September 26, 2011

CEO Appointment: Special Committee

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[13] Comments 

More fun and games are in the offing with the creation of a Special Committee to consider whether or not to reappoint Andrew  Newton. An alert reader notified us of this fact via an advertisement placed in today’s (Monday) Business Age. Questions thus abound:

  • Why a Special Committee? Does this mean that we will have another C60 fiasco where not all councillors will be included on this committee?
  • Special Committees must have agendas, minutes, and notification to the public. There’s nothing up on the council website – yet there’s been time to place an ad in The Age where the chances of anyone finding it are practically zilch!
  • Will the committee work behind closed doors and ‘confidentiality’ to avoid publishing minutes, etc?
  • Will Lipshutz, Hyams or Esakoff chair this committee?
  • What are the terms of reference? This must be made public.
  • And don’t you love the title!
 

September 26, 2011

Submission – But Not For Public Consumption?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

BY REBECCA THISTLETON rebecca.thistleton@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Council wants state to drive transport reform

ROADS and public transport are suffering under Glen Eira’s development surge, according to a submission by Glen Eira Council for the state’s new planning strategy.

The council highlighted Elsternwick, Bentleigh, Carnegie and the Phoenix precinct around Caulfield station as places where infrastructure lagged behind development and population.

Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff put forward the council’s submission to the Victorian Planning System ministerial advisory committee at the end of August.

According to the submission, state planning policy promotes higher-density development which is not supported by other infrastructure. Residents were often unable to board packed trains, the council submission stated. “Some residents argue that planning policies are attracting more residents than the public transport system can support,’’ the submission stated.
Funding was desperately needed to remove rail crossings at Carnegie and Murrumbeena stations to stop traffic problems worsening as the population grows. “The need for change in our urban environment is a source of tension in the community,” the submission said. “The role of town planning in managing this is now more prominent than ever before.’’

The advisory committee is examining ways to improve the Victorian Planning System, which relates to buildings and homes, the location of shopping centres and community facilities, as well as the location of transport infrastructure and recreation space.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said both the planning and transport departments would be involved in developing the new strategy.

“It is absolutely essential to get planning and transport policy working together to improve efficiency, mobility and liveability,” Mr Guy said.

Consultation workshops would be held with councils in coming weeks, he said. The committee is expected to submit a preliminary report to the minister by November 30.

 

September 24, 2011

Councils & Secrecy

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

Secret agenda riles ex-lord mayor

Craig Cobbin

September 24, 2011

Melbourne City Council is making too many decisions without the glare of  public scrutiny, according to a former lord mayor.

The agenda for next Tuesday’s council meeting lists seven items for  discussion as ”confidential” with only one item disclosed to the public.

Former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin said the council, in charge of an annual  budget worth hundreds of millions of dollars, was operating too much in  secrecy.
‘When you look at a council meeting agenda you get the distinct impression  the real business is done behind closed doors,” Mr Chamberlin said.

The closed shop at Tuesday’s council meeting comes after The Age  reported in May the lord mayor was conducting ”councillor-only meetings” that   did not require minutes to be taken or councillors to declare a conflict of  interest because no council staff were present.

Cr Carl Jetter, who said he represented business interests in the council,  said it was a long-standing convention for the past three to four terms to have  more internal discussions on operations.

”It’s not for the public or ratepayers to know,” Cr Jetter said.

But lord mayor Robert Doyle said the council was more transparent than State  Parliament – despite debates in Parliament being open to the public.

”Tuesday’s meeting agenda with so many confidential items is unusual,” Cr  Doyle said.

”All nine councillors, regardless of how long they have been a councillor,  are free to bring up discussions to question the confidential nature of  matters.”

City of Melbourne chief executive Dr Kathy Alexander said in  a prepared  statement: ”The City of Melbourne understands the importance of being open and  transparent with its ratepayers, however there are some specific matters as  outlined in the Local Government Act that cannot be discussed in open  council.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/secret-agenda-riles-exlord-mayor-20110923-1kpe6.html#ixzz1YpXzLvji

 

September 23, 2011

A Penny For Your Thoughts!

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

We’ve previously reported on the allegations of bullying and harassment made against Cr. Penhalluriack by Andrew Newton. We’ve also highlighted the fact that such allegations are not a new tactic by Mr. Newton – as evidenced in the Whelan Report.

We believe that it is in the public interest to reveal some further information on this issue so that the record is set straight and people may make up their own minds as to what is actually going on. The facts are:

  • Council (rather than WorkSafe) hired Ms. O’Neill to conduct an ‘investigation’ into the bullying allegations
  • Ms. O’Neill is a lawyer specialising in workplace issues
  • Two residents were interviewed by Ms. O’Neill at the request of Cr. Penhalluriack
  • These residents were asked for their views on the ‘interactions’ between Cr. Penhalluriack and Newton at 4 separate Council Meetings. They were also asked for their opinion as to whether these ‘interactions’ were ‘appropriate’
  • The specific council meetings primarily involved Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings between the MRC and Newton; the mulch heap fiasco and the Boyd park grant for drainage.

Both residents confirmed the following:

  • Penhalluriack was fulfilling his legal and fiduciary duty in highlighting possible health risks which could place Council (and its employees) at risk if not attended to. It was also noted that only two councillors voted against the motion. Hence a majority were in agreement with Penhalluriack
  • That as a councillor Penhalluriack has a legal and fiduciary duty to ensure that funding is spent in the most cost-effective manner and to the benefit of the residents of the municipality
  • That other councillors over the years have also expressed ‘disappointment’ with the content, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of officers’ reports. That current councillors, apart from Penhalluriack, have questioned procedures and the need for cost-benefit analyses in reports.
  • That in their view, Penhalluriack’s language, demeanour, and questioning of officers is perfectly appropriate given his role and legal obligations as a councillor. At no time could either resident perceive these ‘interchanges’ as bullying and harassment.

Admittedly, neither of these residents are privy to what goes on behind closed doors. They could only attest to what they had witnessed. However, several points need to be made:

  • Are we really and truly expected to believe that a seasoned bureaucrat like Newton suddenly feels threatened because a councillor sees fit to ask uncomfortable questions in public and/or in private? Or that he demands reports that are detailed and comprehensive?
  • Should residents accept the silence and refusal to answer public questions on how much this investigation has cost them? We have stated before that any lawyer worth a cracker would probably be charging somewhere between $150 and $400 per hour. Then there’s also the writing of the report and god knows how many people were interviewed. So what is the pay out to O’Neill? We hazard a guess that it could be well over $30,000.
  • History tells us that the bullying card has been played before by Newton. Really amazing that a man who has worked in Canberra and at State level and undoubtedly experienced much pressure in these jobs, should twice in 6 years suddenly feel ‘bullied’ by mere part timers, who ostensibly, are simply doing their elected tasks.
  • What further machinations are being played out behind closed doors, since the in camera items continue to feature ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ items which we presume relates to this affair?

We’ve also stated several times that the history of Glen Eira is besmirched with dismissals, disagreements, and now 4 Municipal Investigations. All (serendipitously) coincide with the arrival of Newton. He remains the solitary common denominator in all these trials and tribulations. The next month is thus crucial. Councillors must decide whether to anoint him for another 2 years, or seek a new CEO that will bring a breath of fresh air into Glen Eira and transform what many residents see as a repressive and out of touch corporate culture.

 

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only –  please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

 

September 21, 2011

Too Little, Too Late?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[9] Comments 

At Tuesday night’s council meeting, Cr. Pilling requested an officer’s report on the enormous charge increases for 3 year old kindergartens. He stipulated that the report should also provide comparisons with prices at neighbouring councils. Pilling also expressed concern that the Glen Eira charges were at the ‘steep end’ of charges, especially in comparison to other councils. This request for a report was passed unanimously.

Pilling should be commended for his request and concern. However, we remind readers that we raised this matter as soon as the draft budget was published. We pointed out that by June 2012, parents of 3 year olds would be paying an extra $155 per week for their toddlers to attend a council run kindergarten. There was also a major story in the Leader which we featured. Alarm bells were thus ringing loud and clear months and months ago. So, why wasn’t this ‘concern’ expressed loudly and clearly at budget time – or even prior to then when plans were first being drawn up? Why is the request for a report put in months later, when the charges are already set in concrete? Perhaps Cr. Pilling did raise the matter in Assemblies. We don’t know. But the end result was that the budget was passed unanimously with a few minor adjustments (ie. 2 less sports grounds redone and  a rate drop to 6.5% instead of 6.95%).

So, we are now in the position of waiting for the Officer’s report – which could take months. And what will this actually achieve anyway? Will it bring charges down this year, next year? Will it actually make any difference to anyone? We can only conclude that if Cr. Pilling and others were so concerned about the exorbitant increase then they should have rejected the budget when they had the opportunity. To cry crocodile tears now is far too late.  And an Officer’s Report will fix nothing. It will be ‘noted’, and most probably go into the dustbin of history.

 

September 21, 2011

The Chamber of Spin!

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

Item 9.3 – Heritage status

Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.

Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.

PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.

TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’  and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.

LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….

HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…

PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)

Motion – Pilling/Forge

PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’

FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.

PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should  be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).

HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.

TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.

PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.

 

September 20, 2011

Council Meeting: When Minutes Aren’t ‘Minutes’!

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

The following statements were made in relation to the ‘minutes’ of the Pools Committee –

LIPSHUTZ: Pools committee meets on a regular basis…’pool is progressing very well’…one pool has already been tiled and the other one is being tiled….’we are still on track for a December opening’…..’our staff are right on top of the work…..’the builder tried to suggest measures which our staff rejected’….’that indicates the level of concentration and the level of awareness that’ staff have in relation to the pool….

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been attempting to attend (the pools committee meetings but dates aren’t published and minutes aren’t provided)….’I am concerned that there are no records in the minutes of progress ….items 1 to 5 are all subheadings and no information about what’s happened….I am more than happy to accept the fact that we have experts….but I would like to be able to attend these site meetings to see for myself…..and a little more detail than what we have in these minutes…..liquidated damages tells me nothing….these (should be)  meeting minutes and not simply meeting headings… there is no date for the next meeting (Penhalluriack asked Lipshutz when the next meeting is scheduled).

Lipshutz responded that he doesn’t recall but will check.

 

September 20, 2011

Time For Humble Pie?

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

The 466 Hawthorn Rd. Heritage listing is also on tonight’s agenda items. Officer recommendations are to accept the Panel Report recommendations and to include the 2 Seaview properties under the Heritage listing. Should we therefore expect some humble pie tonight from councillors? After all, they have cost residents an extra 4 Heritage Advisors ‘reports’; a panel hearing, lawyers and staff time. In short, quite a few thousand dollars that has been needlessly flushed down the toilet. Readers should also remember Cr. Lipshutz’s new found expertise in Heritage matters. We also had Tang and Hyams claiming that recourse to a Panel was to ensure that a member of the community wasn’t disadvantaged simply because of who he was.

We anticipate that this will be the constant refrain tonight – council has only acted in the best interests of social justice, blah, blah, blah. No apologies, and no accounting for the dismal performance of Council lawyers in this matter. But, we still have had no real plausible explanation of how and why this stuff up occurred in the first place. Nor what role the planning department played in this entire fiasco.

 

September 20, 2011

Cost Benefit Analysis – Does It Exist?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Tonight’s council meeting will decide on Item 9.2 – subdivisions and the ‘vesting’ of 7 lots in Council. There is also the important consideration of – “To remove and replace outdated easements with a new drainage easement”. What all this means is that council is preparing for the sell off of numerous strips of land to surrounding owners. All well and good – if the sell off has been calculated to reap more dollars than it costs.

Over a year ago, it was revealed that in order to flog a strip of land, council had to update the drainage system and that this would be in the order of $40,000. The proceeds from the sale were declared not to come anywhere near this figure. Given this history, we can only speculate as to whether there really has been a full and in depth cost benefit analysis done? Of course, there are no figures contained in the Officer’s report to provide guidance, nor satisfactory justification. We therefore ask:

  • How much will this cost ratepayers in terms of officers’ time; potential new works, etc?
  • What is the anticipated revenue from these eventual sell offs?
  • And the bottom line – has a cost benefit analysis been done?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »