March 12, 2012

Council Investigations

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Ombudsman to  monitor councils

March 12, 2012

The minister responsible for the establishment of the anti-corruption  commission, Andrew McIntosh, says the Ombudsman will be given more powers to  monitor councils.

THE Baillieu government will abolish Victoria’s local government watchdog and  hand its powers to the Ombudsman in a bid to bolster and streamline the  oversight of councillors and senior council staff.

Positions held by the chief municipal inspector, David Wolf, and his 14 staff  will be dissolved under the move, part of the reform of Victoria’s integrity bodies before the government’s introduction of an Independent Broad-based  Anti-corruption Commission later this year.

Andrew McIntosh, the minister responsible for the establishment of the  anti-corruption commission, said the Ombudsman will be given expanded jurisdiction to monitor the state’s 79 councils.

The Ombudsman will have powers to launch its own investigations into staff  and elected officials, without having to rely on a referral from Parliament or a  whistleblower complaint, which is currently the case.

The Brumby government’s 2010 Proust review of Victoria’s integrity framework noted problems with the  inspectorate’s arrangements, arrangements that are still in effect, and recommended that it be independent from executive  government.

Of 96 investigations by the inspectorate in 2010, 10 were referred to the  Victorian government solicitor for prosecution. Last financial year, the  inspectorate undertook 27 audits of local councils.

The Ombudsman, like the inspectorate, will investigate councillors and senior staff for breaches against the Local Government Act. But a government spokesman  said the Ombudsman will not prosecute cases – this will be done by Victoria Police or the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ombudsman-to-monitor-councils-20120311-1usos.html#ixzz1orCrKXTF

 

March 10, 2012

Deck Shuffling On The Titanic!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
Comments Off on Deck Shuffling On The Titanic! 

March is upon us and that means deciding which councillors go onto which committees. We won’t cover all of them, but here are a couple of suggestions for what have been the most contentious groupings in the past few years:

AUDIT COMMITTEE – Penhalluriack and Lobo. Reasons – these are the only two councillors who have had direct experience of business and finance. Both Penhalluriack and Lobo have in the past stated the need for ‘cost benefit analyses’ as part of everyday council procedures and in particular when matters come up for decision.

Further, it would be absolutely unforgiveable if Lipshutz was on this committee. That would make it about 8 years straight for the same individual. This goes against the state guidelines and is certainly not what we would regard as correct probity. We’ve commented many times already on the continual reappointments of Gibbs & McLean – not strictly ‘kosher’ and needs to be addressed. Never again should councillors allow such decisions to be made in secret and without subsequent public announcement. And again we remind readers that the Audit Committee’s Annual Report has still not been made public.

RACECOURSE COMMITTEE: Given the track record of this committee and their total cave in to the MRC, we advocate for its abandonment. All councillors should have a say in what happens – not just four!

FINANCE COMMITTEE – we are not even sure if this committee exists anymore, since no meetings have been recorded for the past few years. It is absolutely essential that such a committee is functioning and active. Its role in other councils is to oversee the general strategic financial planning and to maintain independence from the Audit Committee. Glen Eira desperately needs such a committee.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE – Lawyers are not necessarily an advantage on such a committee. What is far more essential is common sense. Council has enough lawyers to handle the semantics. What is required is a group of councillors who view laws in a far more pragmatic and community conscious manner. We suggest that the councillor reps on this be: Forge, Tang, Penhalluriack

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE: again, it is essential that those councillors who sit on such committees actually believe in the principles of genuine consultation and transparency. This has not occurred.

Finally, true transparency and good governance will only occur when:

  • All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit/Finance) have external community representation
  • When advisory committee meetings publish agendas and are open to the public to attend
  • When advisory committee meetings – their processes and reporting requirements – are incorporated into the Local Law’s Meeting Procedures. Currently they are not, allowing such committees to operate as they wish
  • When reporting processes are consistent and timely and minutes are a true and accurate representation of what occurred. Currently minutes are a farce, frequently doctored, and tabled up to 6 months later.
 

March 9, 2012

Residents – Always The Last To Know!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We’ve received the following email and attachment from a resident –

“NOT GOOD ENOUGH

“The Caravan Industry Australia wishes to keep you fully informed of short-term road closures during the upcoming 2012 Caravan and Camping Show”  has today (9th March) appeared in impacted residents letter boxes.  Notification the day before does not constitute being “fully informed” and who the heck gave these people the right to limit my access to my property.   During last year’s Spring Racing Carnival, the MRC pulled the same stunt, with one days notice. Calls to Council complaining resulted in Council denying all knowledge of the closures.  About two weeks later, Council sent out a survey to local residents.  None of the results of that survey have been announced or reported back to residents.   Council is responsible for managing traffic movements and street closures in Glen Eira – Council has a traffic management department for this purpose. 

  • So why isn’t there a published traffic management plan for major events at Caulfield Racecourse
  • Why  haven’t impacted residents be allowed to review and comment (we know our streets better than anyone)
  • Why is any Tom Dick or Harry allowed to close off my street
  • Why is the closure notice presented the day before (these events are well known before hand and have had months of planning).
  • Will Council enforce the parking restrictions in the surrounding residential streets?

Council is definitely failing residents in this instance.”

The flyer is uploaded HERE

 

 

March 9, 2012

Impervious Surfaces & Elections

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

Last week’s council meeting saw councillors (with the exception of Penhalluriack) knock on the head the officers’ recommendation that Council apply to the minister to reduce the 80% mark for impervious surfaces in developments. The recommendation had been that this occur only in Minimal Change Areas. Via a motion moved by Tang and seconded by Pilling, the vote was to extend this to Housing Diversity Areas as well.  We certainly congratulate councillors on this move. However, we also have to wonder why it’s taken so long and could it possibly have anything to do with the upcoming election?

The general thrust of the presented arguments was that Council should at least try to cover all of the municipality and if the Minister knocked back the proposed amendment, then council could revert to its original idea of only implementing this for the Minimal Change Areas. Ostensibly, a logical argument. We just scratch our heads at the lack of consistency in councillors’ arguments over the past few years. The constant refrain against introducing any (innovative) change has always been

  • Amendments take too long
  • The Minister will knock it back
  • Too expensive to implement/oversee
  • Glen Eira shouldn’t go it alone

Suddenly such arguments were conspicuous by their general absence. Now it was all about residents’ concerns, flooding, climate change, and increased development. Whilst these are all true, wouldn’t it be nice if ‘residents’ concerns’ featured in ALL COUNCILLOR DELIBERATIONS and not just 7 months out from an election – especially when some councillors keep telling groups that they won’t be moved by ‘lobbying pressure’ (ie. Victory Park Pavilion debate).

To illustrate the potential importance of such an amendment – and the lack of real ESD (Environmental Sustainable Design) policies in Glen Eira – below are two images. A ‘before and after’. Please note that the 20 to 30 foot tree visible in the first image has not been replaced – and we have been told that it won’t – as well as the extent of concrete everywhere.  The second unit (not pictured) has approximately 2 square metres available for planting and not a single blade of grass either! We are not commenting on aesthetics, or the rights of owners to ‘express themselves’. What we are saying is that much, much more needs to be done by this council – particularly in terms of tree registers, moonscaping, etc. Elections should not be the spur for sudden pangs of ‘conscience’!

 

March 8, 2012

Hyams: Continuing The Do Nothing Tradition

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

We’ve previously posted on the total dissatisfaction of residents with a recent Planning Conference chaired in court room style by Lipshutz. The following emails are the follow up from this event. We draw readers’ attention to these salient points:

  • Not one single concern raised by this resident has been answered by Hyams
  • The spin is offensive, especially council’s reference to ‘resolution’ and ‘facilitation’
  • The entire process is offensive and slanted in the developer’s favour
  • Council does nothing to assist residents

Here are the three emails.

“Extract below is from the Glen Eira Council’s website. 

What is the purpose of the planning conference? 

  • To ensure all parties have a clear and accurate understanding of the proposal;
  • To provide an opportunity for all parties to express their views in respect to the proposal;
  • To allow the community to air their views and concerns about a development proposal;
  • To facilitate an understanding of the matters/issues which are in contention; and
  • Where possible, attempt to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute.

The planning conference on 22 Feb 2012, for development at (address deleted) did not follow the above as set by the Council. After 3 residents had spoken, the rest of the objectors were snubbed by the moderator and were not allowed to express their views in a fair manner. We are all civilised residents of Glen Eira and had a fair reason to be there. The moderator, (Lipshutz) conducted the forum like a courtroom proceeding. It should be clarified within the purpose of the planning conference that discussions are not permitted.

There was no attempt by the planning rep or the developer’s rep to answer any questions about issues. The council’s planning rep could not even define medium density. Is it an interpretation that works in favour of the developer?

Objectors were not permitted to ask a question of the developer’s rep. The meeting was concluded abruptly and residents have no way of knowing how the issues raised will be resolved. We came away from the meeting no more satisfied than before we went in.

The next step I believe is the voting on 20 March. In the interim, residents know nothing till it goes to vote. You call this system of listening to objections fair? In order to do that, you need a neutral moderator and some allowance for discussion. Otherwise, you are wasting the residents’ time.

If that was the only opportunity for the residents to get answers and clarifications, the entire process was less than satisfactory

Thank you

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

Mayor Hyams responded:

Dear (name deleted)

Prior to the matter going to a vote, residents will have the opportunity to see our planning officer’s recommendation. This will be part of the agenda for the Council meeting, which will be available online or from our libraries from around noon the previous Friday. Residents may also contact councillors at any time to express their views about the application, and, once the agenda becomes available, about the recommendation. 

Regards,

Jamie

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

Here is the resident’s answer to this missive:

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your response. I pleased to know that there will be an opportunity to see the recommendations made by the planning officer on Friday 16th March. If the matter is being voted on the 20th March, it leaves the objectors with a day to discuss further, if permitted!  What is the procedure should the residents have objections to the recommendations?

There is a strong sense of disgruntlement amongst residents regarding transparency and clarity on part of planning officers. Particularly when they cannot define medium density. Most importantly, have any of the planning officers on the case of (address deleted) development actually visited the street? Are decisions made on the basis of drawings alone? If that is the case, the drawings for this project represent nothing of the street’s character. It is of utmost importance that planning officers get a look and feel of the streets that plans are being submitted for and get in touch with reality.

It was requested at the conference that a proper independent traffic survey be conducted by the Council for (name deleted) Street, as the one provided by Urbis was not a true representation. So far the residents have seen nothing.  Conducting a traffic survey for a couple of hours for a development which will have high impact on the street infrastructure is not adequate.  We have called up the company that conducted the survey for Urbis/Vujic, however, they declined to comment or offer general advice as they were working with the developer and it would be conflict of interest. Other companies that conduct such surveys also were unhelpful due to conflict of interest!

The Planning Process is less than satisfactory and something that the council must review. For a proposal of such nature, the planning officers should have tossed it out at the pre application planning meeting. It beggars belief about the planning departments transparency.

Thank you

 

March 8, 2012

A Little Arithmetic

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

We freely admit to a growing sense of frustration every time Lipshutz states that GESAC is ‘progressing well’ and ‘on budget’. It’s laughable because the ‘budget’ has undoubtedly been blown out of the water countless times already. We also freely admit that the following is mere supposition. It has to be, given that this Council has steadfastly refused to provide real facts and figures on GESAC. We know so very little about the expenses, about the costs, about revenue losses. The bottom line in all of this is a mystery. However, we like mysteries and present the following figures – simply as a guide. We stand to be corrected and we’ve undoubtedly left out much simply because Council has left out much in its disclosures to the most important people – us – the ones who are paying all the bills.

Here’s what we do know:

  • Vic Roads demanded that ALL the costs for the installation of the traffic lights in East Boundary Rd., plus all the necessary re-routing be paid for by Council. We estimate on very old figures that traffic lights are in the vicinity of $150,000. Add to this roads, pavements, landscaping, etc. and it’s feasible to suggest another $300,000 to $400,000. We are also willing to bet, that this figures isn’t included under GESAC CONSTRUCTION. Rather it is more likely to be camouflaged under ‘roads, drains’ etc. We maintain however that if this council was fair dinkum, that the cost should be directly attributed and counted into the GESAC BUDGET.
  • $450,000  for car park extension
  • $391,000 for playground ‘relocation’
  • $1,820,000 on interest repayments for one year
  • $330,000 for outfitting a café
  • Speed humps galore along neighbouring streets. Estimated at $16,000 per speed hump which would equal close to another $50,000 – should also be included under GESAC construction
  • 50 additional staff. Let’s be conservative and say that most would be part time and hence around $20,000p.a. That’s another million at least!
  • $760,000 hire purchase agreement for 4 years – making it $190,000 per year
  • Cardio equipment at $277,000 for 4 years – thus approx. $70,000 per year
  • $100,000 ‘promotional materials’
  • $60,000 chemical costs
  • $47,000 printing and stationery
  • $72,000 ‘referee’ payments
  • $95,000 GESAC software
  • $1,653,000 furniture & fittings
  • $49,000 – Pool vacuum and two way radios

These are just some of the things that we do know from the proposed budget and recent events. What still has not surfaced are the following facts and figures:

  • How much will heating/cooling cost?
  • How much will cleaning cost?
  • How much will lawyers ultimately cost – especially if Hansen & Yuncken don’t play ball?
  • How much will general maintenance cost?
  • How much will water cost?
  • How much revenue has been lost due to delay in opening?
  • How much revenue has been lost if basketball courts are not fully utilised by Warriors? And for how long will this continue and will ratepayers fork out the bills?
  • How much will lighting cost?
  • How much did relocation of electric power station cost?
  • How much did consultants cost, not to mention staff time?
  • How much did relocation of historical society cost?
  • Will tenants sue for lost revenue? How much will this cost?
  • Will tenants’ rent really cover costs?
  • What’s the cost of insurance?

There are probably scores of other items that we’ve neglected to list. This is only a start! It’s definitely time that Council stopped calling this a $41.2 million dollar project. That sum is ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION. It does not account for anything else! The total amount is astronomical. Now if this Council was a true believer in transparency, residents would have all of these figures at their finger tips. Councillors probably would as well – which we doubt they have!

The most crucial question though is: If projects had gone ahead on time (ie McKinnon grandstand/pavilion as previously noted on Neil Pilling’s blog) what would this do to cash flow and liquidity base? Maybe that’s our answer as to why so many things are so delayed? No wonder the Auditor General declared that Glen Eira is ‘high risk’.

 

March 7, 2012

Newsflash: Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

GERA has organised a Community Forum entitled: Overdevelopment – Coming to you soon!

Guest speakers are councillors from the municipalities of Port Phillip and Kingston (Serge Thomann and Rosemary West) so this should give Glen Eira residents a good insight into how these neighbouring councils approach, and ‘solve’, some of the problems associated with over development. It will be interesting to see what these councils do in contrast to what Glen Eira doesn’t do but is capable of doing if only the will was there! We believe there will be plenty of opportunity for Q & A sessions.

So, come one, come all, and learn about planning, the future of your street, and what can be done to halt rampant overdevelopment.

Full details are on the GERA website (http://geresidents.wordpress.com), but FYI the arrangements are:

DATE:             15th March

TIME:               7.30 (drinks & nibbles at 7)

VENUE:           The Bentleigh Club, Yawla St., Bentleigh.

ENTRY:            Members free. Non members – gold coin donation.

 

March 7, 2012

GESAC: April, May, June…..?

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

At last Tuesday’s council meeting the magical word APRIL was used by Lipshutz for the very first time as to the potential opening of GESAC. The usual spin featured in his report on the Pools Steering Committee. We were again told that everything is ‘on budget’ and ‘progressing well’. Council is of course, ‘disappointed’ that the opening is now at least 4 months late, but as usual that’s ‘no fault of ours’ only the builder’s but Council is ‘taking action’ via its liquidated damages. Lipshutz ended by hoping that the pool will be open ‘for the basketball season’.

Again we highlight the lack of substance in this so called ‘report’; the staggering claim that GESAC is ‘on budget’ despite no income for 4 months – just expenses. We also maintain that such spin is an insult to the intelligence of ratepayers since only the most gullible or imbecilic would believe a single word of this propaganda. When oh when will this council actually come clean and provide residents with the truth as to the full financials of this project?

One thing however has been successfully completed – the chopping in half of Bailey Reserve for the car park extension and the relocation of the playground. Extra unbudgeted cost – just under $1,000,000. The image below captures the full horror as of February 15th.

 

March 6, 2012

Common Sense: Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Lash out on Bentleigh bike lanes

6 Mar 12 @  05:00am by Donna Carton

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON N36CK903

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON

GLEN Eira Council has spent $65,000 painting bike lanes on roads with legal kerbside parking. The 4.5km of new lanes in Bentleigh have been branded a joke by some cyclists who can’t ride in them because parked cars block their way.

The council said it had no plans to make the lanes on McKinnon and Brewer roads clearways for riders.

Carolyn Atkinson, whose husband and son-in-law are regular cyclists, said Glen Eira council had wasted ratepayers’ money on the project. “I saw them painting the line and at first thought it was a parking bay. “Then they painted in the little bike symbol and I just laughed,” Ms Atkinson said. “There is no room to cycle around the parked cars. Why did they bother?”

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the lanes were recommended as high priorities in the Glen Eira Bicycle Strategy 2010. “The recommendations noted that where there is limited road width, bicycle lanes which can be parked over may be necessary and are probably the most feasible option,” Mr Burke said.

Glen Eira Bicycle Users Group member Carolyn Priest believes the lanes are “better than nothing”. “On stretches where no-one is parked (cyclists) can move back into the lane,” she said.

Jason den Hollander, of Bicycle Network Victoria, said while Glen Eira council’s money could have been better used in this instance. “They should have put a cycle lane on both sides of the road, and allowed parking on one side,” he said.”

COMMENT: Identical problems occur on McKinnon Rd where, apart from bicycle lanes, three sets of rubberised speed humps have been installed over a distance of 400 metres. Residents were first informed of the creation of the bicycle lanes via letter. This obviously constituted ‘consultation’. One elderly resident took the time and trouble to write back claiming that McKinnon Rd was entirely unsuitable because of width and gradient. The response was that Council had determined that McKinnon Rd was ‘perfect’ since it was ‘flat’. So that’s why this section is called McKINNON HILL!

As a consequence of such ‘improvements’, we wonder if Council has bothered to investigate the new RAT RUNS that have now been created by motorists attempting to bypass McKinnon and Brewer Rds via the quiet residential streets running off these major roads? With the imminent prospect of Centre Rd adopting the 40k speed limit, Bentleigh and McKinnon residents have much to look forward to!

 

March 5, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer II

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

Above is the belated (4 month!) response from Transport Planning signed (illegible) on behalf of Cr. Forge. Residents should carefully note the range of ‘excuses’ for doing absolutely nothing and the validity/credibility of such responses. In particular:

  1. Opening paragraph does not address the issue at all, although it does emphasise the importance of ‘safety’ – but this is only relevant it seems for Glen Huntly Rd. and not the side streets leading off the arterial road.
  2. There is no quantification of anything. The inclusion of the phrase ‘even if an increase in traffic volume’ is remarkable. In other words, Council has got absolutely no idea about the impact of their decision making. Further, exactly what does ‘relatively low’ mean? Relative to what?
  3. What does ‘based on current conditions’ mean? Is the classification of Rowan St. at 421st on the ‘priority list’ the figure determined PRIOR to the introduction of the 40k zone in Glen Huntly Rd, or following the introduction of this speed limit?
  4. It’s extremely kind of council to reiterate what the current speed laws and limits are – but the conclusion that there are ‘no plans’ to do anything certainly does not follow logically from this opening sentence. Further, just because the ‘vast majority’ of cars are travelling below the legal speed limit, means that a sizeable minority ARE NOT and therefore constitute a safety issue.
  5. The offer of a ‘detection trailer’ is indeed magnanimous, but what does it achieve? Has council ever bothered to find out whether these trailers in fact achieve their stated objective? Do they result in decreased speed limits? Where is the evidence?
  6. The removal of two concrete lids is irrelevant to the complaint. Is this supposed to suggest ‘hey look, we’re at least doing something’? All it’s confirming is that the concrete lids have been smashed time and time again so council are now finally not relying on concrete but attempting some remedial and long overdue action. But it’s got nothing to do with the central issue and nor has ‘road patching’. In fact, perhaps the best solution to this problem would be do nothing – if the road isn’t patched and is full of pot holes this could well be the most effective deterrent for both speeding traffic and traffic in general. Surely such an idea should appeal to a ‘do nothing’ council!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »