May 7, 2011

Decision Making Behind Closed Doors

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

The only decision making that is lawful must occur at full council meetings, special committee meetings, or under delegated authority. The role of Assembly of Councillors is to consider ‘matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision” (Local Government Act, 1989). Further, the VLGA states that ‘Briefings are a means by which councillors can ensure that they have all the information and advice required to debate and decide matters.” (Submission to discussion paper on ‘conflict of interest’, February, 2010).              

In theory, this works fine. Yes, councillors need to be briefed on important upcoming issues. Yes, they need to be in possession of all the facts and figures prior to informed decision making taking place. This is the theory – but in reality we find that in Glen Eira the so called ‘Assembly of Councillors’ is a defacto decision making forum. Debate obviously occurs, but there is also the unofficial ‘straw vote’ that in the end equates to behind the scenes decision making.

How do we know all this? We’ve received two sets of documents obtained under FOI. The first (uploaded here) is the infamous ‘Frisbee Report’, obviously tabled some time in late November, 2010 at a councillors’ briefing session. The document basically details a number of breaches of the local law by various ‘unauthorised sporting groups’, and its stated purpose is for councillors to ‘consider and approve ‘one of the options set out in the report”. The actual options are:

  • “Council can monitor the situation
  • Council can uphold reasonable laws reasonably enforced. Council can take the following action for unauthorised groups: issue a warning in the first instance; issue a formal warning in the second instance; issue a penalty infringement notice if the group continues to play,
  • Council can do nothing”.

The second document is Version 1 of the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting of 22nd November, 2010. (uploaded here). This document underwent at least three revisions, so that from 735 words, it was reduced to a mere 97 words. What’s important about this document is that the note-taker, whom we assume to be Linda Smith, recorded the following:

“Cr Tang advised that council had made the decision not to take any action with the Frisbee group back in November”.

In the first place, no Council meeting has ever made such a decision and secondly, we do not believe that Ms. Smith misheard or misquoted, or misunderstood the gist of the conversation at this point. If so, then the above November Assembly of Councillors to all intents and purposes did make a binding decision. Such incriminating ‘evidence’ therefore had to be expunged, and that’s the reason we suspect, behind Hyams’ emails and determination to ‘censor’ these minutes.

Readers may also recall that Lipshutz’s son was ‘associated’ with the Frisbee group, as well as some of Tang’s acquaintances. Then there was the instance of Lipshutz’s email to Burke requesting that he ‘look into the matter’, and now Hyams’ request to Burke that the minutes be changed – not once, but time and time again!

Whilst it is true that the Municipal Inspector found no ‘official breach of the act’, in regards to conflict of interest by both Lipshutz and Tang, this is small comfort to residents. The ‘decision’ not to prosecute, or even act, were not made in council meetings – hence there was no ‘official’ vote. But these documents suggest that consensus and de facto decisions are occurring time and time again – but behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. Even more concerning is the manner in which official documents are pared away so that all context and substance is removed. Yes, this may be ‘legal’, but it certainly is not ethical, or in the best interests of good governance. When there is no transparency, there is no accountability. All that we are left with is a rotten taste in our mouths and the further disrepute that has for a decade dogged this Council. 

We urge everyone to  read these documents carefully and to ask themselves:

  • Do Tang, Lipshutz and Hyams have a case to answer?
  • Do these documents promote confidence in the transparency and good governance of this council?
 

May 5, 2011

Keystone Cops Alive & Well in Glen Eira Council

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication
[11] Comments 

Here’s a little story for the amusement of all ratepayers. The antics of all the major actors definitely resemble the stumbling, bumbling and ineffectuality of the Keystone Cops. But these events also offer a unique window into the culture of an organisation that is committed to thwarting change. We also glean an appreciation of the inability (unwillingness?) of certain councillors to assert their rightful authority and control. We are, of course, referring to the Consultation Advisory Committee consisting of Pilling, Hyams, and Esakoff and officers. Given the current ‘consultation’ on the Engagement Strategy we think this post is a timely reminder of what residents should look out for in this new installment of spin, waffle and dissembling.

Since the November 2008 elections, minutes of the Consultation Committee Meetings have been tabled at full council meetings only 6 times. We’ve traced the ‘progress’ of one issue – the erection of Notice Boards in 12 locations throughout the municipality.  Readers should note that this issue has taken over two years to materialise – and all for the measly expenditure of $2,000+. When one considers that council has had notice boards in place at barbecues and rotundas for private bookings for years now (without being devastated by vandals) one can only marvel at the goings on at these committee meetings.

The following extracts are cited verbatim from relevant minutes. Nothing has been left out except the final list of recommended locations.

17th April 2009 – Community Notice boards – The issue of the value of Community Notice boards was raised. DCS (Peter Jones) advised that the issue had previously been examined and that the previous report would be provided to Councillors

Action: DCS to provide previous Community notice Board report to councillors.

24th June 2009: Peter Jones tabled a paper presented at a Council Briefing on 31 July 2006 concerning Community Notice Boards. The paper concluded that notice boards could be set up in libraries and supermarkets or other places which most residents visit, however these methods would still only reach a minority of the population. The paper recommended that council should use more direct methods of consultation such as direct mail, letter box drops, notices in the Leader Newspapers, Glen Eira News, Council website, surveys, focus groups and public meetings.

The committee discussed the use of community notice boards in shopping centres, at park entrances and council libraries. Cr Esakoff raised the use of stainless steel framed notice boards within the City of Boroondara.

ACTION: Officers to investigate notice boards used within the City of Boorondara and provide a report at the next Committee meeting. 

26th August, 2009: Officers tabled a report of community notice boards located within the City of Boroondara. The Boroondara City council maintains two notice boards situated outside trains stations, one in Glenferrie Road and the other in Auburn road.

Officers inspected the notice boards and found that they contained information taken directly from the Council newsletter Boroondara Bulletin. Officers are of the opinion that these notice boards would attract little attention from pedestrians and only reach a small minority of the population.

A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Notice boards are often graffitied and the perspex is also scratched by vandals using coins. Notice boards installed in parks are also set alight. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.

Cr Esakoff discussed slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip. The Committee discussed notices boards with Adshel bus shelters in areas of high pedestrian usage.

ACTION: officers to provide a report on the slimline stainless steel notice boards used in the Camberwell shopping strip and supply name of manufacturer and costs 

8th October 2009 : Stainless Steel Notice boards. Officers provided information about the stainless steel signs located in the Camberwell shopping strip. Stainless steel signs have been installed in the Camberwell Shopping Centre and are located on the footpath area of the shopping strip. The signs are fitted with a relatively small window of perspex glass on both sides of the sign and the sign contains a map of the shopping strip. The information contained in the window could not be easily seen from a distance and the sign had also attracted graffiti and stickers of unauthorised material.

The Committee discussed the possibility of using these signs to promote council community consultation.

Officers reported that the stainless steel signs are manufactured by Sign Insustriees located at 9 Lennox Street Moorabbin. Officers also reported that Sign Industries have advised that the costs for the manufacture and installation of three signs would be $16,335.00 including GST.

The Committee discussed different types of signage that could be used to promote community consultations including different construction materials and design. The committee requested a catalogue of the different signs produced by Sign Industries.

ACTION: Officers to investigate the costs of 6, 9 and 12 signs, additional costs of enlarging the perspect glass area and the provision of fittings so that information contained within the sign can be regularly changed. Officers to obtain a catalogue of the different types of signs produced by Sign Industries.

14th October, 2010: Brochure Holders

Mark Saunders advised that quotes had been obtained for Info-Central Brochure Holders. The purpose of the holders is to promote council community consultations and events. The quotes for the brochure holders range in cost from $180 (plus GST) for a standard holder up to $220.00 (plus GST) for a heavy duty holder. The cost for 12 standard holders is $2,040 (plus GST) and $2,520.00(plus GST) for 12 heavy duty holders.

A brochure holder set consists of two holders and brackets. The brochure holders are available in a standard version constructed of clear 3mm acrylic material or a heavy duty version that is manufactured from more robust high impact acrylic. A picture of the brochure holders is provided below.

A key consideration regarding the installation of notice boards is the costs associated with keeping up with repairs caused by vandalism. Brochure holders and notice boards are often sprayed with graffiti, scratched by vandals using sharp objects. People also put unauthorised material on the outside of notice boards.

Additional costs for the project include preparing, printing and regularly changing over information. These additional costs will be met through existing budgets.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the purchase of 12 heavy duty brochure holder sets at a cost of $2,520.00 plus GST.

Moved Cr. Hyams and Seconded Cr. Esakoff. Motion carried.

21st February 2011: Notice Boards

Officers presented a report of proposed locations of notice boards to be installed across the municipality to promote council community engagement activities and services

12 community signs shall be installed in the municipality. The signs shall be located in areas that experience high levels of pedestrian traffic in major activity centres.

The committee agreed that signage should be installed in the following locations: (a list follows)

ACTION: Officers to investigate the possibility of locating signage on the north side of Centre Road, East Bentleigh, in the Glenhuntly road Elsternwick within the close proximity of Staniland Grove, within close proximity to Patterson Train Station, and at the entrance to Caulfield Park on the corner of Hawthorn and Balaclava roads, Caulfield.

 

May 4, 2011

What the Experts Think

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

Below is our coverage of the presentations made by the guest speakers at least week’s Community Forum. We invite debate and discussion on the points they raised.

Dr. Birrell – explicitly it is acknowledged that Melbourne 2030 is dead and that something different will take its place. …..we’ve seen a meteoric rise in Melbourne’s population growth….(but it’s going to fall)….because the reason why Melbourne’s population growth has accelerated is because of overseas migration. The dominant reason that overseas migration has contributed to the surge in Melbourne’s population is attributable to one group – overseas students. That acounted for about 60% of the migration growth in Victoria. …The overseas student industry is now in rapid decline and as a consequence it will affect Melbourne’s growth. No doubt about it. Melbourne could drop to the order of 50,000 or so….just because of this change in immigration policy. …But there’s more. One reason why Melbourne has been able to do so well as far as population growth is concerned ….because we have had the comparative advantage in the price of housing….that’s all changed. Prices of houses and land have escalated to the point where they are now more expensive than in Sth East Queensland. The possibility then of people leaving, particularly going to the west where land is cheaper than Melbourne and jobs are plentiful, to my mind is quite likely…..That may open up opportunities for rethinking the planning …that’s created the Phoenix Project. 

DR. LAY – ‘we know that roads are congested….by any standard……We have a long time spent in traffic (by international standards). We have long distances,….The two things you can do when you are facing congestion is …to build a new road infrastructure and I don’t even know of any proposals to build new road infrastructure in this area. I couldn’t even think of what they might be. And the other is to make the roads work more efficiently. …Vic Roads is one of the world’s best authorities in terms of managing the road system…the traffic signal system is viewed around the world as one of the best….a model for elsewhere…..but what I’m saying is that we are already milking our road system as efficiently as possible….we are using our road system quite well at the moment and there’s really not a lot of reserve that they can fix the thing….I now want to … explain why you’ve got what you’ve got (in Glen Eira). …We all know that infrastructure like roAds and trains doesn’t happen overnight….what you’ve got in Glen Eira you’ve had since about 1840! …..it hasn’t changed much at all. Glen Eira wasn’t really the centre of the universe even when Melbourne was founded in 1834 and the big competition for Glen Eira was downtown Dandenong…as you headed from Dandenong to Melbourne as you look at the map it’s a straight line, until you get to Warrigal Rd. At Warrigal Rd they hit Gardiner’s Creek. And Gardiner’s Creek was a sloppy, muddy, impassable creek. And that’s where Dandenong Rd starts bending. Glen Eira was the pits. Glen Eira was a swamp. …..there were about 14 known swamps and in between the swamps there were wet stoppages. ….Dandenong Rd and the railway followed the edge of the swamp…all the bends are attempts at avoiding the worst bits of the swamp. …..Caulfield didn’t develop and what Dandenong Rd did and then the railway,  was to make north south movement the popular route…but nothing here because of the swamp. …….You don’t have any decent connections running through! …The rest of Melbourne was divided on a mile square grid, but again because of the swamp and the other developments ……you’re stuck with a strange road system. It doesn’t really work as well as the rest of Melbourne and you’re also stuck with the fact that development happened around you. …..all sort of coming down on this area. And it was developed late….and the railways went through in about 1880 and again the railways weren’t built in this area to service Caulfield. They were built because down in Gippsland there was dairy farms, vegetables and then there was coal. So there was a market and private companies built the first railroad to get these products into Melbourne. …..The first shops weren’t in this area. They were along Hawthorn Rd. Camden Town was the first real (development) ….but they were not even strip shops in the way we understand them today like Glenferrie Rd (those active shopping strips) it didn’t develop the way the other side of the railway did. ….So you had a community which was very much a local community without any of the natural road infrastructure which was created elsewhere in Melbourne to provide the through traffic. You didn’t actually go through Caulfield to get to anywhere so there wasn’t any real demand….so nothing happened and the roads that you’ve got are very much a local road system. They’re flat so you put trams down them…but it is very much a local structure. There’s no way that you can conceive of that structure being any different in the future. There’s nothing that you can do; there are no fixes …..and I suppose that when I look at the future I don’t see any changes given the road infrastructure plans of Melbourne that there is any relationship to what happens in Glen Eira. ….You’ve inherited a road system….(all was in place) by the time motor cars came along about 1906. ……One of the propositions in 1906 was to ban cars in this area ……so even when cars came then it was recognised that this was not a community for fast rapid cars…. 

PROF CURRIE – one of the interesting positives about growth is that it’s helped the economy. And the CBD’s of capital cities have been a big part of growing the economy in Australia….the CBD’s have grown a huge amount. …There’s been a huge growth in the service sector and the knowledge economy….part of it was what Bob was talking about with international students…Australia is getting pretty good at using…universities as knowledge based economies with the service sector to actually feed off the economy of Asia in a very successful way. So it’s not just living off mining and so forth….When we talk about planning, there’s not a lot of success we can talk about, but here is one example we can. Growth in employment in the Melbourne CBD – it has skyrocketed…..(Then there is) the transport point of view….there’s been a lot of growth in usage, but also a growth in public transport usage..(the CBD) is now quite an interesting place; there’s a lot more people living there, and lots to do….the CBD has been very successful I think. ….We’re going to have some growth in different areas, but it’s mostly going to be in the outer suburbs…..in fact it has been. …Really it’s the fringe where growth is expected….It’s not going to be the same as it was in the past. We’ve got an ageing population and that ageing population is going to be in the outer suburbs. Why is it an issue? Well we won’t have the services and facilities in those places. …..What are the transport issues? Congestion! …the growth that has occurred has really been beyond what was originally forecast. …Business costs (because of congestion) are 3 billion dollars. …congestion is happening more and more in this area…We’ve got trams in the middle of traffic streams….so again slower…..traffic grows. Trains – massive meteoric growth in trains…..the trains in Melbourne are about 40% overloaded….(Question from audience: How does that compare with other countries?)…we’re about the same as Sydney….London would have similar congestion….

we haven’t talked about the environment ….you are surrounded by roads here and they are not nice things….accidents are still a major issue….there’s great concerns about how we’re going to drive in the future to get around….and one certain truth is affordability.. We’re experiencing another peak in fuel and we’re expecting much more…..when we have growth occurring in on the fringe this is a major concern…Also we’ve been walking less….Your area has got great sustainability. You’ve got great transport access, close to activities, within walking distance, ……There hasn’t been a great change in train travel in Glen eira, cars still dominate…..

