August 8, 2011

Bayside Weekly: Questions No Go

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

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

 

GLEN Eira Council has come under fire from residents over its refusal to answer questions about a legal stoush between one of its councillors and its chief executive. Residents say the council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that Councillor Frank Penhalluriack bullied council chief executive Andrew Newton.

Rosetta Manaszewicz of McKinnon has asked the council to provide a total figure for legal costs in relation to Cr Penhalluriack. But the council has rejected the request, and refused to reveal whether it has consulted lawyers.

Acting mayor Jamie Hyams said public questions have gone unanswered because they were inappropriate or would breach privacy laws outlined in the Local Government Act. He said he could not acknowledge there was an investigation into bullying and harassment claims, as Ms Manaszewicz had implied in her question. Nor could he comment on whether the council had
incurred any legal costs.

Cr Penhalluriack said although he supported transparency in council dealings, he was unable to comment. “My hands are tied,” he said.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was also waiting for answers to questions about council expenditure on consultants and legal advice for the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. Council officers were still compiling a response to her questions last week. The council had 10 working days to provide an answer. The deadline expired on August 2.

The latest controversy follows an investigation by the local government watchdog last year which found the council needed to improve its transparency. The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate launched the investigation after receiving 43 complaints against the council. It recommended in September last year that councillors receive training in council practices and note takers attend all councillor meetings.

Cr Hyams said the council had worked to meet the recommendations.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said a lack of transparency had plagued the council for the past 15 years. ‘‘I blame the administration, not the councillors.” He said the community had little faith in the council’s openness about how ratepayers’ money was spent.

 

August 7, 2011

More On Agenda Items

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

There is definitely something rather strange going on in those secret Councillor Assemblies. We were really taken with the 12 July so called ‘minutes’. Once again all administrators except Burke left the room and the item for discussion was listed as “Request from an Integrity Agency”!!!! We would welcome any input from anyone who knows what an ‘integrity agency’ is! Council really has the language of gobbledygook and obfuscation down pat.

Also worthy of mention is the apparent ‘doctoring’ of minutes once again with these little gems –

“5 July 2011 – Cr Hyams at (iii) (h) amend by substituting one word for another Cr. Magee, at (ii) (a) amend by deleting words. Level of detail included in the Records of Assembly”

What’s wrong councillors? Is too much being let out of the bag?

We should also mention that the 26th July meeting began at 6.46. Tang arrived at 9.15pm. Two more items caught our eye here – ‘Compliance with Local Government Act’ and “Occupational Health and Safety’. The latter we guess relates to Newton’s bullying charges against Penhalluriack since the latter declared a conflict of interest at this point. Magically, Newton and all except Jones had disappeared from the Assembly by this point. Again, we assume that this is to prevent Newton from declaring his own Conflict of Interest if the item concerned his bullying allegations.

Honestly, the machinations of this council would provide spy/thriller writers with enough material to last the next hundred years! Only problem is, that it is ratepayers who keep coughing up their hard earned money for all these shenanigans!

 

August 6, 2011

VCAT ‘Ticks Off’ Council Planning Department

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

VCAT often designates some decisions as ‘Red Dot’ – that is, ‘cases of interest’ and which then form part of its ‘practice notes’. Glen Eira is the latest ‘Red Dot’ case. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1422.html)

The reason why this case is highlighted is simply that Council FAILED TO INFORM ALL OBJECTORS of an amendment. This isn’t the first time that residents have complained that they did not receive any notification of either applications, or appeals by developers, or later, amended plans submitted by applicants. One has to wonder at the efficiency of this planning department – how good is its record keeping? How up to date are its records? Or is the failure to notify and inform possibly more than a ‘clerical error’. It would appear that ‘clerical errors’ are suddenly coming thick and fast!

Below are some highlights of the member’s judgement:

“At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.

This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.

As it transpired, it appears that there were three objectors to permit application GE/PP-21828/2009, namely:

  • (name/address omitted), Caulfield East
  • (name/address omitted),  Caulfield East
  • Vic Track, GPO Box 1681P, Melbourne.

Only one of these objectors (Vic Track) was given notice.

…it is unclear whether the list of persons previously notified is based on up-to-date records held by the Council to reflect current ownership and occupancy details.

The adjournment of hearings involving s.87A applications as a result of incomplete notice being given has arisen on a number of occasions in recent times. It would appear that the obligations of Responsible Authorities in proceedings of
this kind, is not well understood.  

Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.  

 

August 5, 2011

Manipulation Extraordinaire!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments 

The agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting represent the absolute rock bottom in the history of this dysfunctional Council. The onus is now very clearly on councillors to stand up and question, and ultimately reject the appalling manipulation that is evidenced by these items. We’ll go through the most important ones:

  1. Local Laws Advisory Committee (Lipshutz, Tang, Pilling)

When the Local Law came up for consideration in 2009, the argument that several residents put forward was that the Councillor Questions Policy (ie. the ‘no surprises’ gag) should not be included in the Local Law. This was of course rejected! Now, funnily enough, we have the committee recommending:

“that the public questions process be removed from the Local Law and replaced with a right to ask questions in accordance with guidelines in force from time to time. The guidelines would need to be approved by Council.

Cr Tang requested a report as to the time taken up in answering public questions”.

When literally every other council in the state includes Public Questions as part of its Meeting Procedures within the Local Law, why is Lipshutz (aka Newton) and his gang determined to be different? What are the ramifications of such a change? And what little cute Dorothy Dixer is Tang playing at? We are also concerned as to the LEGALITY of such an attempt to abort democratic process given that the Local Government Act, 1989 states: “A Council must make local laws governing the conduct of meetings of the Council and special committees”. Public questions are part of council meetings and as such must be included in a local law!

2. Community Consultation Committee

Again in stark contrast to previous practice the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has now been left in the hands of Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz! The 12 submissions that were received are not published, no names are given, and it is this committee which is to make recommendations to council. All well and good, except that Council does not appear to have had any privacy concerns when it published in full, submissions to the Toilet strategy, and other minor ‘consultations’.
We can only marvel at the ‘selectiveness’ of this mob and how transparency and by implication accountability is sabotaged time and time again!

If there is nothing to hide and if the officers’ report is a true reflection of the comments made by residents, then why not publish the full submissions? Why not go to full council? We can only wonder whether ALL COUNCILLORS HAVE EVEN READ THE SUBMISSIONS. For something as important as engagement/consultation, what we have here is again a sham and an insult to those individuals who submitted and to residents everywhere.

3. In Camera Items

This is where things get really interesting. One item concerns the MRC and Crown Land. We thus ask: why is council considering it (and in camera) if this concerns the land swap between the MRC and govt? What of the subdivision? Why is the community again being kept in the dark?

Then there’s the GESAC legal bills over allocations, and ‘contractual’ items over GESAC. If everything is going so well (ie on time and on budget) then what’s there to mull over ‘contracts’ at this point in time? Or is the public again being sold a furphy on progress of GESAC?

Another interesting item from this section relates to ‘personnel’ and compliance with the Local Government Act! Gosh, another potential breach of the act by someone? Another Municipal Investigation perhaps? or more work for the Ombudsman?

There’s plenty more in these items that require careful reading. The ball is now in councillors’ court. Will they once again acquiesce without a whimper? Will anyone have the guts to open their mouths and demand answers to fundamental questions of process, transparency and good governance? Or will silence and complicity reign supreme?

 

August 4, 2011

Victorian Auditor General

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

From the VAGO website:

Business Planning for Major Capital Works and Recurrent Services in Local Government

 

Under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), all councils are required to implement principles of sound financial management; including managing financial risks prudently having regard to economic circumstances; ensuring that decisions and actions have regard to financial effects on future generations; and to ensuring full, accurate and timely disclosure of financial information relating to the council.

The 2006 Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters further commits councils to demonstrating sound public governance through good fiscal management; to consider available resources and competing priorities when making service-delivery decisions; and to improve their strategic planning and development of appropriate pricing regimes.

It has been six years since the Act was amended to shift away from annual planning to longer-term four year Council Plans and Strategic Resource Plans. It is timely therefore to determine whether this has strengthened business planning and budgeting.

The audit will review the business planning and budgeting practices for selected capital works and recurrent services in a sample of metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.

The report is expected to be tabled by end of September 2011.

 

August 3, 2011

Racecourse: What’s The Rush?

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

Council can move at supersonic speed, but only when it wants to!

The planning application for the centre of the racecourse was advertised in the Leader with the closing date for objections listed as the 8th August. We’ve now learnt that the planning conference for this application will be held on the 15 August – that is, one week later! Given that it usually would take at least 24 hours for objectors to be notified by mail, we  assume that most people wouldn’t receive their letters until the Wednesday – at  the earliest! We simply ask – what’s the rush? Why is there such a short time frame between the close of objections and the actual planning conference? Even  more suspicious is the fact that the VEAC report is scheduled to be made public  on the 8th August.

We’ve commented before on the inverse correlation that is a clear  trend in the way that this council approaches notification to residents regarding  planning issues. Far too often we find:

  • Poor and negligible publicity and/or advertising
  • Missing files
  • Not all objectors officially notified

The list goes on and on.  We simply assume that this is just part of the  overall agenda – anything to do with the racecourse is rushed through, kept as  quiet as possible, and signed off on with very little debate, argument, and/or  consultation. If the MRC can remove their application at a moment’s notice (ie the April 4th meeting), then Council can surely timetable a planning conference that gives residents time to organise their lives, read the VEAC report, and submit carefully crafted objections.

 

August 2, 2011

More Questions On GESAC

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Today’s Leader carried two huge advertisements calling for submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act for the leasing of two facilities at GESAC – one for a cafe, and one for consulting rooms. There are a couple of interesting features in these ads. For example the rental that is listed for each lease DOES NOT indicate whether the amount is PER ANNUM or whether the stated amount is for the full 5 year lease period. We strongly suspect that this is again nothing more than spin and placing an amount of $66,000 for one lease (as the total sum) certainly sounds a lot better than publicising the fact that this space has been leased for a paltry $12 or $13,000 per annum!

There are also several other questions we would like answered. For example:

  • Are tenants paying for all utilities such as water, electricity,etc. or will ratepayers bear this burden?
  • Are these final rentals in line with original prognostications or are they well below what the planners of GESAC promised?
  • Does any councillor even know the answers to the above questions? If so, please let the community know too!
 

August 2, 2011

Municipal Inspector Investigates: #4

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

From The Leader, Jenny Ling – Page 3

COUNCILLOR PROBE IS CONFIRMED

The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating “a matter related to councillor (Frank) Penhalluriak”.

The Camden Ward councillor riased health concerns about Glen Eira Council’s free mulch service and the possible risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease, which led to the removal of the service in April (“Mulch to fume about” Leader April 26).

Councillors voted 7-2 in favour of removing the service at Glen Huntly reserve, leaving the $160,000 mulch storage shed – built in 2009 – empty.

In May the inspectorate said it was reviewing conflict of interest allegations made against Cr Penhalluriak who owns a hardware store in Caulfield that sells mulch. “Upon receiving a complaint, the inspectorate reviews the information…in order to determine if it is within jurisdiction and contains suitable evidence to investigate,” spokeswoman Angela Smith said at the time.

Ms Smith confirmed last week the inspectorate was now investigating, but would not make further comment. “Each investigation is unique and it is therefore not appropriate to anticipate a specific time frame for the resolution of any case,” Ms Smith said.

Cr Penhalluriak said he was not aware of the investigation. “If I did it would be confidential so I can’t make any comment,” he said.

 

August 1, 2011

VEAC Investigation

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

From the VEAC website:

Final Report

A final report was submitted to the Minister on 1 August 2011.

The report will be available to the public from 8 August 2011.

 

July 31, 2011

MSAC & GESAC: What A Difference!

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

From the minutes of Port Phillip’s last council meeting on the Community Representative sitting on the Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee. Note the contrast with GESAC’s Pool Committee!

 CITY OF PORT PHILLIP

2011
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MELBOURNE SPORTS AND AQUATIC CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  1. Purpose 

The purpose of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee is to assist Council to get the best result by ensuring that the views of relevant community members, government agencies and others are expressed and taken into account in the ongoing operation of the Centre. The Committee will:

Provide advice to Council on matters associated with Council’s interest and involvement in the development of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre at Albert Park Reserve, and, in particular, the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

Represent the interest of Council and the community and, in particular, in respect to those matters associated with the Community Aquatic Centre’s design, management and pricing structures.

Pursue a pro-active role in gathering information relating to the operation of aquatic facilities elsewhere, with the view to presenting issues and information to the Aquatic Centre which might be of benefit in improving the design, management and/or operation of the Community Aquatic Facility component of the overall complex.

Pursue on behalf of Council and the community the following objectives in relation to the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

………..

The council will appoint members of the Committee. The membership of the Committee will be:
City of Port Phillip (Councillors) x2

City of Port Phillip (staff)

Joint Councils Access for All Abilities

Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (MSAC)

Swim School

Regular community MSAC aquatic centre user X2

Inner South Community Health Service

(Allied health professional qualified in hydrotherapy)

Regular MSAC Hydrotherapy user

The Chairperson will be one of the Councillors.

Community members of the Aquatic Advisory Committee will be appointed by Council for a period of up to 2 years. Every 2 years positions will be advertised through the local paper, on notices at MSAC information boards, on the MSAC website and in the Divercity publication.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »