on the line.

ADDRESS

APPLICATION

DECISION
40   Koornang Rd, Carnegie 5 storeys   & 26 units 4 storey   & 16 units
135 Neerim   Rd., Carnegie 3 storey   & 44 units 3 storey   & 33 units
309   Hawthorn Rd., North Caulfield 2 storey   & 7 units 2 storey   & 6 units
7-13   Dudley St., Caulfield North 4 storey   & 112 units 4 storey   & 100 units
273 Grange   Rd., Ormond 3 storey   & 19 units 2 storey   & 14 units
19 Parker   St., Ormond 4   dwellings 2 double storey and 2 single storey at rear 1 double   storey & 3 single storey at rear
1902 Glen Huntly   rd., Glen Huntly 3 storey   & 10 units 3 storey   & 8 units
29   Holloway St., Ormond 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
846-848   Centre Rd. Bentleigh 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
341-55   Murumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 40 units & 6 shops 3 storey,   23 units & 6 shops.
443-57   Hawthorn Rd., Caulfield 5 storey,   42 units, 7 shops 4 STOREY
400   Dandenong Rd., Caulfield Nth 3 storey   & 18 units 3 storey   & 17 units
894-900   Glen Huntly Rd., Caulfield 4 storey,   24 units & 1 shop 3 storey, 16   units & 1 shop
2-4   William St., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 41 units 3 storey   & 29 units
111-113   Poath Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey,   10 units & 2 shops 3 storey,   8 units & 2 shops
15 Dudley   St., East Caulfield 5 storey   & 29 units 4 storeys   & 27 units
17 Railway   Pde., Murrumbeena 3 storeys   & 19 units 3 storeys   & 16 units
243-247   Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick 10 storey   & 130 units 8 storeys   & 95 units
41   Murrumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 2-3 storey   & 59 units 2 storey   & 50 units
385-95   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 4 storey   & 32 units

17 double   storey units (Emily St.)

 3 storey   & 25 units

12 double   storey units (Emily St.)
2 Anzac   St., Carnegie 3 storey   & 22 units 2 storey   & 19 units
16 Malane   St., East Bentleigh 2 storey   & 8 units 2 storey   & 6 units
221-29   Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick 14 storey   & 3 shops & 109 units 7 storey   & 46 units & 2 shops
22 Station   St McKinnon 7 double   storeys units 6 double   storey units
54-56   Rosstown Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 20 units 3 storey   10 units
402-4   Dandenong Rd., Nth Caulfield 3 storey   & 37 units 3 storey   & 32 units
276-280   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 42 units 4 storey   & 30 units
188   Hawthorn Rd Caulfield 3 storey   & 8 units 3 storey   & 6 units
259-61   East Boundary Rd, East Bentleigh 3 storey   & 9 units & shop 3 storey   & 5 units & shop
127-129   Murray St., Caulfield 4 storey   & 31 units 3 storey   & 21 units

 

 

March 23, 2012

GESAC & Lost Revenue & Secrecy

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

True to form, GESAC barely rated a mention at Tuesday night’s council meeting. No Pools Steering Committee report, nothing in the Audit Committee ‘minutes’. But buried in the Financial Report, there are the following statements:

“Please note that GESAC forecast income has been reduced by $520K in order to more accurately reflect the timing of opening the Centre. This reduction in income has been offset by a reduction in employee benefits expenditure of $220K”.

“Unfavourable variance in User Fees and Charges $1.12M (includes delay in income expected from GESAC $1.33M)”.

The listed ‘income’ from GESAC is the princely sum of $3,000 and expenditure of $1,187,000. The black hole of lost income is turning into the Grand Canyon, especially when there could be further ratepayers’ subsidies that cover up for the basketball allocation fiasco. Here’s a public question that was asked on Tuesday night and the typical non-answer –

1. Will all the existing basketball courts be fully utilised by the Warriors each week from the opening date?

2. If some courts stand empty, will the Warriors be paying for any courts they do not use?

3. If unused courts are not paid for by the Warriors, what is the expected revenue loss to Council?

4. What is the anticipated duration of any ‘under booking’?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “The Warriors will be utilising the indoor courts in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. All Councillors have previously received copies of the EOI which is confidential.”

 

March 22, 2012

What’s A Few Porkies Between Friends?

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

The Mahvo Street development was the second application to be tossed out at Tuesday night’s Council Meeting. A terrific result and we once again applaud the efforts of residents. But, as with the previous Morrice St decision, consistency has never been a hallmark of this council. We note that telling a few porkies to the assembled throng in order to back up spurious arguments also doesn’t hurt.

What needs to be strongly emphasised is:

  • Mahvo Street is anything but INTACT – a word employed by several councillors. Of the 40 plus houses in the street proper, countless are recent developments and multiple single and double storey units are common. There are also old, run down weatherboards just waiting to be picked off by developers.
  • Council’s own Online Planning Register reveals that from March 2000 there were 20 applications for this street. 9 were for 2 lot subdivisions. Of these 20 applications only 2 were refused and 1 withdrawn. Far from an ‘intact’ area!
  • The claim that it is ‘predominantly single dwelling’ is thus also dubious. What WERE once single lots have now been subdivided and replaced by two and more dwellings Just under half of the street features these subdivisions and most are now double storey dwellings.

When councillors get up and propagate falsehoods in support of their arguments, then there is something drastically wrong with our council, our system, and the ability of these people to represent us! Either these councillors never visited the street and are relying on dubious reports, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Neither possibility is enough to excuse them.

We provide our ‘evidence’ below. These photos were all taken on the 22nd March, 2012. Two photos feature the view facing onto Centre Rd and are taken from Mahvo Street itself. There were many other residences which included long driveways with units nestled in the back which we didn’t bother to photograph and encroach on people’s private property.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As for the ‘debate’, here’s what happened.

Lobo moved the motion to refuse on the grounds not compatible with urban and neighbourhood character, mass, bulk, streetscape, neighbourhood character, set back, parking, design, ‘detrimental impact’ on surrounding areas/neighbours. Magee seconded.

LOBO: ‘predominantly single dwelling’ (street and family oriented). Stated that the planning conference ‘clearly showed the troubled state of mind of the residents’. Claimed that this proposed development is ‘nothing but insane’ and a ‘monstrosity’. Height will cause lack of privacy and enjoyment of lifestyle. Also will be ‘traffic chaos’ because of proximity to Centre Rd, train station and bus stops. Ambulances therefore wouldn’t have a clear run with all this congestion and people parking on the street and nature strips. Flow on effect to other streets and would set a precedent ‘for other builders’. Impact will be on streetscape and the ‘investment’ of people. Size of objectors must be ‘acknowledged’. Government’s attempt to have 5 million people settled in Melbourne shows ‘who cares a rats for the value of the property’. Stated that the government needs to get its act together and that ‘before long’ film producers will be making the equivalent of Slum Dog Millionaire in Melbourne.

MAGEE: ‘Mahvo street at the moment is INTACT’ unlike Lillimur St. There’s an ‘opportunity’ to save ‘not just this street but’ (most of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh). Said that because these are in an ‘urban street’ he would ‘treat them as a Minimal Change Area’ (because) ‘there’s no difference from this house to my house up in East Bentleigh’…..’deliberate overdevelopment of this site’…’beginning of the end for this street’ (if we let developer go through with this). Claimed that this was the perfect example of ‘inappropriate development’ and that at last election councillors had vowed to fight this..’Let’s save this street, let’s save Bentleigh, let’s save East Bentleigh…’

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted to chairing the planning conference and hearing objections. Stated that as councillors they have to ‘approach this from the point of view of planning law’ (disagreed with Lobo’s claim about loss of value of property). Reminisced about when he was growing up there were many red clinker brick properties in the street and on a recent visit to that street they were now gone, and ‘street is ruined’. So with a street like Mahvo, which is ‘INTACT’, ‘I think that’s an issue that has to be considered’. Thought that 3 stories was too high although thought that the street would ultimately have development….’this development is not sympathetic’ to neighbouhood. Spoke about traffic and lack of trees that were ‘on paper’ in the plans but weren’t there in reality. In the end it’s an ‘inappropriate development’.

FORGE: It’s a Major Activity Centre and there’s a ‘problem with grade separation’ because of the station, leading to terrible traffic jams. 3 storeys would set a precedent. Knows the area very well and until there’s grade separation then there’s going to be ‘constant gridlock’. Safety is another concern.’ we have to take care of the local community….overdevelopment’.

HYAMS: Mahvo St is in an ‘urban village’, on regular sized lot, ‘there’s nothing like it in the street at the moment’. Stated that even ‘in an Urban Village we should still be respecting’ neighbourhood character. He and people are ‘looking for sympathetic development’. When he visited there were cars coming down both ends of street and they didn’t have ‘anywhere to go’ because the street is ‘narrow’ and ‘parked out’. Denied the rumour that council wanted to change the planning for that street and that policy has been in since 2004 and ‘only after….extensive consultation’ of 4 years.

TANG: ‘wrong development for the block’. Disagreed with some points such as property values and said that 3 storeys would increase value of properties because of development potential. Tribunal would reject this argument. Reminded councillors that ‘our policy promotes change in this area’….’Mavho st residents will have to accept more applications’…‘we can’t say ….that it’s not (entirely our) fault’ (since we’ve set the areas where there will be development). ‘There will be change’….(and that some will) ‘go into residential streets like Mahvo’.

LOBO: thanked Tang and Lipshutz. Said he understood the policy from 2004 but that some residents weren’t living here in 2004. Admitted that he himself ‘didn’t know what was happening in 2004’. This development will create traffic problems and should be considered.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: When countless other applications have NOT BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT and mere cosmetic conditions put on (ie 8 storeys instead of 10; 8 units instead of 12, etc) and the consistent argument for such decisions is that VCAT will permit what the developer wants, if not more, then all we can conclude is that elections are indeed around the corner! If these councillors are going to reject applications outright, then at least be consistent in both words and actions for all unreasonable applications!

 

March 21, 2012

Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery

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

It’s  quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!

Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!

Morrice St Child Care Centre

LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.

Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)

LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)

PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)

HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’

MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.

FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of  Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)

TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)

HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.

TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’

PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING

 

 

March 20, 2012

Governance: How Low Can You Go?

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

The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.

Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.

HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s  behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.

Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.

No councillor commented on this response!

Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.

HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’

Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.

We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.

 

March 20, 2012

A Mountain Of ‘Clerical Errors’?

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

We’ve received some emails from a reader in relation to the recent Planning Audit Report for 2010/11 published by the Department and which we highlighted several posts ago. The emails reveal that all the figures and graphs have been compiled on the basis of the data submitted to the Department – ie Councils have provided the stats. We are left to ponder once again whether the Glen Eira figures represent another ‘clerical error’?!!  Our focus is the stated increase in the car parking waivers. The bar graph shows that for this category in 2009/10 Glen Eira had 8 applications and in 2010/11 the claim is that they had 25 applications.

We cannot agree with these figures. The Department’s definition of this category is: “An application which requires consent for a waiver or reduction in car parking requirements” (page 201 from the full report). They have also written:

Put simply, any application for a planning permit received by Council (be it for a new permit, or an amendment to an existing permit) that includes a waiver/reduction of car parking should be marked as such. Be aware that whether the permit is issued/refused or winds up at VCAT should have no bearing on this number, as it is when the application is first received at Council that we count it.

Glen Eira claims that they have received approximately 1200 applications. Of these, only 25 included the request for a reduction/waiver in car parking schedules for the financial year of 2010/11.

We’ve therefore gone to the trouble of double checking all the VCAT reports contained in council minutes for the period under consideration. We’ve looked at all the scheduled hearings and their descriptions of the actual applications. Readers should note that the VCAT appeals represent applications that have already been decided – not simply applications that have been ‘received’. Even on these reduced figures we find that nothing tallies. VCAT appeals that contain car parking waivers tally over 30 and not the 25 that presumably council provided to the department. We emphasise that we have no way of knowing how many other applications that did not go to appeal and were simply decided via delegation also included the request for car parking waivers. It could tally hundreds and not merely 25 as claimed.

Listed below are the addresses that we’ve found of the VCAT appeals for 2010/11 that contain such waiver components. Even if not all of these were decided in the 2010/11 period, it would still not cover the countless decisions made under delegation, or by the full Council.

  • 1032 Dandenong Road, Carnegie
  • 439 and Lot S4 441-495 Inkerman Road St Kilda East
  • 82 Hotham Street, St Kilda East
  • 326-328 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North
  • 619 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield
  • 9 Morton Ave, Carnegie
  • 763 Centre Road, Bentleigh East
  • 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 356-364 Orrong Road Caulfield North
  • SUITE 1-2G, 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 1 & 1A Albany Court, Caulfield North
  • 142 McKinnon Road, McKinnon
  • 285-305 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 12-14 Ripon Grove, Elsternwick.
  • 15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East
  • 111-113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena.
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.
  • 107-109 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
  • 888-890 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South
  • 389-395 Neerim Road & 10 Emily Street, Carnegie.
  • 2-4 Station Street, Caulfield North.
  • 47 Kooyong Road, Caulfield.
  • 5 Dudley St & 1 Gibson St, Carnegie.
  • 183-189 Booran Road, Caulfield South (waiver of loading bay)
  • 715-727 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East
  • 31-32 Leamington Street, Caulfield East.
  • 354 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick
  • 443-457 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield East.
  • 251 Koornang Road, Carnegie
  • 633 Centre Road, Bentleigh
  • 4 Maple Street Caulfield

GRAND TOTAL – 32

This of course leaves open to question how many other ‘clerical errors’ might be contained in the data that council sent off to the Department?

 

March 18, 2012

VCAT: Penhalluriack Vs Glen Eira

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

The lunacy continued at VCAT last week with a Council entourage of 7 individuals showing up to defend the Penhalluriack application for FOI release of documents pertaining to the mulch facility. Apart from the council barrister presenting council’s case, plus his instructing barrister or solicitor,  present were also Mr. Hayes (barrister) from Maddocks, Mr Peter Jones, Mr Mark Saunders,(as witnesses); Ms Rachel Kenyon and another council officer. In all, 7 very highly paid people, sitting around all day. How much this has cost ratepayers is anyone’s guess. Penhalluriack had his barrister presenting his case and the instructing barrister.

Council’s arguments focused on two facets of the Information Privacy Act – the 6 requested documents were ‘exempt’ since they constituted ‘working documents’, were ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ and that the public interest would not be served via their release. They were also labelled ‘personal affairs’ and if released would create public ‘speculation’. The following words arguing against the FOI application featured frequently in Council’s arguments – ‘misinformation’, ‘confusion’, ‘mischief’ etc. In other words, if the documents were to be released then the poor old public would be confused and ‘harmed’! Council’s barrister also highlighted that fact that it was only Penhalluriack who wasn’t ‘satisfied’ with the consultant’s ‘advice’. Case law supporting these contentions were  cited.

When discussion focused on the actual documents the room was cleared – since these were ‘confidential’ documents. However, the gallery did get the opportunity to witness the early part of Peter Jones in the witness stand. Asked by council’s barrister if he would like to change anything in his written statement, Jones asked for one sentence in a paragraph to be deleted. The barrister then had to remind him about several other paragraphs that contained identical sentences! Mr Jones also appeared very confused as to the YEAR of audit committee meetings, first stating 2010 and then (with prompting) from the barrister, changing this to 2011. Coaching of the witness was clearly evident, but it did not prevent Mr Jones from blushing bright red at his errors and apologising! When cross examination was about to begin, the gallery was cleared and during this time (over one hour) Mr Saunders was also cross examined.

Upon returning to the ‘chamber’ Penhalluriack was called to testify. Neither his, nor Council’s lawyer asked any questions!

Throughout this morning session it was made clear that the scientific consultant’s report had contained many more recommendations that did not make it into the public version of the report. The requested documents, we presume, pertain to these sections.

Following the lunch break, Penhalluriack’s lawyer presented the arguments for document release stating that this was a special case and earlier precedents of ‘working documents’ did not apply since (a) health and therefore the public interest was at stake and (b) since council had asked for ‘independent’ advice one should expect that consultants are in fact ‘independent’ and not regarded as council officers.

The decision will probably be handed down in a few weeks. A most expensive way to haggle over six pieces of paper!

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE MUNICIPAL INSPECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT CR PENHALLURIACK HAS NO ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF THE GLEN HUNTLY MULCH FACILITY. The 64 dollar question is: Will the Leader publish this latest news?!!!!!

 

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

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

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

 

March 17, 2012

WordPress Problem

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
Comments Off on WordPress Problem 

We’ve received quite a few emails from readers and commentators telling us that they can’t put up comments unless they log in with their real or fictitious email addresses. This is a WordPress glitch – not GE Debates. Hopefully it will be resolved quickly judging by the mountain of complaints up on their website.

In the interim, for those who have been trying to comment, we’ve set up a ‘generic’ email – rabbit@gmail.com

Simply put this in the email box if you’re not a WordPress subscriber, use your alias if you like, or leave blank, and press ‘send’. The comment will then get through to us [we hope:-)]

PS: As of 11.45 pm it looks like WordPress has fixed the problem. Readers may comment again anonymously without logging in via emails.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »