June 17, 2011

Gesac Allocations

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

The following is in the minutes of the June 6th Council meeting. We note that it has taken nearly two weeks for these minutes to make an appearance! We congratulate councillors on their attempts to get to the bottom of the McKinnon Basketball application for court space and the contract awarding system. May we suggest however, that this is only the first step? It is a great pity that residents appear to get ‘action’ only when there is a major hue and cry and negative publicity. What would be really informative is a total review on ALL expressions of interest; on the full disclosure of criteria, allocations, costs, and contract details. That, we maintain would be open, transparent and responsible government!

Item 10 – URGENT BUSINESS  

Crs Magee/Pilling 

“That Officers report to Council on the awarding of the use of GESAC basketball courts. This report should include details of requests for Expressions of Interest letters offers and acceptances copies of draft contracts, and responds to the claims contained in the letter by James Cody Treasurer of the McKinnon Basketball Association of the 1st June 2011 and should also cover the capacity of the Oakleigh Warriors to honour their commitment. 

2. That the report include by way of separate appendix a copy of the proposed contractual terms to Oakleigh Warriors and Council not submit any written contract to Oakleigh Warriors until Council has considered same.  

3. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting, and

4. The report should include the cost of hire of like courts at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.”  

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Tang

In part four delete the word ‘at’ and replace with the word ‘including’.  

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED on the casting vote of the Chairperson and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

June 16, 2011

Consultation: How Not To Do It

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[6] Comments 

There’s a wonderful irony, if not straight out hypocrisy, in the just completed ‘consultation’ process on the ‘Community Engagement Strategy’. Last night there was a meeting of the Consultation Advisory committee which considered residents’ Submissions. The official letter of response to these individuals is below –

 

We point out the following:

  • At the last review of the ‘consultation policy’ several years ago all submissions were published
  • The submissions were presented at a full council meeting which then ratified the policy

This time, submissions have gone to the ‘consultation advisory committee’ consisting of our favourite little gang – Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Penhalluriack. Using our imaginations we conjure up the following chain of events last night:

  • The submissions were buried under piles of other agenda items
  • There was probably only 5 minutes of discussion regarding the submissions
  • Councillors on the committee had not read them
  • Other councillors have not read them, much less clapped eyes on them
  • The ‘outcomes’ will be presented to council via the eventual minutes of this advisory committee meeting.  This means that when voting to accept the recommendations of this committee meeting, the full council will also be ratifying any decisions on the consultation policy. There will be no formal council debate specifically on the question of ‘community engagement/consultation’.

So after so much fanfare about this ‘new’ draft engagement strategy the process fails to adhere to its own recommendations on ‘methodologies, tools, and methods’. Only written comments and submissions were allowed – no use of the online ‘Have Your Say’ forum; no opportunity for residents to address council on their submissions; no really informative letter back – simply the
nonsense of you’ll be informed of ‘outcomes’!

As always, this just goes to show the yawning gap between the rhetoric of this council, and the reality. And as per usual, everything is cloaked in secrecy. We therefore challenge council to mend its ways and to:

  • Publish all submissions
  • Permit speakers to address council on the issue – but with plenty of notice and advertising
  • To account in detail for every resident recommendation that is rejected or accepted

We also extend an open invitation to any resident who would like to forward us their submission. We will put this up anonymously if you request this. In this way, we hope to ensure that if council does not publish the submissions, then at least some of these will be available to the public via this website.

 

June 15, 2011

More On Games & Ratepayers’ Money

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

The following articles from the Leader have direct relevance to what is currently going on in Glen Eira. We invite comments:

Nillumbik’s legal bill squabble continues

1 Feb 11 @ 05:54pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has hit back at claims it misled ratepayers on the cost of a legal stoush with a councillor.

Cr Belinda Clarkson last week accused it of grossly underestimating its legal fees, which the council expects will be $10,000 a day – $50,000 for the anticipated five days of the hearing.

Cr Clarkson said the figure would be closer to $150,000, including the hearing and preparation. “In my opinion, the council’s failure to take responsibility for the cost to ratepayers is seen in their statement’s only cost estimate figure of $10,000,” Cr Clarkson said. “I believe that is misleading.”

But Mayor Helen Coleman said the council had been upfront about its legal bill. “The advice that we have been given is that our legal costs will be around $10,000 a day, but we won’t know the final costs until the hearing,” Cr Coleman said.

She said ratepayers would have been spared the cost if Cr Clarkson had taken part in a relatively cheap councillor conduct panel last November. Instead, Cr Clarkson will answer misconduct allegations during a five-day hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. She faces 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act.

Cr Coleman said the council had resolved not to hire a solicitor, but had been forced to engage one when Cr Clarkson fronted the hearing with a lawyer from the firm Piper Alderman.

Cr Clarkson, who has not revealed her own legal costs, said the council was at fault for taking the matter to a conduct panel “and as part of that process, therefore to VCAT”.

More debate was curtailed.

Comments

Natalie Woodley writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 11:15pm

“Clowns” is a good way to describe these people, unfortunately elected to Nillumbik Council. Hellbent on their witch hunt after Cr Clarkson, under the guise of “confidentiality” they believed they could continue the bullying, it would never come out in the
open, spineless uninformed people. Obviously they were not cognisant of The Local Government Act, unaware a councillor being unmercifully hounded with vexatious, frivolous charges ,was able to receive “Natural Justice”. Cr Clarkson has only ever requested “Safe Planning” in this extremely bushfire prone area, surely we require all our Nillumbik Councillors to have Human Life as their priority?? If the councillors were using their own personal dollars they would have withdrawn their frivolous charges, made a public apology to Cr Clarkson and got on with attempting to govern for the good of Nillumbik, taking note of the oath or affirmation they swore on being elected.
Obviously they are a group of people who care less about spending other peoples money, hard earned dollars of the Nillumbik Ratepayers. They are a disgrace, totally unaccountable for their actions.

Melissa Eaton writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 05:27pm

When a council starts suing it’s own councillors, I have to start wondering what major secrets are they covering up to be using this ridiculous witchhunt as a deflection? As we are approaching the 2nd anniversary of the disastrous Black Saturday bushfires, I think
Nillumbik has better things to do than waste rate payers money (like mine) on legal bills to argue an alleged councillor conduct matter which only came about because same councillor was trying to get air time in council to discuss the very real risks of bush fires in the area. Clearly council needs re-education about what they are there for….I thought council was there for the community with bushfires being a real issue for Nillumbik. This money would be better spent on getting on with bushfire prevention which I can see from looking around the shire seems to be several weeks if not months behind in this fire season.

Daniel Potter writes:

Posted on 5 Feb 11 at 08:16pm

Nicole Singh……I Concur Totally. The Nillumbik Council Is Managed Totally By Overpaid Clowns.

nicole singh writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 11:54pm

i thought my Glen Eira council was dysfuncitonal thanyou to nillumbik you are No1 and have the highest rates in victoria. a council that is losing money every day is spending your hard earned persecuting a councillor, the crime? for merely trying to stop yet more of its people from being burnt in bushfires its off to court you go. Is nillumbik an open mental asylum?

J Bullock writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 12:07pm

What a waste of ratepayers money! My hard earned money! Nillumbik council should be dissolved and spilt among neighbouring urban and rural councils. The formation of Nillumbik was a mistake and since then it has been a continual battle ground between waring sides with us poor ratepayer as the victims. For the sake of good governance it should be put out of its misery!

Nillumbik Council dumps Clarkson VCAT hearing

23 Feb 11 @ 01:32pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has withdrawn a misconduct case against one of its councillors from the state’s peak tribunal.

Cr Belinda Clarkson was expected to answer 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. But at a closed meeting last night councilors resolved to drop the matter.

Mayor Helen Coleman said the decision was based on the cost of a five-day hearing, estimated at $10,000 a day.

“The costs to council in pursuing this matter in VCAT would have been too expensive when we have other financial priorities,’’ Cr Coleman said. “We need to ensure that we are spending ratepayers’ money in a responsible way.’‘

Cr Coleman said she did not know how much the council had spent so far on legal fees. She said the council would “monitor’’ Cr Clarkson’s behaviour during the next three months. Cr Clarkson said last night’s meeting was confidential and declined to
comment.

QUESTIONS:

  • What is the current total of money spent on the Newton allegations of bullying?
  • How much more will be spent?
 

June 14, 2011

The Budget & The Farce Continues

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

The following facts, which have been noted previously, need to be reiterated –

1. The draft budget was amended by council resolution

2. No new ‘version’ of the amended budget and Strategic Resource Plan has been published

3. Residents have put in submissions based on a document which technically no longer exists or has any legal status. It has been superceded.

4. Tonight’s meeting is thus irrelevant since whatever people have written, or will say, is not based on what they could say if they were privy to the new budget.

QUESTIONS:

  • Why haven’t the new budget and Strategic Resource Plan been made public?
  • Why haven’t councillors insisted that it be public?
  • Why is the public being subjected to the farce of commenting on something that no longer exists?
  • What does this say about governance at Glen Eira City Council?

 

 

June 13, 2011

The Budget: Some Residents’ Views

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[11] Comments 

Tomorrow night there will be a Special Council meeting to consider budget submissions. As per usual, Newton’s advertising of, and publicity for this meeting is abysmal. No link on the home page – except if you happen to go to the Public Notices section, where there is an advertisement – but placed in the May announcements! The ads in the local papers were both miniscule and appeared on pages 20/22. So much for alerting the public!

We believe that it is important that even though there were only 5 submissions, the views of residents are widely disseminated. Below are some verbatim selections from these submissions.

FRIENDS OF CAULFIELD PARK

 The photo above, appears under the heading of ‘More Concrete’

“We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

COMMENT: Yes, and what of risk management? A lump of concrete sticking out (especially at night without lighting) when people use this path both for walking and running.

The Depot

“We firmly believe that continuing to alienate a large tract of land within our premier park for the purposes of a depot, largely to service a range of totally non-park related purposes, is a misuse and abuse of the land and the purpose for which it was given”

The Elm Avenue

“In our 2010 submission, we identified the need for urgent action. Nothing has been done as yet. A by-product of our tree identification program confirmed that whilst there is significant regrowth due to the recent rain, there is a large amount of dead peripheral growth that was scorched during the previous dry period. About half the elms are neglected and in urgent need of remedial pruning to facilitate proper regrowth.

COMMENT: The last quote can also probably be extended to every single park in Glen Eira. The lack of pruning and general maintenance endangers literally millions of dollars worth of council assets.

MR & MRS DOWD

“We note Council’s governance still intentionally, repeatedly secretive, deceptive, misleading. No real honesty, transparence, openness re Council’s informing ratepayer the real truth of Council’s share of Pensioner Rate Rebate as compared to Government share.

Councils repeatedly reduced its share as Govt. Increased its share. So intentionally shifty.

We note Council not only dissatisfied with about double CPI and inflation rise in rates, repeatedly, more rate payers will have to pay Interest for many years for Councils borrowing the maximum allowed for ever increasing extravagant spending beyond means despite all the ever increasing rates from those ever increasing over developments and congested boxes. The worst Council in Melbourne and with the least open space. Therefore the most destruction of open space and the liveability greatly reduced. Big brother knows best, using ratepayers funds against the best interest of the majority in favour of minority, also other who are not ratepayers and Government who also don’t contribute anywhere near ratepayers share”.

MRS BUTTON

“ I object strongly with being charged $55 for a green waste bin or penalized $145 P.A. as I have a 120 litre bin and no green bin.

As I am a widow 73 years retiree single, and living on my investments, in a unit without large trees and no large garden, myself and others in my situation are being unjustly discriminated against.

Glen Eira council is simply grabbing at this tax, in an unfair manner.

These charges have not bern thought out properly, and council is not acting fairly for its ratepayers.”

COMMENT: We envisage that the evening will unfold as follows. Perhaps some of these submitters will address council. They will be given their legal right of 3 minutes. Councillors will sit there mute; there will be no exchange between residents and councillors, and after a 30 minute meeting that will be the end of the story. Legal obligations fulfilled so that at the appropriate time the budget can be accepted and endorsed by council.

 

June 12, 2011

Newton & A Little History

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[15] Comments 

Newton’s name first appeared officially in the Commissioners’ report. He was listed as ‘council officer’ on the finance committee. Council minutes indicate that in 1997-8 his official job title was Director, Corporate Services in charge of Business Planning, Public Relations, Finance, Corporate Assets, Risk Management, Service Centre, Human Resources, and Business Development – a finger in all the most important pies! But what we want to concentrate on are some very, very interesting agenda items bearing his name. All involve disharmony, and the publication of internal documents that we consider totally unethical. Further, each publication has had the potential to discredit various individuals, whom we assume, may have been likely critics or opponents. Sadly, there appears to be a very long list of ‘opponents’. More significantly, a distinct and consistent pattern of behaviour, tactics and overall strategy can be traced back to these early times. They are still evident today.

Alan Grossbard, the first mayor of Glen Eira, appears to be one of these early ‘casualities’. Whatever one’s opinion may be of Mr. Grossbard, he is certainly well credentialed. The Glen Eira Annual Report of 1997/8 cites his qualifications as: B.Sc., B. Ed., Dip. Ac., MBA. MACE; MAIE, MPRIA, MGAA. We’re also told that Grossbard ‘has a strong background in business management, finance and corporate relations and is employed as one of the top executives in a major Australian company’. In other words, not a slouch when it comes to running a business. So what happened? Why were items published that had no right to be in the public domain and what was the objective? We’re referring of course to the Mayoral Gold Chain affair. Here are the facts:

  • The minutes of 23rd June 1997 have Newton writing “The Mayor has proposed additional expenditures for Mayoral regalia and civic function to be included in the 1997-98 Budget”. (Please note the syntax – making it appear as if the proposal actually originated from the Mayor, who happened to be Grossbard) and the total listed for chains,  brooches and links was $29,500
  • There was of course a public furore over this and various articles in the Southern Cross regarding ‘communication rifts’ (16th July 1997); the chain affair (16th July 1997) and an advertising conflict of interest (16th September, 1998). A special meeting was called to refute all these newspaper claims.
  • Investigation of all the above was delayed until 1998 and after the first Municipal Inspector’s report came in.

The important bit however IS THE PUBLICATION IN THE AGENDA of a Memorandum written by Grossbard and some of his personal correspondence to councillors and the CEO. The Southern Cross claimed that Grossbard had told them that ‘staff, other than departmental directors, had to report all conversations with councillors’ to the CEO. He further was alleged to have said that ‘The officers are afraid to give answers. It’s a scare syndrome’.  So how best to haul Grossbard over the coals? Perhaps publish what could be seen as denigrating to Grossbard himself?

Well lo and behold, we get exactly that! A memorandum written by Grossbard (10th June 1997) to councillors and the CEO. In this memorandum Grossbard states “I would like to strongly recommend the following items be adopted in the 1997/8 budget’. There is then the itemised list of goods and costs, totalling $29,500.

In letter after letter to the newspapers, Grossbard claims that he was given the task of discovering the costs of such paraphernalia and that his memo was in response to this task. Further, that when the issue came up at council he was overseas and that the item ‘should not have been placed on the council’s agenda’. He further said that “I was asked by Council to find out what expense would be incurred if we were to commission collarette pieces for use as the City’s Mayoral Regalia. From the quotes I obtained I submitted the costs to Council. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at the Council’s meeting to stop the quotes being regarded as a proposal rather than general information for consideration only.” (21st July, 1997).

Whatever the rights or wrongs of this issue, two things are absolutely clear:

  • The publication of internal correspondence – but only when it suits. This trend still continues.
  • Governance issues, disharmony and lack of trust involving councillors and administration go way, way back and still continue – ie latest Municipal Inspector’s report.
  • The attempted discrediting of critics and opponents via the publication of such documents. Again this practise is still rife.
  • Selective editing that fails to give full context.
 

June 9, 2011

News Flash: Newton Plays the Bully Card – Again!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[32] Comments 

Can a leopard really change its spots? It doesn’t appear so. We’ve recently learnt that Andrew Newton has made allegations of bullying against Penhalluriack. This is now being ‘investigated’ by a council hired lawyer – and probably at great expense to ratepayers. As far as we understand this is simply an ‘informal’ process to determine the validity or otherwise of the allegations.

What is immediately apparent is that such tactics are not new to Andrew Newton. He has tried this tack before as noted in the Whelan Report. We quote:

“The letter referred to a report which the CEO presented to Council following a trip by three Councillors (including Grossbard and Erlich) to the Council’s sister city, Ogaki in Japan. It stated, in essence, that the administration had submitted a report to the Council about the trip which was inaccurate and denied them natural justice, and that they would be issuing a press release calling for the dismissal of the CEO, Andrew Newton.

The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “… Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.  

The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:-

  • • adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and
  • • providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO.

Further, it stated that:-

“I am satisfied that the sending of the memoranda and the prior behaviour of Cr Grossbard as detailed in the CEO’s report constitutes conduct which challenges the CEO’s work environment which should otherwise be free of preventable harassment. Unless a remedy is found ……. it is likely that Council will remain in breach of its statutory obligations towards the CEO”. “

So here we go again. The tactics remain identical. When questioned, it appears that Mr. Newton brings out the big guns – ie. claims of intimidation, harassment, and bullying. So who is this Andrew Newton? What drives him? What motivates him? Why does intrigue and controversy dog his every move? Why from the time he set foot in Glen Eira has there been division, mistrust, and open hostility? We can lay the blame at various councillors – perhaps! We can also blame ourselves for electing dummies. But is this the whole story? We’ve asked before, what role has Andrew Newton played in the Glen Eira dramas of the past 13 years? What other individual in the entire state has been embroiled in three formal Municipal Investigations, and god knows how many other ‘please explain’ enquiries?

The central question is: how does he operate? What are the tactics that he has possibly used in these 13 years to silence critics or to discredit them? Have these all been ethical? legal? All we have to do is look at certain sections of the Whelan Report to note several things:

  • Newton has employed the ‘safe workplace’ strategy to rid himself of certain councillors; this ploy we assume, has also succeeded in putting the fear of god into other councillors
  • He has published information that has no right to be in the public domain
  • He didn’t perform his duty of warning councillors and previous CEOs when he should have

Today, we have the same tactics being played out. This time it is directed at Penhalluriack – maybe because Penhalluriack has the temerity to actually be doing his job and asking what constitute uncomfortable questions of the CEO? What residents need to consider carefully, is whether this is the man they want to continue at the helm of the Glen Eira administration. How much is he costing us and how much will he cost us in the future? What impact will this new ‘investigation’ have on the reputation of this Council and its councillors?

WATCH THIS SPACE – MORE TO FOLLOW!

 

June 9, 2011

Cause For Celebration!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[3] Comments 

We have today reached the magical 100,000 hits. Regardless of the naysayers such as Cr. Hyams (and others) we regard this as a fantastic achievement. Our first post went online on June 28th, 2010, thus in less than a year – and with a quiet Xmas and New Year period – we’ve managed to far outstrip all our expectations.

But we are admittedly quite greedy. We want more readers, more comments, more opinions and more news of what is happening out in your local streets and neighbourhoods. The simple truth is that Glen Eira Debates is fulfilling a function and our continued growth is evidence that whilst not everyone may agree with everything we say, the opportunity to say it, is what is important. Sp once again we ask that you spread the word. Let’s share information, share ideas, and together work towards a much more democratic and open Glen Eira Council.

 

June 9, 2011

Heritage: What’s Going On?

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

A very alert reader has just sent us the following –

Property Review Weekly June 10, 2011 page 20


Extract from C60 Planning Panel Report – July, 2010

Page 25, Section 3.2.2 – Overlays 

“ Two sites near the amendment land are affected by Heritage Overlays. These are No 1 Bond Street and the Caulfield Station.”

Page 131, Section 14.2 – Heritage – Evidence and Discussion

“ 1 Bond Street is a single fronted late Victorian Villa with substantial timber stables located at the rear. The house was built in 1887 and named ‘Grace Darling’ in 1910 after the winner of the 1885 Caulfield Cup. The property ‘Grace Darling’ is considered in the Caulfield Conservation Study to be of regional importance for its stables and pitched laneway;

Caulfield Railway Station Complex was constructed in 1913‐14. It is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register as a complex of architectural and aesthetic importance as an imposing Federation Free Style complex. The Victorian Heritage Register notes that the retention of the original station detail provides insights into social attitudes and railway practices immediately preceding the First World War and during a boom period in the history of Caulfield.”

 

June 8, 2011

Item 9.4 – Heritage Listing

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

Esakoff declared 3 conflicts of interest – as a director of company who owns one of the properties, and as her husband is also a director. Lipshutz Moved motion to accept/Pilling seconded

LIPSHUTZ: Reminded everyone that this had been before council previously as a result of an ‘anomaly’ in the Heritage Overlay in that 466 Hawthorn is the only property listed under the Heritage banner – thus ‘there is a mismatch between the map and the schedule’. The matter has gone to the Department and now there’s this new report where the heritage advisors state that ‘this is a property worth maintaining heritage’ over…..‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’ that heritage should be kept, especially when one of these sites ‘is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything. Since there were submissions the proper thing to do is go to a panel.

PILLING: Stated that he had chaired the planning conference and with the advisor’s reports, council should adopt the ‘cautious course’ and go to a panel.

TANG: ‘Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. ‘Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors…’it’s a difficult issue’….’there’s also a councillor involved’….’doesn’t mean that we treat them any worse than any other resident’….’I feel comfortable seeing this going to an independent panel’….’I note the heritage advice and would be prepared to see the heritage overlay clarified’ on all properties if that’s what the panel wants, but ‘in fairness to those who bought the property’ …’I think we should let this go to an independent panel’.

HYAMS: ‘This is a bit of a mess…..I don’t think we should be looking to apportion blame here…that one building would have addresses on two streets’….’owner of 2B didn’t know and ‘planning department only found out when there was an application for property next door’…’took all of our planning department by surprise’…..’several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….’only two objectors neither of whom came to the planning comference’
..’and this despite the blog that likes to consider itself as influential….readers of that blog…usually the greatest sin a councillor can commit is apparently is to heed officers’ advice, especially unquestioningly….the blog is professing outrage….(that the heritage advisor’s recommendations are being ignored) …simply because a councillor has an interest ….with such breathtaking hypocrisy it’s no wonder that the people on this blog prefer to stay anonymous’. Councillors will ‘do what we always do’, look at advice …..’and make best decision’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We assume that Hyams’ little fit of pique against the ‘blog’ to be a reference to Glen Eira Debates. That’s the second time in two council meetings that the ‘real’ Cr. Hyams has maybe stood up?  We accept this as a sincere compliment, since it indicates that we are definitely ruffling a few feathers and rattling a few cages. However, we need to correct some assertions made by Hyams. We are accused of ‘hypocrisy’ in that we have berated councillors for accepting ‘unquestioningly’ officers’ reports. If Cr Hyams would bother to look back at our post on this issue he would find the following as part of our commentary –

QUESTIONS:

  •  What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
  •  Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
  •  Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
  •  Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties?
  •  Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors…….”. We continued that what we recommend is surety for all concerned. There’s also a post that we put up but did not author – it comes from a resident expressing their personal opinion.

Finally, in relation to this current item, perhaps Cr. Hyams has not read the rehashed officers’ report as closely as he should have. The report notes: “Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants (David Bick, John Briggs, Roger Beeston and Dale Kelly). All concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection”.

So that makes it 6 Heritage Advisors in total. How much did this recourse to ‘external’ advisors cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? How much will referral to a Panel cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? Why in the interests of transparency did you not once refer to this additional ‘evidence’ from ‘independent’ experts? And since it was at your urging that the current Councillor Code of Conduct contains the injunction that councillors read all material placed before them, we ask you -“Did you really read the new report?”. Or is the failure to mention these additional 4 expert opinions merely an example of ‘hypocrisy’? We welcome your response Cr. Hyams!

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »