July 11, 2011

Playing Ducks & Drakes & Drains

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

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

Flood risk for 80,000

A REPORT shows Melbourne Water and Glen Eira Council have failed to take a lead role in preventing future floods.

The report, by Glen Eira Council stated Melbourne Water has identified about 80,000 properties at risk of overland flooding and 40,000 properties with buildings at risk of flooding above floor level, as Glen Eira lies on a flood plain.

The council tabled the report into the severe February 2011 floods at a recent council meeting and has called on Melbourne Water to increase drainage capacity.

Melbourne Water has blamed Glen Eira’s flooding on previous planning decisions in flood plain areas. Areas flooded in February closely matched locations marked as trouble spots by Melbourne Water 11 years ago on a map of flood-prone areas. At the time, the council made changes to planning controls and wrote to Melbourne Water expressing concern and requesting capacity improvements to prevent flooding.

Council papers showed February’s floods were ‘‘extremely severe’’ and caused the underground system to overflow.

After the floods, the council received more than 700 inquiries and requests for drainage improvements. More than 150 homes and businesses were inundated and more than 90 were storm damaged.

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the council’s drains were dependent on Melbourne Water’s drains because the water flowed into them. ‘‘The council continues to advocate for the state government to improve the capacity of Melbourne Water drains to reduce the risk of flooding in areas covered by Melbourne Water drains,’’ he said.

Melbourne Water’s manager of floodplain services, Phillip Neville, said it was unfortunate Glen Eira was developed without a defined path for excess water to run off. ‘‘In older suburbs where no consideration was given to reserving areas for overland flows, existing properties can be in the flow path and are susceptible to overflow in severe storms,’’ he said.

A letter to the council from Melbourne Water stated there was a 25 to 30 year plan to reduce flood risk for drainage systems with an ‘‘extreme’’ or ‘‘intolerable’’ flood risk and flood mitigation works were underway.

In 2005, the state government released the Storm Water Management Audit. Glen Eira was hit with a scathing report and suggested improvements. Mr Burke said the council has since worked to improve drainage and had allocated $3 million
towards a drainage improvement program last year.

He said revised flood mapping was being used by Melbourne Water to update planning controls, which would take flood plains into account for future housing developments.

 

Ducking the issue

Don Dunstan has been trying to replace a storage bungalow in his Ormond backyard for 10 months. But Mr Dunstan, president of the Glen Eira Residents’ Association, has been unable to secure the planning permit he needs for a new building due to confusion over storm water drains on his property.

The permit has stalled because neither the council nor Melbourne Water can identify where underground stormwater drains lie between his and his neighbour’s home. Mr Dunstan has paid a surveyor to try to locate the drain to no avail. Melbourne Water has told him records showing the exact location are unreliable.

Mr Dunstan described the handling of storm water management responsibilities by council and Melbourne Water as ‘‘duck shoving’’. His issue is representative of storm water problems that could affect 80,000 homes in the area during heavy rain, such as that experienced earlier this year.

Mr Dunstan said there were properties and parkland across Glen Eira which faced storm water problems every time heavy rain fell as the suburbs were on a flood plain and lacked appropriate drainage.

He said Glen Eira Council denied the storm water drainage was their problem, and had approved development in the past on areas without appropriate drainage.

Rebecca Thistleton

 

 

July 10, 2011

What Really Goes On Behind Those Closed Doors?

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

We have commented previously that it would appear that many ‘straw votes’ are taken in secrecy, behind the closed doors of councillor assembly meetings. Whilst not formal ‘decisions’ as such, it is clear that much goes on in these meetings that need to be looked at a lot more closely. We have to wonder what kind of pressures are placed on recalcitrant councillors who refuse to adhere to the majority line? What kind of discourse actually occurs? Who runs the show in there? Is there even the possibility of bullying and harassment? And why, oh why, is the public performance in council chambers often so diametrically opposed to what we suspect might have been going on behind these closed doors? The perfect example we have to illustrate our case involves Cr. Magee.

Late last year Cr. Penhalluriack is recorded as stating that he has qualms regarding the nature, tone, and content of Council responses to public questions by Mr. Varvodic. His actual statement reads: ““I’m unhappy with all of the answers to Mr Varvodic with the exception of the one relating to Cr Esakoff. I don’t know what to do about it but I think that they are unnecessarily aggressive and I am just not happy about it”. (Council Minutes 14th December 2010). At the next council meeting (February 1st 2011) Mr. Varvodic directed his public questions to each councillor, asking them if they were in any way in agreement with Penhalluriack’s statement. The questions were taken on notice and answered at the following February 22nd Council meeting. Magee responded by stating: “Cr Magee said: “I stand by Council’s responses to all your public questions to date.”

Remarkably, this does not seem to be Magee’s general opinion in November 2010 when the FOI secured document of the Sports & Recreation Committee minutes record the following: “Councillor Magee stated that Nick Varvodic has cause to complain, and the situation has got out of hand with our answers and that we need to bring it back inline. We are the cause of the letters and we need to rectify the situation”.

How does this alleged statement by Magee just 3 months earlier tally with his endorsement of ALL COUNCIL RESPONSES to Mr. Varvodic.  We simply ask:

  • What pressures are brought to bear in councillor assemblies and by whom and to what purpose?
  • How can the community believe anything that is uttered in the public arena when it is becoming increasingly obvious that  public utterances may not accord with reality?
  • When will councillors actually have the gumption to state their opinion honestly and in public? Democracy is after all founded on the rights of individuals to express an opinion and the council chamber must be the forum for genuine debate. Currently it resembles a theatre with carefully orchestrated arguments, voting patterns, motions, and pre-ordained  decisions.

SO WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS? HOW CAN THIS COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD? WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU, OUR READERS HAVE THAT WOULD ASSIST OUR COUNCILLORS TO ENSURE GOOD GOVERNANCE? WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO? We welcome all views!

 

July 9, 2011

Democracy Is Dead At Glen Eira

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

We’ve just learnt that public questions regarding the Frisbee affair are now being deemed as ‘harassment’ by this council and will forever more be categorised as ‘inappropriate’ and hence will not be read, nor answered at Council Meetings. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this specific issue, we believe that such an action is unconscionable and denies residents their basic right to question council actions, policy, and veracity of responses.

It would appear that when council is faced with uncomfortable issues that the harassment and bullying card becomes the preferred option. We’ve recently witnessed the bullying allegations against Penhalluriack (presumably for his ‘crime’ of asking questions of the CEO) and now the harassment allegation against those individuals requesting clarification on council’s so called policy of reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. It would also seem that when Council is unable to answer appropriately for its shortcomings, then the only way out of such a dilemma is to play this harassment/bullying game.

Residents’ rights to ask public questions, to query policy decisions, and to demand accountability and transparency are fundamental to the good governance of all councils. When questions are continually fobbed off and answers are nothing more than dissembling and a game of semantics, then all fair minded people should be outraged. We urge all residents who care about what is happening in this council to send in their public questions and insist that whatever their concern or issue, that these questions are answered comprehensively and honestly.

PS: here is the offending paragraph : “As Council has received over one hundred and thirty (130) Public Questions this year alone on this matter, having consulted with Councillors and considered concerns raised, I wish to advise you that further Public Questions on this matter will be deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iii) on the grounds that they may constitute harassment. Thank you for your Public Question.”

 

July 8, 2011

He Who Pays The Piper……

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

Given the current outrage at the Murdoch press in England and the tactics employed, we thought readers might like to reflect on the following examples from the Moorabbin Leader. Two stories on budgets are featured – one on the Kingston budget and one on Glen Eira. We ask readers to compare and contrast, and to ponder why this might be happening.

Kingston homes in for $64 rise

1 Jun 11 @ 07:00am by Dimity barber

// KINGSTON homeowners are facing a 4.95 per cent rate rise this year, adding $64 to the average bill.

Ratepayers will be slugged an extra 1.09 per cent rubbish charge to cover the State Government’s landfill levy rise from $30 to $44 a tonne.

Roads will be the focus of the $158 million 2011-12 Budget with $10.6 million set aside for them.

The Budget will also pay off the last of Kingston’s $28 million pre-amalgamation debt while more than $32 million will go towards capital works including $620,000 to upgrade Clarinda Library. The council will spend $150,000 to boost its overworked planning department, now processing 1200 permits annually. The city will add another $1.5 million this year to its $7.9 million green wedge development fund.

Chief executive John Nevins said keeping the rate rise below 5 per cent had been a challenge. “We went through every line of the Budget to find savings,” he said. Rates rose by 7.3 per cent in 2010-11.

Mayor Ron Brownlees said Kingston residents would pay less than the Melbourne average.

“We have worked hard to find a balance between rate revenue and service delivery,” Mr Brownlees said. “At the same time we acknowledge the pressures on pensioners at rate time and will continue to offer an $80 rate rebate, which is in addition to the
$193.40 State Government rebate.”

Glen Eira rates pain lessens

27 May 11 @ 07:00am by Jennifer Ling

// // GLEN Eira homeowners will have more in their wallets after a slight reprieve on rates this year.

The council’s draft Budget for 2011-12 shows a 6.5 per cent rise for householders, lifting the average rates bill by $60 a year.

But it’s a smaller hit than last year when residents faced one of the largest rates rises in Melbourne with a 7.44 per cent jump, lifting the average bill by $92. Deputy mayor Jamie Hyams said last year included garbage charges “sprung on council at the last minute by the Government”.

“It is important we are able to provide the services and facilities that people expect from us,” he said.

“These rate rises will keep Glen Eira as the third lowest-rating council of all inner-Melbourne metropolitan councils.”

The Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre will get the lion’s share in the 2011-12 Budget, with $13 million allocated for capital works, staffing, furniture and fittings.

Other major features are $5.5 million for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion redevelopment, and infrastructure upgrades including $4.95 million for roads, $3.29 million for drainage and $1.73 million for footpaths.

Residents can have their say on the draft Budget until June 9.

 

July 7, 2011

Does Council Care About Local Amenity?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[12] Comments 

Clover Estate is now up and running thanks to an Amendment passed by Council in September 2007. The site is directly opposite GESAC and extends back in part to a Minimal Change Area. What is extroadinary about this development is:

  • No third party appeal rights.
  • When first advertised there were 173 submissions – we  believe a record for Glen Eira
  • No permit required for subdivision
  • No permit required for planning application
  • A building permit required ONLY IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS of the Development Overlay aren’t met. In other words, pretty much open slather for developers
  • The auction for these lots just happened to occur at the Caulfield Racecourse on June 18th
  • Parts of this development will encroach on surrounding streets (eg. Malane St) which has already seen numerous objections to planning applications

We’ve also checked out the Panel Report and below are some quotes from the report –

“From the submissions to the Amendment, we identified a number of key  issues that need to be addressed.  The issues raised in submissions can be  summarised as follows:

  • Traffic and parking congestion in the surrounding streets due to the increases in traffic movement and car parking.
  • Traffic management in the immediate area.
  • The future amenity for occupiers of the units and townhouses having regard to the visual and acoustic impacts of the adjacent industry.
  • Vegetation retention.
  • Potential contamination of the site from previous industrial activities.

A number of submissions relate to the development application:

  • Parking provisions for the houses and units / townhouses and potential impact upon on‐street parking and traffic congestion, while compromising safety due to the narrowness of the proposed internal roads.
  • The number of dwellings proposed.
  •  The provision of open space”.

“The DDO is structured so that a permit  is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works provided certain design requirements are met”.

“If the requirements of the DDO schedule are met no permit is required under the DDO.  In the course of the hearing it was clear that the expectation of Council was that a permit could be sought to vary the requirements in the DDO schedule.  We think that the DDO should state this explicitly.”

“Council suggested in the hearing that the DDO should be silent on height. If the DDO is silent the provisions of Clause 55 would apply for a multi unit development.”

The existing councillors who voted the Amendment in are Tang, Esakoff, Lipshutz.

 

July 6, 2011

Conflict Of Interest

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[11] Comments 

From today’s Age

Councillors, candidates face  court

  Jason Dowling

July 6, 2011

LOCAL councillors and council candidates across Victoria are being taken to  court  for not declaring conflicts of interest and not detailing who bankrolled  election campaigns.

This month two councillors – including a mayor –  will face conflict of  interest charges in court and last month former Latrobe City councillor Lisa  Price was barred from acting as a councillor for seven years and fined $9000 for  failing to disclose a conflict of interest.

In handing down the decision, Magistrate Franz Holzer said ”a firm statement  of deterrence and denunciation” was demanded to ensure proper local  governance.  ”To my mind, Ms Price’s behaviour fell below acceptable standards of  conduct,” he said.

The charges related to votes Ms Price participated in at council meetings  considering a municipal electoral hearing and a newsletter distributed by  council in which she was found to have at minimum ”an indirect interest”.

Cheryl Wragg,  of the Moe and District Residents Association, said ”the  conviction of councillor Price sends a very clear message to councillors  statewide that they must be aware of the law and act in accordance with it”.

Ararat Rural City council mayor Andrea Marian and Nillumbik  Shire councillor  Belinda Clarkson will also face charges this month regarding conflict of  interest laws. A Shepparton City councillor escaped conviction but received a  $500 fine from a conflict of interest charge in the past year.

Former Brimbank City councillor Tran Siu faces charges related to  distributing unregistered election material and providing false and misleading  information under oath.

Five unsuccessful  candidates for local council have also been charged with  failing to disclose campaign donations – four cases have been proven and fines  of up to $250 issued.

 

The charges against councillors are outlined in a list of prosecution matters  produced by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said new conflict  of interest regulations introduced this term of local council were complex.

He said there was ”quite a deal of confusion”  when the conflict of  interest rules were  introduced ”with the simplified 79-page guide”.

Cr McArthur said councillors should follow a simple rule. ”It goes back to  the old mantra, where in doubt you should declare an interest and step out of  the meeting,” he said.

He said overall councillors ”are responsible, they are being transparent,  they are endeavouring to comply with the regulations”.

He said councillors ”are more regulated and scrutinised than any other level  of government”.

Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell said most councillors ”represent  their communities with honesty, integrity and in the best interests of their  community, not self-interest”.

But she added any breaches of the code of conduct for councillors ”will be  investigated without fear or favour”.

 

July 5, 2011

The Budget ‘Debate’!!!!!

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

A little belatedly, we now report on last week’s ‘debate’ on the Strategic Resource Plan and the Budget

Strategic Resource Plan (SRP)

MAGEE: Regurgitated the 2008 ‘consultation’ processes  and insisted on calling this the ‘community plan’ which incorporates the SRP. ‘The plan is fully integrated with the strategic resource plan….SRP expresses the community plan objectives ‘in financial terms’….Changes to the community plan since the SRP was advertised are 6.5% rate increase instead of 6.95% ‘to ensure consistency with the 2011/12 budget(!!!!!); over $500,000 ‘saved’ by decreasing expenditure on warm season grasses; $200,000 on pavilion design funding; and in 2016/7 more spent on infrastructure; community grants increase by $50,000….

PILLING: ‘very important for council’s future….street lighting which is $2 million over the next two years…..biggest building program ever (GESAC)….looking through (the plan) all are funded and ….I certainly commend (the SRP).

HYAMS: Aim is to keep ‘things steady’…’no changes to overall plan….what we changed are the strategic activities at the back of the plan….strategy towards closing the infrastructure gap and maintaining services….(highigihts include GESAC, Duncan McKinnon and others)….’one off charge for green waste to get more people using green waste….these are all things that will make a big difference to people’s lives and improve glen Eira….other things that might seem more mundane on first reading…..like inspecting 6000 drainage pits…..park patrols, …..a whole lot of things…..(target) so we can monitor whether we’re actually meeting the target…and if we’re falling short find out why we’re falling short…..people may note that we went to the public with one strategic resource plan, we’ve changed that in reasonably significant ways….because after we went to the public….we also put the budget to the public….and that budget was amended so it no longer (melded with the SRP) …so of course we had no choice but to amend the strategic resource plan….it still remains financially sustainable…..the change actually cost us $2.3 million  in five years…..I wasn’t in favour of that….but on the whole I still think it’s a good strategic resource plan so despite that concern I won’t be voting against it…..

TANG: ‘As the mover of that amendment (to reduce rates) I have to take some of the stick…this SRP has taken into account the budgetary position ….which would be consistent (if passed tonight) ……Hyams has failed to acknowledge some of the other changes….(warm season grasses reduction; another $50,000) but ultimately the changes in my mind are great but the SRP as a whole doesn’t address all of my concerns…..(because of changes) council is considering pushing back its pavilion program…not necessarily all of the scale of caulfield park….but closer to the scale of the multi purpose pavilion at Princes Park….allowing council to do pavilions at Victory park …there are countless pavilions out there that council could do …..prudent process would be to do one a year…..not to address all of them…to try and get through in a timely manner…..alongside other major programs such as (childcare Bentleigh library)….why I don’t support this SRP is primarily because councillors said that in order to (have lower rates) it will push back that pavilion program. I have no objection to a number of other programs….

MOTION CARRIED

Item 9.11 – BUDGET

MAGEE: Regurgitated again public’consultation’ process. ‘We have a set of pressures to allocate funds to fix up our ageing facilities….keep day to day costs as low as we can….4.95 million on roads….3.29 million on drains…..7.85 to complete GESAC….cash flow for GESAC indicate …..25 million borrowings…..Elsternwick childcare centre….environmental initiatives’. Magee went on to read out overall capital expenditure, assessment on property costs. ‘It’s a good budget, a responsible budget, but most of all….it is keeping our rates to 6.5%….

TANG: ‘I want to speak to the budget information session….no one turned up this year which was quite disappointing. In the past we’ve had small attendances…..it would be good to see that information session used to generate a bit of feed back before the budget submission process….we did have one speaker (in budget submissions)….we acknowledged the Friends of Caulfield Park submission…a number of suggestions that we had previously considered such as the depot, conservatory (and trees in the West of the park) …some I think council will certainly consider as part of its management practices….others such as the conservatory are …..I really do like the idea of hav ing a conservatory that is alive once again….there was some support for council initiatives this year….street light conversion…..a good step forward……I’d call it a compromise budget….council is transparent in its previous SRPs….in communicating to our residents that it was intending to raise by 6.5% in this financial years…..(because embarking on) massive renewal….in that regard I’m happy to see council follow through with that strategic resource plan….a prudent and responsible rate rise……allows us to do a number of things….

HYAMS: ‘third lowest’ rate rise in metro councils……low fees and charges, yet high capital expenditure….it lets us do what’s in the community plan basically…..(thank those who made submissions, especially Glen Eira Environment Group who were worried that council was putting synthetic grass, especially in road barriers)….’road separation only goes between service lanes and main roads…..save on maintenance because if you have grass there you have to cut it….and I certainly wouldn’t like to be the guy mowing ……I think it’s quite a worthwhile thing to do….

MAGEE: Stated that asking councillors to put up their pet projects means that you have ‘projects far outweighing the capabilities of the budget…..day care in East Bentleigh would be something that I would support …..pavilions in Victory and Centenary are something that I would have liked to ….at the end of the day it’s a matter of prioritising….I think this budget has prioritised….we would like to see more….I commend the budget to the council….’

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

  • Deliberate obfuscation in calling anything a ‘community plan’! Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan (unlike other councils). It has a Council Plan.
  • One would have hoped for more than a ‘reading’ of the budget papers/SRP papers, outlining expenditure. Please note that there was barely any mention of increased charges (especially for 3 year old kinda), nor burden of huge interest repayments, etc.
  • The lack of real and open debate is once again a damning indictment on the decision making processes of this Council.

 

 

 

 

July 5, 2011

Glen Eira Does Not Rate

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

From today’s Caulfield Leader.  Stories by Jenny Ling –

GLEN Eira Council has ranked lower than its fellow city councils in the latest Local Government Victoria survey. The 2011 community satisfaction survey asked 28,000 residents across 77 councils to rate their council’s performance. The data showed that though Glen Eira rated higher or similar to all Victorian councils in overall performance, advocacy, community engagement and customer contact, it didn’t fare so well compared with its fellow metropolitan councils.

Glen Eira achieved a score of 69 per cent for overall performance. The average for metropolitan councils — Baysid e ,Yarra, Stonnington, Kingston, Melbourne, Monash, Port Phillip, Moreland, Boorondara, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Maroondah, Moonee Valley, Banyule, Whitehorse and Glen Eira – was 85 per cent. For advocacy, which covers the representation of the community’s interests, Glen Eira rated 64 per cent compared with the Melbourne average of 77 per cent. Glen Eira rated 62 per cent for community engagement compared to t he metropolitan councils’ 71 per cent average, while local customer contact was 77 per cent compared with 80 per cent.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said there needed to be more transparency and open governance in Glen Eira. ‘‘The core problem is the way council meetings are run,’’ Mr Dunstan said. Glen Eira Mayor Margaret Esakoff said ‘‘given the survey was taken at the same time as severe flooding (February) and the bin downsizing, it is a good outcome for Glen Eira’’.  

Victorian Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell urged councils to analyse the ratings to see where improvements were needed.

************************************

Libs on back foot

THE Liberal Party has backflipped on the contentious $1 billion Caulfield Village development faster than a Bart Cummings champion. Planning Minister Matthew Guy and Caulfield MP David Southwick applauded the project which will attract 2000 residents and create 35,000sq m of office and retail space on 5ha around the racecourse when they announced its approval on Tuesday.

In October, Mr Southwick said it would cause traffic congestion, anti-social behaviour and parking problems, and pledged to stop the ‘‘ monstrosity’’ that would ‘‘ destroy Caulfield’s amenities and identity’’ with a postcard petition to households in the electorate. Mr Guy, then Opposition planning spokesman, echoed Mr Southwick’s pledge. Mr Southwick said there were several concerns which he ‘‘made very clear’’. ‘‘It was important for me to be on the front foot and be involved in negotiations with Glen Eira (council) and residents,’’ he said. ‘‘The main issue I had was open space . . . being able to get a win for the city.’’

Glen Eira Council approved the plans with height restrictions in April, capping buildings in the Smith St precinct at 20 storeys. Mayor Margaret Esakoff said Caulfield Village would provide the community with a range of housing options close to transport and facilities. ‘‘The wider community will also be able to enjoy the improved open space and recreational areas in the centre of the racecourse,’’ she said.

Glen Eira Residents’ Association president Don Dunstan said there was no provision for carparking and no amenities being provided for the thousands of people who will live there. ‘‘And this is the right thing for a suburb? I don’t think so,’’ he said.

COMMENT: This is now the second time that The Leader  has taken a pot shot at Southwick. Whilst his backflip is undeniable, and the criticism is justified, good balanced reporting might also have commented on the role played by this council and its ‘gang of four’. We suggest that if all the facts are being presented then Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling should also come in for their equal share of criticism!

 

July 4, 2011

Bayside Weekly

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

BY REBECCA THISTLETON

Residents fear village will cut public space

CAULFIELD residents fear a $1 billion development at Caulfield Racecourse will reduce open space. Community group, Supporters of Caulfield Reserve, claim the public has been ‘‘locked out’’ of the decision to build the Caulfield Village.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy signed off on the project last week. Melbourne Racing Club will build the village on a five-hectare site currently used as a car park off Normanby Road, near Caulfield station. The development will include a 20-storey building with office space, 70 homes along Heywood Street and up to 200 retirement dwellings. A planned public park on the racecourse will include a children’s play area, shade areas and toilets, as well as a boardwalk around the lake with fishing areas.

The project will take seven to 10 years to complete and Mr Guy said it will generate 4800 jobs during construction and 1100 jobs when completed.

Supporters of Caulfield Reserve spokeswoman Roslyn Gold said she kept a close watch on the proposal because public space was under threat. Ms Gold said plans presented to the public seemed to be a ‘‘done deal’’ between the club and council.

Caulfield MLA David Southwick said he knew open space was a concern to residents but that the proposed development would make better use of land and park space.

Melbourne Racing Club development and strategic planning manager Brian Discombe rejected Ms Gold’s concerns. ‘‘The process to date has been vigorous, open and transparent and the club is committed to keeping the community informed,’’ he said.

Glen Eira Council community relations director Paul Burke said councillors made decisions in open meetings of council or the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee. ‘‘Any substantive decision that the council may make as a result of any meeting is only taken in the council chamber,’’ he said.

 

 

July 1, 2011

GESAC: The Mess We Didn’t Have To Have

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

From Council Minutes (28th June)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee  

That Council;

 1. Reiterates Council’s desire to maximise community use of GESAC.

2. Recognises the expressions of interest of both Warriors Basketball Association and McKinnon Basketball Association in supporting Council’s objectives at GESAC.

3. That Council seek independent legal advice as to whether the communication between Council and Warriors Basketball Association;

(a) constitutes a legally binding agreement; and

(b) stops Council from cancelling the allocation awarded to Warriors Basketball Association at GESAC.

4. That pending receipt of the legal advice Council not execute any agreement or contract with respect to the allocation of the basketball courts at GESAC.

5. That this resolution be incorporated within the public Minutes of this meeting.  

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

QUESTIONS

 What a mess this whole issue is. Councillors have finally exerted some authority and appear to be attempting to ensure that local groups are catered for at GESAC. The real questions are:  

  1. Where were councillors right at the start in setting performance criteria, overseeing the tendering process and establishing clear protocols and expectations?
  2. How much will this ‘legal advice’ now cost ratepayers? Will it be added to the overall escalating costs of GESAC?
  3. What of other local groups who have been refused allocation? Will we be going through the same process with them? Or are contracts already signed? Or does it take a public backlash to get any action?
  4. What role will the administration and the lawyers play in all this? Will the ensuing advice simply be ‘sorry folks – nothing can be changed’? This at least saves face!
  5. If the Warriors contract is null and void, then by how much will this affect the figures for GESAC? Does this mean that costs will go up elsewhere in the next budget and in the renewal of leases throughout the municipality?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of councillors’ duty to set policy and administrator’s duty to deliver services according to Best Value principles – ie. a real cost benefit deliverable. It would appear that neither of these mandates have been achieved thus far and in the process occasioned much needless angst for many in the community.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »