August 9, 2011

Council Meeting Report

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

Perhaps this blog site needs to take a little credit for the miniscule advances that occurred tonight in regard to the Advisory Committee Reports. In the past, committee reports have simply been ‘noted’ and the motion has always included that the recommendations be accepted. Tonight things were different for the Local Laws Committee and the (intended?) removal of the
public questions section from the local law. The report was merely ‘noted’! Here is the sequence of events:

Hyams started off by saying that since these minutes ‘have more substance’ than usual, they’ll deal with them separately. Lipshutz moved that the minutes of the Local Laws Committee ‘be duly noted’. Seconded by Pilling.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘ordinarily I would be moving a motion that would also seek a recommendation …..(but in this case)…this is the beginning of a process…..we also looked at the issue of public questions… (wanted to move an amendment that the word repetitive’ be put into Tang’s request for a report from officers on time taken to respond)….public questions are (currently governed by the Local Law….(which is a) very very blunt instrument…you can’t amend that very quickly….(so we want public questions as policy) which makes it more flexible….(gave examples of other councils where public questions come from the floor) we can’t even look at that….but if it were in policy we could look at all that….and make it more flexible for….the public….(so that’s one issue to bring back to council).

Went on to discuss the local law 326 about permits …..people in gallery ‘will note there have been many questions about this issue by one particular gentleman’….’we looked at the use of our land….we have again made certain recommendations….awaiting officers to come back to us with proposals….it will take some time to get it right….. Nothing will be done until there is a ‘formalised recommendation’ to make to Council. Then public submission.

PILLING; ‘I did have concerns about the public question ….(in favour of) more open procedure….having a more flexible policy can allow for this…changing the local law takes a year or so…..(so supportive of this).

PENHALLURIACK: Local Law 326 has concerned me for a long while…my concern is that we are (comparing like with ike)….don’t think there is any necessity to try and define what sort of sporting body can register’. Supported the other aspects which would allow Council ‘to experiment’ a bit…

LIPSHUTZ: thanked Penhalluriack for his comments and said that 326 was a ‘vexed question’ ….(and the committee looked at) how best to use public land….it was a very very long meeting, much discussion….and not yet considered completed….(once officers’ proposal comes in he is sure that councillors) will play around with….and hopefully come up with something that works best….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

Penhalluriack moved motion to accept recommendations. Seconded by Lipshutz

PENHALLURIACK: ‘These minutes are more comprehensive ….particularly with recommendations from the public…. sets out a vision….’

HYAMS: ‘certainly a fairly significant set of recommendations….we did debate it at quite great length….whether to have an aspirational committee plan above the council plan….(but came to compromise)….and long term council plan which includes a vision …..plan be developed by steering committee (which has 3 external community reps)….asking officers to draft (new engagement strategy based on submissions from public)….and the committee will consider it when (drafted)….in turn will come to council for adoption….(outlined changes such as) ‘proactive engagement’ ‘to clarify where there is input and where there is feedback’….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS

There were a number of public questions. Several by Mr. Varvodic were again declared inappropriate and classified as ‘harassment’.Responses to others that residents should note are:

1. The application by the MRC for the Centre of the Racecourse will come under the auspices of the Special Committee and NOT FULL COUNCIL

2. Ratepayers will be footing the bill for the convened Planning Panel to consider the 466 Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed properties

3. 20 full page colour ads for GESAC in the Leader over the past few months were reported as costing only $20,000

4. Questions as to policy on notifying residents of planning conference meetings remained unanswered – although ‘responded to’.

5. Questions taken on notice at last council meeting were tabled.

Finally, Cr. Penhalluriack used his ‘Right of Reply’ option to address council on the Bayside Weekly article which appeared this week. We will present a summary of his speech in the next few days.

 

August 9, 2011

Southwick’s Letter To The Editor

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[7] Comments 

From Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

Close eye on development

THE final Caulfield Village project came about as a result of extensive negotiation and involved many stakeholders (‘‘Libs on back foot’’, Leader, July 5).

As a candidate, I said that ‘‘we need developments that add to the community’’, and I stand by this.

As a result of my involvement in these negotiations, the centre of the racecourse is being improved with a $1.8 million contribution by the MRC.

I raised three other specific concerns about this development, which I am glad have been addressed:

HEIGHT restrictions have been put in place on the entire site, which range from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Rd end to no more than 20 storeys at the Monash University end.

THE parking requirements put in place are higher than both recent comparable developments and recent decisions made by VCAT. There will also be restrictions on on-street parking.

COMMUNITY concerns over high density, low cost housing have been heard and restrictions have been put in place to ensure any residential development does not have a detrimental effect on public safety.

As this development continues, I will be monitoring its progress to ensure the view of our community are heard.

 

August 8, 2011

Final VEAC Report

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

The VEAC report was released today. We have not had time for a thorough read, however the following paragraphs are pertinent to this council and its performance. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC152-MMI-Final-Report-FINAL-low-res.pdf

Recently released Australia Bureau of Statistics’ population estimates for metropolitan Melbourne indicate that the current population in some municipalities (Bayside, Brimbank, Glen Eira and Moonee Valley) has already exceeded the projections for 2016 (that is, population growth has been more rapid than anticipated).

Development of facilities on public open space in Caulfield Park

Caulfield Park is in the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of North Caulfield. The Park is about 25 hectares in area and is on Crown land. It was permanently reserved for public park, gardens and public recreation in 1866. It is managed by Glen Eira City Council as a committee of management. Much of the park contains sportsgrounds and hard courts, while the western end contains a parkland area. The park also contains a playground and conservatory.

The construction of a new Caulfield Park Pavilion in the central part of the park was completed in 2009. The 0.4 hectare pavilion and car park replaced a small sports building and storage shed (0.04 hectares in size). The footprint of the new pavilion is significantly larger than that of the old building and shed, and involved the construction of an additional access road in the park. The expansion of the pavilion transformed freely accessible public open space into an enclosed area where access generally requires membership of a particular sports club or payment of hire fees.

Sporting groups using the park generally favoured the construction of the new building as it enhanced their sporting activities. There was, however, opposition to the redevelopment from other users who were concerned about the loss of amenity and reduced area available for non-organised recreation and informal activities at the park.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R6 Prior to considering proposals that would result in the reduction of open space, government and local councils undertake a public process to assist them to determine the costs and benefits to the community of proposed reductions in public open space on public land and land owned by local councils.

R7 The principle of no net loss of area be applied when public open space on public land and land owned by local councils is used to deliver non-park related services and facilities.

R8 Public open space on public land and land owned by local councils be managed to maximise public access and to provide the widest range of user opportunities.

R9 Government review the open space contribution policy and provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions and Subdivision Act 1988 with the aim of assisting metropolitan local councils meet the challenges of population increase by maximising the contribution of open space through subdivision of land. This would include:

(a) reviewing the contribution level in the Subdivision Act to determine whether the minimum contribution should be set at five per cent

(b) streamlining the process for creating a contribution schedule to clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(c) removing the uncertainties in the interpretation and use of the SubdivisionAct and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(d) reviewing the provisions in the Subdivision Act and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions that exempt some subdivisions from the requirement to make an open space contribution

(e) considering whether the open space objectives in clause 56.05-2 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, which detail standards for neighbourhood open space, can be made to operate with the provisions in clause 52.01, which require people proposing to subdivide to make specified contributions to the local council.

 

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!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »