January 13, 2012
How & Why The Tail Wags The Dog
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[17] Comments
We must first of all thank ‘Reprobate’ for alerting us to the paper on ATS (Active Transport to School) which we’ve uploaded. We’ve also copied some extracts from this paper for readers’ consideration and response since we feel that the issues raised here are not exclusively about ATS, but impinge on all policy and governance decision making in Glen Eira.
“The paper further examines actor behaviour and institutional cultures in the processes of ATS policy implementation in local government through an investigation of the Cities of Glen Eira and Boroondara, two middle-ring Melbourne council areas with quite different ATS outcomes. Boroondara experienced an eightfold growth (from 891 to 7,278) in ATS participation between 2008 and 2010 whilst over the same period ATS participation in Glen Eira declined by 23% (from 5,442 to 4,187) (Bicycle Victoria, 2010b). Exposure to State government policy and other external influences are the same for both organisations. So, it can be presumed that the key differentiating factors relate to the processes of policy implementation at the local government level.
The role of local government diversified following council amalgamations in 1994-95 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2008). An outcome of these changes was an expectation that councils ‘…would have greater resources to manage more complex and diverse services and to engage in more difficult urban issues in a more sophisticated manner‘ (Stone, 2008, p. 110). ATS programs fall into this domain. However, the strategic direction of some councils including Glen Eira, has been to resist the diversification of responsibilities. Glen Eira City Council resists many of the existing policy goals. In large part, the resistance is due to the culture within the institution, lack of clarity on the delegated responsibility of local government, and an aversion to cost shifting from other tiers of government.
A request was made for the researcher to interview Glen Eira Council staff. The request was refused by the CEO ostensibly due to the perception of bias resulting from the researcher’s involvement in local active travel advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted with two elected officials who shed light on the role of Councillors and Council Officers and their attitudes to ATS. Councillors are not subject to the CEOs restrictive powers and were willing to participate in the research.
The CEO at Glen Eira has an overriding influence on the activities within the Council. Theoretically, local government CEOs work for the Council and have the role of managing the council entity (Cetinic-Dorol, 2000). Although it is not unusual for conflict to arise between the CEO and Councillors, the conflict that has plagued Glen Eira City Council is extreme and has hindered the organisations ability to achieve its objectives. His stranglehold on the organisation is further reflected in the council’s organisational chart…
Glen Eira promotes itself as a ‘low cost council’ with an aversion to real or perceived cost shifting (Glen Eira City Council, 2008, p. 25; 2010a, p. 13; 2010b, p. 13). The council models itself on the traditional council with an emphasis on ‘roads, rates and rubbish’(Glen Eira Councillor 1, 2010). They are involved in two programs with limited regard to ATS- part-funding (with VicRoads) school crossing supervisors and two (4% of schools) road safety audits are undertaken by traffic engineers around schools annually. Institutionally, the council is reticent to become involved in better facilitating ATS despite external funding opportunities with seed and match funding programs dominating funding opportunities for sustainable transport projects. The objective of such programs is to embed cultural change within institutions. As a local government, Glen Eira fears other tiers of government shifting responsibilities and costs onto local government so ‘…they won’t, as a council, support an unfunded or defunded government programs…’ (Glen Eira Councillor 2, 2010). This fear of cost shifting is common to many Victorian local governments, but it is used at Glen Eira as a device to avoid participation in programs that challenge the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ mindset. This is a governance issue and stems from the institutional culture operating within Glen Eira.
The culture within an institution can be a barrier or facilitator of sustainable transport programs. Interviewees suggested the various departments within Glen Eira operate in a siloed or independent rather than integrated manner (National Bicycle Advocacy Group Representatives, 2010). This siloed approach includes a reluctance to engage external expertise. The unwillingness extends to the involvement of the local government in external funding programs such as Victorian Travel Smart programs, Supported Employment of Sustainable Transport Officers and Local Area Access Program. These programs require local governments to match funding from the state government. The institutional unwillingness to contribute adequately to such programs hampers program facilitation (State MP, 2010). This aversion to adequately fund programs has resulted in Glen Eira receiving the lowest Grants Commission funding per resident in Victoria (DPCD, 2010; Glen Eira City Council, 2010a), signifying a failure to utilise external funding opportunities for programs including ATS.
Strategy within Glen Eira exhibits a desire to resist change and continue with a business as usual approach where roads are for cars. The unwillingness to invest time and money into programs facilitating alternate modes of travel illustrates the higher priority given to motorised travel. This is despite traffic congestion being a concern cited by the community and in strategic policy documents (Glen Eira City Council, 2008).
Glen Eira has the fourth lowest per capita expenditure on bicycle infrastructure in Victoria. The 2010expenditure of just $2.91 per capita on bicycle infrastructure was in contrast to Boroondara at $6.51 percapita (Bicycle Victoria, 2010a). The total capital expenditure in Glen Eira in 2010-11 was forecast to be $47 million, with 19% allocated to the renewal and upgrade of roads. Only 0.2% of the budget is allocated to bicycle lanes, 2% to pedestrian safety and 0.03% to ‘upgrade of safety treatments around schools’(Glen Eira City Council, 2010b). In the same budget period, Booroondara allocated about 4% of their capital works budget to active travel infrastructure (Boroondara City Council, 2010b).
Within Glen Eira, the CEO and his senior managers are the most influential, whilst elected officials, whose role is to represent community needs and interests are generally supportive of ATS yet their input is nullified.
Glen Eira City Council is an example of a technocratic community network (see Fig 3). Such networks resist policy change including the implementation of delegated responsibilities such as ATS programs. The Council uses cost shifting as an excuse within the institution to account for the local government’s reluctance to engage in ATS programs. However, funding is allocated to a number of programs which although beneficial to the community, do not fall within the tradition council realm. These programs include aged care facilities, an arts program, and business development programs.Based on Peterson’s (2003) policy network variables, Glen Eira is a stable policy network in which the same actors dominate decision making (Fig 3). Outsiders are not encouraged to engage with the local government nor are outsiders actively invited to provide input.
January 13, 2012
Compare & Contrast: Councillor Questions
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance[7] Comments
We’ve copied the following from ‘The Mayne Report’ as another example of what occurs in other councils. Firstly, there are transcripts/audio recordings; secondly the non existence of the ‘no surprises’ policy where councillor questions have to be written and submitted days ahead, and last but not least, the Mayor’s endorsement of the fact that councillors are entitled to ask whatever questions they wish of other councillors since ‘there is a right to be able to do it’. In Glen Eira such ‘rights’ have been continually and deliberately eroded.
“Mayor Geoff Gough: Cr Mayne, any questions?
Cr Stephen Mayne: Yes Mr Mayor, I note that the former mayor Charles Pick has made a fairly rapid transition from mayor of Manningham to lobbyist for local developers and I was just wishing to ask you whether we as a council need to develop a protocol about the appropriate way to engage with our former mayor now that he is financially engaged by local developers to achieve planning outcomes in Manningham.
Mayor Geoff Gough: (after conferring with CEO Lydia Wilson) Mr Goldsworthy.
EGM Corporate Services, Steve Goldsworthy: Through you Mr Mayor, there are provisions in the Local Government Act that deal with misuse of position and they apply both to current councillors and past councillors. And there are a number of provisions that are referred to, but one is in relation to information that comes to a councillor, or a member of a special committee for that matter, by virtue of their position. So it’s not information that would be readily in the community sphere. So that’s probably the extent of the legislative provisions. It may well be though that if councillors feel uncomfortable with contacts being made by a former mayor and feel that there may be community perceptions that would flow from those contacts and from developments that might occur, then it may well be worthwhile for the council to develop a protocol that councillors feel comfortable with.
Cr Stephen Mayne: In light of the fact that I’ve received calls (from former mayor Pick) canvassing and requesting information and feedback as to my feelings on things like the Coptic Church and the Mathieson pokies venue in the Yarra Valley Country Club. And in light of the former mayor’s intense activity within the council on a continuing basis, I’m asking you Mr Mayor whether you think that we, at a political level, as a group of councillors, need to actually sort of formalise the protocols around which a former mayor, active still inside the council, about how we as politicians should engage with that individual in light of the fact that he is now paid by developers to achieve development outcomes in Manningham.
Mayor Geoff Gough: Well, people must be in receipt of news that I don’t know about, about the activities of our former mayor. But as far as I’m concerned I think Mr Goldsworthy’s explanation is correct. If you’ve got any further information about his activities, I don’t know.
Cr Mayne: just one more for Cr Macmillan. Cr Macmillan, is it correct that former mayor Pick advised you and helped in the specific wording of your motion that was rescinded this evening?
Cr Macmillan: I don’t have to answer and I won’t. It’s none of his business.
Cr Stephen Mayne: And a question for Cr Downie. Is Cr Downie aware of who sent the letter to a private school principal that was discussed in a meeting of councillors last night?
Cr Downie: I don’t have to answer.
Cr Mayne: I have no further questions, Mr Mayor.
Cr Macmillan: Mr Mayor, can I just object to this line of questioning. Yet again, we see the bullying tactics of a councillor using the valuable question time to ask misleading or insinuating questions to councillors. Is this appropriate?
Mayor Geoff Gough: Look I actually have to agree, that this question time is really to ask questions to get things onto the paper. I think other questions could be wisely put otherwise. It’s not the sort of behaviour that I would undertake at question time, but it is clearly, I suppose, someone’s rights to be able to ask that question. I would not be doing those sorts of questions and I think it brings council into disrepute and makes allegations that are unsubstantiated and unproven. It’s disappointing, I feel, that it’s happened. However, it has, and there is a right to be able to do it.
January 11, 2012
More Intrigue & Deception?
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
We’ve recently featured a post on the removal of public seating in Carnegie which was then replaced with private seating for Grill’d – part of a chain of hamburger joints. We’ve also wondered whether this was a deliberate and calculated move by Council.
Interestingly enough, there is an item in the in camera section of the December 13th Council minutes which reads: “12.6 under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie” . This sounds pretty innocuous, until we discover that Jersey Parade is actually directly opposite Koornang Rd and the Grill’d franchise.
Jersey Parade itself is entirely residential, so we have to wonder what kind of ruse is going on here and what kind of ‘licences’ are being handed out for ‘land’ in a residential area? Or, could it conceivably be, that this in camera item is actually all about giving Grill’d the permit to establish their private seating at the expense of public seating? If so, then further questions need answering:
- Why was this item in camera? Why weren’t the results announced?
- We don’t recall any other ‘licence’ agreements for ‘land’ taking place behind closed doors. Even the C60 and other leases have all been included in agenda items for open Council meetings. So, what’s so special about this particular item?
- If the item is indeed about Grill’d then why isn’t the address Koornang Rd provided, since this is their listing in the phone book? Is this a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth?
- Finally – how much did it cost ratepayers to have the public seating removed and how much is Council getting back in revenue from the paltry number of plastic tables and chairs? From the photographs there are only 3 or 4 tables. Council’s rates for Koornang Rd are approx. $33 per square metre. There are additional charges for awnings, signs, etc all requiring a permit. Even if the area covers 20 square metres, which we very much doubt, the return to council is probably a pittance. So, if this item is about Grill’d and the monetary value is miniscule, then what’s the real reason for keeping it top secret and what’s the real reason for removing perfectly good seats in the first place?
- Obviously a decision was made somewhere along the line to grant a permit for Grill’d. If this Agenda Item is indeed about Grill’d and was held in camera, wouldn’t it be nice to know whether or not councillors were previously informed that public seating had been removed in order to clear the way for this little deal?
January 11, 2012
Where Does Our Money G0?
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
The Auditor General has released various reports which bemoan the fact that many Local Government Annual Reports and budgets generally lack transparency and relevance – that what they contain is often incomprehensible to the lay resident. We believe that Glen Eira excels in this area. Attempting to make sense out of the published figures is nigh on impossible. Admittedly, we’re not accountants. But that’s exactly the point if the Auditor General’s recommendations are taken seriously. One shouldn’t need a PhD in accounting or economics to be able to grasp what is really going on! Let’s take a few examples:
- In 2011 according to Council minutes (excluding Special Committees) there were 21 items considered in camera which contained the words ‘legal advice’. That is just under a quarter of all items listed for in camera. We further assume that many of these items consisted of external legal advice and hence would probably not be recorded under the category of Corporate Counsel in the budget.
- What is recorded in the 2011/12 budget under Corporate Counsel is the following: Expenses for the forecast year of $1,458,000 and an ‘income’ of $8,000
- As if this isn’t enough there is also the strange category of ‘Customer Service and Council Governance’. Exactly what this means is anyone’s guess, since most people would expect Governance to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corporate Counsel. Not so Glen Eira! The figures for this department are: Income – Zero! Expenses: $4,963,000.
- One most also query exactly what Customer Service means? Is this staff? Telephones? Little leaflets? etc.etc.etc.
So what we seem to have, apart from vague, obtuse categories, is nearly $6.5 million dollars expenditure and we really don’t know a thing about how, nor why this money is spent. All we know is that Glen Eira sure uses a hell of a lot of lawyers at the drop of a hat with no real accountability for their use. Come on councillors – it’s time budgets and Annual Reports really informed residents as to what is going on, and precisely how their money is being spent, rather than simply winning prizes for ‘presentation’! What’s required is a lot more substance and less camouflage.
January 10, 2012
GESAC Basketball: The Leader
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[26] Comments
GESAC court battle over
10 Jan 12 @ 07:00am by Jenny Ling
Under the agreement, the Warriors will have access on Fridays and Sundays from 6pm to 11pm while McKinnon will have access on Saturdays from 8am to 11am.
McKinnon must also provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors on Saturdays or allocate the GESAC courts to the Warriors.
Warriors spokesman Bob Mann said the club was happy with the agreement. “It’s been dragging on for six or seven months so it’s important to move it forward,” Mr Mann said. “It puts it in McKinnon’s court, they’ve got to come up with two courts in the area to suit our purposes.”
Mayor Jamie Hyams said he hoped both clubs would agree to the conditions. If not, it would be “disappointing”, Cr Hyams said. “It means McKinnon teams won’t have access to GESAC.
“We would prefer they have access which is why we came up with this compromise.”
McKinnon Basketball Association spokesman James Cody said the club would agree. “It’s a strange way of doing things, but the council has obviously been constrained by legal issues,” Mr Cody said.
Building delays mean GESAC won’t be opened until as late as March.
January 9, 2012
We’ve received several emails as a result of the Elster Creek posting and photos. It seems that in recent times residents all along the trail have received notices from Council informing them that land within the trail is/was going to be ‘vested’ in Council. In other words it was probably private property, or under the control of the old MMBW and would now be turned over to Council.
Several properties along the trail have over the years moved their fence line out further into the trail given that the land was within their title. Council has known about this for more than a decade – ie that residents are claiming their property rights! There are new developments backing onto the trail at present. We’ve received a photo where one of these properties had a stake driven into the ground outside the current existing fence line. We therefore surmise that given the history of this strip of land, more land will soon be disappearing behind private fences.
This then leads on to crucial questions:
- How far into the trail will these new fence lines encroach?
- Will the new, brand spanking concrete pathway be impacted?
- If it will, then why didn’t council investigate this possibility before expending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the yellow brick road – especially when this type of activity has occurred several times already in the past?
- Have any ‘secret’ deals been conducted with adjoining property owners? Has any money been handed over in order to safeguard the Trail pathway and to cover up any shortcomings?
We are of course only surmising that this is likely to occur. But what is absolutely clear is that once again this administration hasn’t done its homework. For all we know, residents could have the legal right to move their fences smack into the middle of this glorified and expensive path. The shambles and incompetence seems to continue unabated.
January 8, 2012
This is a sad tale of waste, lack of engineering know how, and inadequate planning. Several years ago, council decided to apply for a Commonwealth grant to ‘redevelop’ the Elster Creek Trail. A bitumen path was already in existence. We estimate that for the cost of $30 – $40,000 this existing pathway could have been widened in several places and several rough edges smoothed out. Instead, in its wisdom, council put up $180,000 (Correction: – $140,000) of its own money and received the equivalent amount from the Commonwealth.
Since then, we assume that many more funds have been expended on this venture – and this year’s budget includes another $100,000 for the Trail. What we don’t know however is how much the following extravaganzas have cost –
- Security guards stationed at night to protect the concrete.
- Rubber matting replaced with new rubber matting 3 months after being laid
- White stripes down the centre when council doesn’t even know whether this is a heavy bicycle track or not. The guidelines recommend this for ‘heavy’ bicycle usage.
- The ripping up of literally hundreds and hundreds of metres of side grass and replacing this with instant grass.
The really important outcome however of this yellow brick road with zebra stripes is that the old bitumen path was ripped up and 4 to 6 inches depth of reinforced concrete laid. All well and good some might say – except that by raising the height of the existing pathway, water could no longer drain away as it had previously. The Trail is now a lake after any kind of persistent rain. It has become home to mosquitoes and god knows what other health hazards.
In the future, residents will undoubtedly have to cough up further funding to replace rotting fencing that sits in water for days on end . The mulch also continues to settle so that there are numerous patches of 4 inch drops from the edges of the pathway – a really good way for cyclists to topple over, or pedestrians to break an ankle. Since the Trail also meanders alongside trees there is continual debris and discolouring of the pathway – again further risk to life and limb. We have to simply ask:
- Why wasn’t there any real engineering assessment done?
- Why has this ‘redevelopment’ cost, we estimate, well over $500,000 when there was already an existing pathway?
- What is council doing about risk management and health concerns?
January 4, 2012
Moorabbin Leader: Basketball & GESAC
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
Share deal for courts on offer
Basketballers’ new agreement for Glen Eira venue
Nicole Precel
TWO basketball teams could share court time at a new sports facility in Glen Eira after a long-running fight over usage. The Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association both want to call the new Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre home. Glen Eira City Council Mayor Jamie Hyams said the Warriors— who won a bid to use the GESAC basketball courts — have agreed to share the courts with the McKinnon Basketball Association. ‘‘What’s happened is we have these fantastic new basketball courts being built, we did an expression of interest process through our officers and allocated to a group called the Warriors,’’ Cr Hyams said.
Last month, the council passed a motion that said McKinnon could have access to the courts on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm provided they found the Warriors two alternate courts from 8am to 7pm. ‘‘We think it’s in McKinnon’s interest to take up this opportunity,’’ he said. This comes after McKinnon petitioned to use the courts, mediation in November between the associations and on December 7.
Warriors president Geoff Charnley said he wanted it to work for everybody, but was waiting to hear back from McKinnon.
‘‘They have until January 15; if they do nothing, we get Friday, Saturday and Sunday,’’ Mr Charnley said.
McKinnon Basketball Association president Eric Hollingsworth said they had accepted on the condition that they could negotiate out of current leases with schools and that the Warriors were acceptable tenants.
‘‘It is obvious we can fill the court space comfortably, even with GESAC, MBA needs to continue with its other facilities,’’ he said.
The MBA will juggle almost 2000 players and 258 teams.
Glen Eira Debates 