Glen Eira Debates

November 4, 2011

Toilets, Policy and Circuses

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

Item 9.4 on Wednesday night featured the Public Toilet issue in Centre Rd., East Bentleigh. We draw readers’ attention to this item because it highlights again:

the total inconsistency of argument when applied to previous decisions and discussion
the discovery of new terminology by Lipshutz – ‘holistic’
the platitudes and dissembling that surround notions of ‘consultation’
the gang of four – again!
but the saddest thing about this whole episode is that it occupied more time than the C60 and other important issues put together. Yes, we can have ‘robust discussions’ – but only when the matter is ‘trivial’ in comparison to the really political and important matters that need proper decision making.

Here’s what happened:

MAGEE: Submitted alternative recommendation/motion where council could ‘note’ the ‘possibility’ of providing a public toilet at 672 Centre Rd and that there be community consultation about Option A – ie to sell the laneway to help fund the toilet block. Seconded Forge.

MAGEE: Stated that nearby toilet had disappeared nearly 15 years ago and that the IGA toilet was inappropriate since residents had to leave a deposit when they asked for a key then return it. For elderly residents this was not ‘dignified’, so instead of spending an ‘enjoyable time in our shopping centres’ they go to a hotel, go home ‘or they don’t come to the shopping centre’. Proposed that sale of laneway could go to Commonwealth bank ‘who are already pushed for car parking’ and they would benefit from an extra ‘3 or 4 carparking spaces’….(which would) ‘subsidise if not pay for the whole’ lot….’People in East Bentleigh deserve this and asking for this….let’s see how we can fund this….let’s ask the community, the shopholders…

FORGE: Supported Magee. Outlined how her previous work with the health industry and elderly and ‘it’s all very well going to a hotel’……’but when you’re in trouble….it’s a long way (to go)….it’s not just the elderly, but young ones as well. Mothers with children’….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports the ‘concept’ of public toilets and ‘if there is a need in East Bentleigh I would certainly support that’. ‘What I’m concerned about is policy on the run….we have a SRP (Strategic Resource Plan) ….we have a budget….we have so many projects that we all want as councillors…toilets is certainly one of them and childcare is another….trees,….footpaths….all of us
want to do (these projects)…’we also have a budget…I remind councillors that we are now completing GESAC ….a situation is critical to maintain cash flow….(can’t spend money which will) ‘impact adversely’. Said that council meets in February ‘where we look at our priorities, we look at what we want to achieve in the year’ (budget and SRP are developed from that). ‘there no reason why we should not alter that….I think in this particular case you go to consultation it tells the community straight away ‘we’re going to do this’….I’d rather see a recalculation of our strategy….let’s look globally, holistically and not simply
plug holes….if we approve this motion it simply opens the flood gates….every time we find something to plug….and before you know it we have a dysfunctional budget and a dysfunctional council’…I think that once having a plan you try and stick to that plan’…..’no iron clad, but in this particular case…..

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed with Lipshutz but only first half of what he said. ‘public toilets are important….(not only for mothers and elderly) but for youth….we spend a lot of money of warm season grasses…for sporting fields which are only used (mainly) by the young….but we don’t spend enough money on toilets’ Gave an example of the Hawthorn Rd toilet which is ‘way beyond I think the budget and way behind the timetable….(Agreed that council should be careful with spending money…Said that there had been plenty of discussions on) ‘the systems we have for delegating jobs…’we don’t know why the tenders come in and they’re too expensive….(Foreshadowed his calling for an Officers’ Report on tendering)…’In last Saturdays’ Age you can buy this house (holding up newspaper)…2 storey, double garage, study, 4 bedrooms, and 3 toilets for $250,000….(whilst the toilet at Hawthorn Rd) ‘providing only 3 toilet cubicles that’s for $320,000….an extra $70,000 for a piddly little building…I really do not understand as a business person why this is costing us so much money…..I agree we are tight for funds….borrowing heavily….we can look more carefully in other areas to …how we allocate these jobs.’. Invited residents to look at the Hawthorn rd toilet and compare it with ‘this house – 4 bedrooms’….’we’re not getting value for money’….

TANG: Said that he thought that even Senator xenophon ‘would be happy with that stunt’…..’if public toilets can be made cheaper maybe there’s a business opportunity there …..(Brimbank councillor thought there was; imported toilets and under cut the market)….all State government bodies are paying around the same price…..(Disagreed with both Penhalluriack and Lipshutz in that finding money and spending it only when it becomes available)….’what I don’t hear is if we did get more money which public toilet would we spend it on?….(neither pays any regard to what he) ‘thinks was a unanimous (decision) on the Public Toilet Strategy in 2010…..(Spoke about the ‘filthy’ public toilet at Murrumbeena Railway Station)…’you’ve got to wonder if we had more money for public toilets where would we spend it?’….’If you’re wanting to go back to those priorities go back to the whole priorities….(foreshadowed a motion which would have consultation and look at priorities…’If it’s a representation made by the public council should consider it…(Said he’d been approached about McKinnon Reserve playground toilet)….I’d like to see us consider that location for priority listing….

PILLING: Would like to support Magee’s motion because ‘there certainly is a great need….East Bentleigh is the poor cousin….(his issue isn’t with money or process since) ‘there is a case to review the whole (strategy)….(Would be in favour of funding this toilet) ‘but more at the end of the process when we’ve examined all our strategies….I’d certainly be keen to re-examine the riorities….but we have to go through (process)….I certainly would like to be supporting a review….

HYAMS: Spoke about toilet at 670 Centre Rd which seemed to have been ignored….’not flush with funds’…(so if there’s a possibility of the developer paying for the toilet wait) ‘and see how that develops….I’d prefer at the moment to have an overall look at it (strategy)…..

ESAKOFF: Doesn’t support Magee’s motion. ‘ not for lack of motive….I support public toilets….(need to be provided) ‘in the usual way, not on the run as this one is….I would like to see us review the public toilet strategy….look at various options before we go to consultation….that needs discussion from our group first….financial report (on page 32 says) ‘definite need for caution and cash flow for remainder of this term….something that has not been budgeted for, not provided in the SRP…we need to go through this process in the correct and usual manner…..I would like to do this in the proper way and I would probably support the alternate motion (of Tang).

MAGEE: ‘strategies and policies….are just strategies and policies….The councillor group have lost the ability to listen to the community….if we are so stuck on a strategy that is now 2 years old, that didn’t properly in my opinion identify the need….this is about councillors doing their job. This is about listening to a community who have needs….this is an identified need and an approach from the community…this is me acting on behalf of that information….there’s no law that says Glen Eira Council must stick to (the strategy)….we have a very ageing community around East Bentleigh…..(can’t tell them that htye have to walk 250 metres when they need to go to the toilet).. ratepayers of Glen Eira deserve when they ask a councillor to advocate on their behalf….(talked about the laneway and how this could cover costs) ….I think the councillor body are now more intent on sticking to policies, strategies and formulaes rather than listening to the community….It’s not a council I (want?) to be part of’.

MOTION PUT: and Lost

TANG: Put alternate motion about conducting a review of toilet strategy BUT those residents who have made ‘representations’ since 10th August 2010 ‘should be invited to make submissions as part of that review’. Seconded Lipshutz. ‘Disappointed in the way Cr. Magee argued….very easy to say you stand here and represent your community and the rest of your colleagues don’t….(went over last ‘consultation process) ‘and council had to listen to its community…if councillors ignored them, find, probably got our strategy wrong….if council disregarded the advice it got on that strategy it probably got its strategy wrong….(and if we don’t review then again not doing things properly)…’It’s inappropriate to stand up here and say I received representations ….if you don’t listen to what I’m saying you’re not listening to the community…(need to have) ‘whole of community heard (and not just those that speak to one councillor). (Didn’t support relying on private developer)….(his motion would fit in with consultation) ‘that is to the whole council and not just one councillor because we happen to be doing our shopping down in East Bentleigh….some councillors shop in East Bentleigh, some councillors shop in Elsternwick, some councillors shop in glen Huntly….it shouldn’t be about catching them on a Saturday morning……

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m a councillor from Camden Ward but …..I’m a councillor for Glen Eira….and when I look at issues I look at what’s going to benefit all of Glen Eira, not just necessary my ward….(praised Magee for standing up for his ward residents but what is needed is )’a holistic approach….let’s do away with strategies, let’s do away with plans. If you do that ….let’s not have a community plan, let’s not have (February)…let’s willy nilly chose our pet projects …..It’s unfortunate that he (Magee) says that…I think all of us have to look at what’s best for the citizens of Glen Eira as a whole…(Claimed that more money is spent in Magee’s ward than any other one. That’s okay if) ‘that’s where the need arises….there has to be a holistic approach…you have to have a look at the needs of all the city of Glen Eira….’Let’s look at it holistically…let’s see what the community wants overall….and then decide where our priorities lie…(stated that each councillor wants to do so many things)….’but if we all do this…..as a team we actually achieve a hell of a lot….

HYAMS: Disagreed with Magee. ‘what we do when we put these strategies together is we consult with the community (they have input)…’we’re actually disenfranchising all the people who contributed to the strategy’ (if follow Magee’s example of individual representation)…’so in effect the way we do it is the most democratic way’…..’we do it systematically. We give everyone the same opportunity….once we’ve done that then we come to a solution….we are struggling for funds….sum of about 2.5 million dollars was ripped out of the budget over five years….we have to live with that decision….

PILLING: Positives will be that ‘we certainly do need to review’….(toilet strategy is) proceeding at glacial pace and that is part of the problem…perhaps we can increase the rate….but then also adjust some other areas….

MAGEE: ‘We obviously do need a review’ (so will support Tang’s motion)….I’m saying (residents) come to me and ask me and I’ll listen. I can’t speak for you. Only you know that.

ESAKOFF: ‘We are councillors who are meant to be working in the best interests of the people….not our given ward….and that’s why we have these plans in place and our strategies….and our prioritising of various things….to change those priorities around means changing other priorities….if something comes in something must go out,. Unless it’s been budgeted for and it’s in the SRP…we make those very difficult decisions (prior to budget setting) … because there are an enormous number of demands….What we have in place now is what was considered the right order, the right priority….that may well change….

TANG: ‘I don’t think ward arguments are particularly relevant here….(issue is where toilets are going to go, especially when only a couple a year are erected)….(Said that he wouldn’t like to get up and suggest to council that they change their priorities because he had been approached by one resident in his ward) ‘Representing the community would be to take on board that gentleman’s concerns and to bring them to council’s attention….I think we can accommodate what all councillors have been trying to achieve….in this review….No something we usually do (ie 2 year review) ……’so a review after two years is I think a pretty good outcome….

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

At Wednesday night’s Council Meeting, Penhalluriack attempted to deliver a ‘Right of Reply’. He was gagged repeatedly through his statements by Hyams and co. who numerous times leapt up to protest the relevance of what Penhalluriack was saying. We’ve since received an email from Cr. Penhalluriack which contains much of the statement he attempted to make. We publish this in the public interest.

At stake here is the ability of councillors to express a viewpoint, albeit unpopular, without hindrance, without procedural rules that are used to effectively silence individuals regardless of the merits of their position, and the deliberate and obstructionist manner in which these rules are interpreted and applied. In a council where there is no Notice of Motion, and all proposed motions, amendments, rights of reply, councillor questions and requests for reports are to be announced with 24 hours notice, then it is extremely easy to undermine and even sabotage efforts to get something into the public arena. Such practices do nothing to enhance the public’s perception of a truly democratic organisation and its governance practices.

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2^nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

Glen Eira Debates has an anonymous contribution posted earlier today that says that I am a bully, but goes on to point out that I am also shut out of the debate concerning council’s CEO. There is clearly a lot of confusion within the community, and there is a large amount of material which has been declared “confidential” and therefore can’t be included in this reply. However I do make the following points in my own defence.

The mulch storage facility has been in the news consistently. The Age, the Leader, the Bayside Melbourne Weekly and the local blog, Glen Eira Debates, have repeatedly featured stories and comments about this facility. I want to once and for all set the record straight and present the facts:

My concern over the mulch storage facility is the result of residents writing to me. “I often take my granddaughter to play in the adjacent playground and I am worried about the traffic and the dust generated by the council’s equipment” As well I have concerns for our employees, one of whom has written, concerning the mulch getting wet, “that may increase the risk of composting and subsequently the risk of Legionella.” An employee also wrote “The hazards associated with mulch are well known”. Yet they continued to work there without protective gear until at least the 5^th April 2011.
I followed up on such concerns as is my duty as early as June 2010
For months nothing was happening despite my frequent requests. On the 28^th October an officer wrote “No further action proposed at this time.”
My recourse to the Audit committee is my right as a councillor, and that committee deliberated on the issue, and found no conflict of interest in my presentation.
The Arnold investigation was only instigated because of the audit committee.
The report seemingly went through many versions. What has appeared in public is only the latest one of these versions.
I have been refused details of these changes, including why they were made.
I supplied various other scientific studies to all councillors and council officers
The decision to close the facility was on the vote of 7 to 2, yet the focus of criticism and innuendo has been specifically directed towards me.

In order to counter the continual and misleading media coverage of these events, I have applied under FOI and common law for documents relating to this entire episode. This is what has happened:

I have not received all the documents I requested
The processes have been most unusual in that I was given incorrect information by officers which delayed the release of documents; the released documents were not presented in accordance with legal requirements; and my request for a
review by VCAT was also delayed by incorrect advice from council’s officers.
As a councillor I have a common law right to documents which are part of council business. The mulch storage facility is absolutely council business.
Section 17 of the FOI Act obliges council to assist in sourcing and releasing the documents yet they have briefed Maddocks, a large firm of city solicitors, to resist my claim.
Documents not released to me are currently the basis of my request for a review by VCAT
What is the cost of preventing me from seeing these documents, what is council trying to hide, and is the timing of all of this a mere coincidence?

At that point the Mayor declared that what I was saying was not relevant and refused me permission to continue.

Frank.

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:

The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton

If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions. Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’ and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’

ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.

PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’

HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’

HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’

ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.

HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’

NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion

LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.

PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.

NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.

MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….

TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’

ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)

PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’

ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.

TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.

PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.

TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)

ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’

BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO. Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.

TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..

LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive meetings

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.

TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

November 1, 2011

News Flash: A Lesson in How To Bury Important Notices

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

Once again this council excels in its adherence to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. Hidden away under ‘Public Notices” there is the following announcement:

“Glen Eira City Council Special Committee Meeting

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee to be held at 8pm on Tuesday 8 November 2011 in the Council Chamber, Glen Eira Town Hall.

The meeting is expected to be closed to the public.”

This notice fulfils the legal requirements of 7 days notice and that’s about it. Timing is immaculate – ie. a public holiday. No link from the home page; no media release; no advertisement in the Caulfield Leader, no nothing, except the paltry and hidden 4 liner. We congratulate this administration for its consistency and councillors for allowing such actions to occur in their name.

PS: The Age advertisement appeared yesterday – 31st October.

November 1, 2011

VCAT: Minimal Change Area ‘Outdated’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[5] Comments

This VCAT appeal concerned a 5 storey (and 79 unit) development in Dudley St. For the full decision see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2032.html

“The local planning policy framework has some inconsistency regarding development in Dudley Street. The Caulfield campus of Monash University is identified in the Municipal Strategic Statement as the Phoenix Precinct. This area is the preferred location in Glen Eira for higher density housing and is an area where significant change is expected^[2]. Whilst Dudley Street is within close walking distance to the Phoenix Precinct, its western end including the review site is identified as an area of ‘minimal change’ and its eastern end close to Dandenong Road is identified as an area of housing diversity. Local policy for minimal change areas seeks
to:

Protect and enhance existing low intensity, low rise character.

Cater for new single dwellings and multi unit developments, provided development is consistent with surrounding use, character and scale.

Student housing is also encouraged to be located in close proximity to Monash University Caulfield campus where it would have good access to public transport, commercial, commercial, educational and recreation facilities
The responsible authority and Ms Moser opined that increasing the height of the two buildings would be inconsistent with the designation of the area as one of minimal change.
I accept that this proposal would not be consistent with policies for a minimal change area if little change was occurring in the area. Clearly this is not the context that applies to this review site and this proposal. Two buildings with a height of four storeys are under construction on the review site. Five storey buildings have been approved on the adjoining sites for student accommodation. A new ‘neighbourhood character’ is emerging in Dudley Street and Gibson Street. It will be very
different to the character it had when policies of minimal change were applied.

The emerging character is more aligned with the Phoenix Precinct and comprises larger buildings rather than the traditional lower density residential streets typically found throughout Caulfield and Carnegie. Whilst it is physically separated by the recreation reserve from the Phoenix Precinct, it is functionally integrated with that precinct. I concur with Member David when he commented ‘the horse has bolted’ and the minimal change area policy is no longer relevant to guide planning discretion in this precinct.

I think the proposed modest changes to the built form would comply with the strategic directions of the State and the local planning policy frameworks that encourage provision of a more diverse housing stock, greater housing choice and intensification in and close to activity centres. I think in situations such as this where circumstances have made the local policy incongruous and outdated, weight must be given to the State planning policy framework and the prevailing context that applies to the site. The proposal needs to be assessed on its particular design merits. There is little point in continuing to apply a policy that is no longer relevant. I think this proposal would provide net community benefits by enabling several hundred people to reside close to the extensive infrastructure invested in the Phoenix Precinct, and it would support an important education institution.
To reject this proposal because a local policy says the land is within a minimal change area when adjoining sites are to be developed for five storey buildings makes planning policy and the exercise of discretion appear non responsive and unthinking.”

October 31, 2011

Bullying: Yet Another Opinion

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

Tactics Of A Workplace Serial Bully Boss

By ABC

Some bully bosses have no shame and make no effort to hide their bullying behaviors. These are the screamers, ranters and ravers. They may have tantrums, throw things, pound on desks and fire subordinates on a whim. Often they remain in their position because there is no one in a higher position in which to take them down. These are the CEOs of both small and large companies or owners of small businesses. A frequent example is a physician’s or a dentist’s practice in which the doctor bullies his receptionists, nurses, billing clerks, and even the cleaning crew. Most people would agree that people who behave this way are “bullies”.

Then there is another type of bully boss which most people would not even perceive as a bully. The “closet” bully boss is actually much more prevalent and more dangerous than the ranter or raver described above. This type of bully boss is very clever in their ability to hide their bullying behaviors and to manipulate the perception of bystanders against the “target”. Most bullies possess excellent emotional intelligence. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that true “psycho bullies” are motivated in ways that normal people do not understand. Bullies use their emotional intelligence to cause conflict intentionally. They are not interested in building positive relationships, only ones they can manipulate. Much of their bullying behavior is premeditated. They do not possess empathy.

Closet bully bosses are often also “serial bullies” who choose one target at a time. One study showed that after successfully eliminating a target, they chose another target within two weeks. These bully bosses are capable of behaving normally towards all other subordinates and will even behave normally towards the target, whenever there are witnesses. This method serves the bully boss well, making it difficult for others to believe a target. Often, only the bully boss and the target know the true nature of the bully.

Simply stated, “targets” are good at their jobs and therefore cannot be taken down based on poor job performance. Therefore bullies rely on character assassination, twisted, half or outright lies, rumors and innuendo to subjugate or eliminate their target. Read my article “proud to be a target” to understand how bullies choose their targets.

At the beginning of a bullying campaign the target may actually feel favored by the bully boss. The bully boss often befriends their target at first. The target begins to trust the bully boss and may share information about their weaknesses that the bully boss then uses against the target. After the bully boss gains useful information about the target, the bully may try a few “pass-by nibbles” (read the article about pass-by nibbles, on this blog) to test the targets reaction. Then a full blown bullying campaign begins.

In my first emotional assault, my bully called me into a meeting with her and a Human Resource Rep to “discuss my needs”, only to reprimand me for “intimidation of subordinates”, a grossly twisted, half truth. My bully boss knows how strongly I feel about treating everyone, especially subordinates, respectfully. Knowing this about me, she knew it would be especially hurtful to accuse me of just that. It upset me horribly and I couldn’t stop crying at my desk for most of that day.

This reprimand happened behind closed doors. I was warned not to discuss it with coworkers. My coworkers didn’t hear my boss’s lies or hear her calling me a liar. They didn’t see her disrespect me as she rolled her eyes and clicked her tongue at my responses. They only knew I was reprimanded so severely I cried all day. Bullies delight in observing the pain and chaos they have caused and marvel at their ability to get away with it. Next comes the “mental health card”.

After the Bully boss’s first emotional assault the target reacts emotionally as I did. The bully boss then manipulates the target’s coworkers into feeling privileged to be in her confidence. The bully then feigning concern for the target tells of half or twisted truths, placing the targets mental health, competence and/or loyalty into question. It is often what the bully doesn’t say that causes the most damage. For example: The bully boss brings coworkers into her privileged confidence. The bully then cites a half or twisted truths about the target or will imply that the target caused the bully some kind of deep hurt. The bully then mimicking deep hurt or confidentiality concerns, refuses to share details, leaving everything to the imagination. It must be remembered that they are “masters of deception” and can easily convince others of the target’s negative attributes and how the target has caused them personal concern or injury of some kind. They can be so convincing, some convince themselves into believing the lies that they themselves have fabricated.

Coworkers feeling privileged to be of assistance to their deeply hurt boss will do anything the bully boss asks. This is called “mobbing”.

A full blown bullying and mobbing campaign could be a very critical period for the target who has no understanding of the “bullying and mobbing phenomenon”. Targets who are typically good performers and well liked by coworkers are stunned by the first emotional assault, which is often the first reprimand in their careers. They become obsessed trying to understand why first their boss, then their coworkers turned against them, when there is no valid reason at all!

Suddenly the target’s world is a different place, for reasons they don’t understand. Most targets have enjoyed decades of appreciated successes on their jobs, only to be left in isolated despair. Most targets are forced out of their positions within two years of a bullying and mobbing campaign. Forced out by being fired, resigning, becoming ill, committing suicide or going postal!

All of this could be avoided if every working person had a knowledge of “workplace bullying and mobbing”. If this is the first time you have heard of it, learn more about it today. Who knows, you might be the serial bullys’ next target. Hopefully, someday, every working person will learn to Recognize it, Name it and End workplace bullying and mobbing together! ABC”.

SOURCE: http://antibullyingcrusador.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/tactics-of-a-workplace-serial-bully-boss/

October 30, 2011

Another “Clerical Error”!

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

Poor old Glen Eira! They’re really having such a bad trot at the moment with ‘clerical error’ after ‘clerical error’. First there was the failure to accurately account for all bookings at Allnutt Park. Next, another ‘error’ with the report on public questions. Now, the most sacrosanct document of all – the much touted and award winning Annual Report – has also succumbed to the disease of ‘clerical error’! It’s an epidemic!

Page 54 of the 2010/11 Annual Report claims that council cleaned 30km of drains in 2008/9 and last year – 2009/10. This year the total has literally leapt into the stratosphere with the mind boggling 32km. However, we invite all residents to go back to last year’s Annual Report and there they will find in black and white (on page 32) that ONLY 25KM were stated as the total number of drains cleaned.

Now this may all sound trivial, inconsequential, nit picking, etc. However, when thousands and thousands of dollars are spent in producing this opus, one should expect 100% accuracy and reliability. Or is it that by stating a consistent 30km of drains cleaned, the record looks better than a drop of 5 k in 2009/10? This then leads on to the more serious questions of:

how many other ‘clerical errors’ are in this report and elsewhere?
how much faith should residents put in any figures that are published?

We’re still digesting the spin and waffle. More to come!

October 29, 2011

Tenders: Value for Money?

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

Local government is very, very big business. One could therefore argue that it behoves councils to ensure that they are as transparent and accountable in their dealings with companies as possible. Please note, we do recognise the importance of commercial in confidence’ and other associated legalities. All we’re saying is that residents need to have confidence that the successful applicants are in fact the best available and that we are getting ‘value for money’.

We’ve recently heard of a story where a certain club requested some equipment from Council. They offered to pay half and when told the price asked, they went and got their own quotations, and surprise, surprise – the quotations came in at half the cost that council had stated. When council was informed of this far cheaper quotation, their response was: “oh we’ve already selected our preferred supplier and it would now cost too much to tender”. End of story. The moral of course, is that residents end up paying double.

So what does this say about tendering and the processes involved? We’ve already asked whether councillors get a look in – do they see the tender documents? Do they sit on the selection panels? Do they help set the criteria? Who are the officers who sit on such panels? What are their qualifications? Why can’t the public be informed as to the process, the selection criteria, and the grades for each applicant – at least in those tenders that are not bound by ‘commercial in confidence’? It doesn’t seem to be a problem for Port Phillip, or other councils, to place in the public domain their evaluations and comments – see uploaded document.

We’ve gone through the last 3 Glen Eira council agendas/minutes and find the following tenders were, or are about to be, considered –

IT ‘management support’ – $4,250,000 (including GST?)

Designing Glen Eira News – “more than $200,000”

Sports oval –
$525,969.40 inclusive of GST

Concrete works – More than $1,000,000

Drainage – $1,445,000

Construction – $382,715.30 (GST incl)

From these 3 meetings alone, that’s a potential grand total (and could be more if GST isn’t included) of $7,803,684. And all we, and probably councillors get to know about all this, is the ‘recommendation’ by anonymous officers that councillors probably rubber stamp, and we residents keep paying for. A lot more information and communication in this area is desperately needed so that residents may have full confidence that they are actually getting value for their money. As for councillors, surely the GESAC basketball allocation mess should be a salutary lesson in the necessity of careful oversight?

October 28, 2011

Agenda: Advice Or “Obstructionism”?

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

Once again Officer reports to Councillors’ requests take on the aura of naysaying to all attempted ‘improvements’ to the municipality. We urge a careful reading of the Public Toilet report and the Queen’s Avenue pathway. The usual tactics of ‘it will cost too much” (ie $250,000 for ONE public toilet; conflicts with agreement with MRC, public safety, etc. etc. etc) dominate.

On committee reports, nothing much changes except that the Pools Steering Committee ‘minutes’ now include the staggering number of 4 items instead of the usual 2. The most important item simply states: “Project Update Report”!!!! So much for communication’, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ for a project costing mega bucks.

It also appears that ‘clerical errors’ are becoming the achilles heel of this administration. They just can’t seem to get it right. In the report on Public Questions, we’re told that there were 22 questions asked and answered in the space of 3 months and that NONE were taken on notice. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We totally disagree with the figures provided and as proof, here’s a statement taken directly from council’s minutes – “A Public Question taken on notice at the 19 July 2011 Council Meeting was tabled for inclusion in the Minutes of this Meeting”.

In camera items are again fascinating. Amazingly we’re told that there is a tender going for “information systems support services”. The value of this contract? Only a paltry $4,250,000. Given that the financial reports and budgets state that just under $1m is for IT, we can only wonder what on earth ‘support services’ actually means and why it would cost this astronomical amount?

Then there’s another half a million or so for the upgrade of another sporting oval; a cleaning contract for GESAC with no sum attached, and numerous (ongoing) legal issues that are sure to keep accruing further costs – ie. ‘compliance’ with Local Government Act; GESAC contracts; and a strange “OH &S request for information”.

PS: NO RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY INCLUDED, especially the really important one of 20th September, post council meeting where the Special Committee was set up.

October 27, 2011

Accountability & Good Governance?

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

In our last post we listed the ‘requests for reports’ which were still outstanding. One of these was the Lipshutz/Whiteside motion –

“That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City (16th October, 2007)”.

Not only has no report ever made an appearance, but the depot still stands in the middle of Caulfield Park! Worse still is found in the minutes of 7th April 2010 – that is, just on 2 and a half years later, when Mr. Jack Campbell, OBE asked the following public question –

“Could you please report the result of the investigation requested by Cr. Lipshutz into an alternative site for the ‘Works Depot’ currently located in the Crown Land of Caulfield Park and what action is planned to re-locate this Depot and when is it planned that this will occur.”

The response read: “The outcome of the investigation was reported on page 52 of Council’s 2008/09 Annual Report. A suitable alternative site that meets Council’s requirements has not been found. Councillors remain committed to continuing the search for an appropriate site.”

We wish to note several things here:

As per usual, parts of Mr. Campbell’s question remain unanswered.
The depot has not been moved, no report has been tabled (as admitted by this response) and like the mulch site ‘searches’ seem to take forever until they evaporate from the public consciousness!

When one actually goes to page 52 of the 2008/9 Annual Report we find this:

Strategy	Action	Measure
Investigate the relocation of the Parks Depot from Caulfield Park	Conduct Investigation	Investigation completed

“Comment: Investigation covered the need for some permanent park maintenance facilities; the inclusion during 2009 of water tanks and infrastructure to supply recycled water to the park via drip irrigation; and the scarcity of alternative sites within Glen Eira. Options to minimise the area required are being considered further”.

QUESTIONS

Where is the report? Why hasn’t it been tabled?
Why four years on is the depot still at Caulfield Park?
Why wasn’t Mr Campbell’s question answered fully?
Why shouldn’t residents believe that such inaction and responses are not in the interests of full transparency, accountability and/or good governance?