Issues:…the bus service has no framework; rail crossings dominate. I think of Glen Eira as a suburb surrounded by transport problems and you’ve got through traffic that can’t get through….congestion is a real consequence. So what about the Phoenix project? One perspective is that we’re always talking about planning. You know, I often think that we don’t have planning in Melbourne. I think that whenever there’s growth and someone wants to develop they often, by any means possible, get what they want because they can get a market for it. I’m not saying that’s desirable, I just think that’s often what happens. But the real truth of where you are is that you are a mighty successful place. …..I think in the future that success will actually increase in many ways if your railway – you’ve got a very high quality railway -…..you’ve got great access in Melbourne to the CBD, and to developing areas, and regionally you’ve actually got direct connections to Gippsland and the rest of those areas. It’s quite staggering how well connected you are here. ….You guys are going to be a metro city that gives access to St. Kilda Rd and the CBD….Very desirable place in my opinion.  And whether you are interested in development or not there will be a lot of pressure for it here. ….

There is an opportunity here to try and do this properly. I think it’s very hard for you to try and stop this (the Metro/Footscray link) ….and certainly the transport opportunities with the Metro and so forth will tie this into appropriate development….Melbourne doesn’t have a second CBD. With all the accessibility here and with all that’s happening particularly in the growth of knowledge centres …Caulfield would be a mighty attractive second CBD. I don’t think anybody wants it to be as big as Melbourne, or even as big as it is in North Sydney and Parramatta,  but those places as well, don’t have the features that you have here already. you know, attractive development – a large university site. ….these will be a natural draw towards that… 

JEREMY HEARN (architect/designer): I’ve worked on a fair number of master plans for activity centres all over Melbourne, going back to the original Docklands where I was on one of the teams that put a proposal in for one of the major segments of that development…..I had a bit of a look at the various influences that are coming to bear on the area around Caulfield station. …Our previous speakers have commented  quite thoroughly on public transport and the road network and clearly they are two of the strongest influences on that area. The fact that Caulfield is a knuckle in a public transport system is quite critical and also, with Dandenong Rd a very major traffic route for cars. It will remain a transport hub. Not only will it remain…but we’ve all heard that there are plans for additional lines to go in on the Frankston line….Now all of those are going to require land. The area that has been designated for the Phoenix precinct is actually not very big. It’s been called up in the Melbourne 2030 plan as a major activity centre, but major activity centres are usually the size of something like Dandenong or even the Glenferrie Rd shopping centre. Chadstone actually jumps in as a major activity centre and that’s very dense now, but always wants to be bigger.

It’s unlikely that the size of land that the Phoenix Activity Centre represents is sufficient for a major activity centre. So the area that we’re looking at to be a major activity centre is not really there at all. It would have to take in a much larger area. Dandenong Rd and the railway are of course a huge barrier to any kind of general movement from one side, so it’s almost certain that any expansion of that area would go to the south. So I would see realistically, that any development for a major activity centre would actually have to rezone areas all the way down to the south end of the racecourse reserve at least. And with the same sort of width as well. So it would be a much, much larger area. …..

In a way it’s quite inappropriate …because there are so many issues of state significance involved in this particular area…first off it’s a transport interchange, with various additional lines which will require more land; secondly, it’s got the racecourse…..there is no doubt that the State Government and the major activities part of the state government consider that the Caulfield racecourse and the Caulfield cup to be a substantial leg of Melbourne’s party town atmosphere which houses our tourist industry…so the State government would have a very strong interest in maintaining Caulfield as a racecourse……(people) know about Caulfield on the other side of the world (by virtue of the Melbourne and then the Caulfield Cup)…..it’s also historic…and hence part of Melbourne’s fabric….it also has a major use as an exhibition centre….part of major events calendar there…

You then have the shopping centre which is usually considered the heart of a major activity centre. Well, frankly, I’ve done a lot of shopping centres in my time and I really can’t see the basics there for much increase in terms of retail. You’re competing against a very well established shopping centre in Glenferrie Rd which is 5 minutes away once you get on the road, and just down in the other direction you’re competing against Chadstone, which is the largest and best known shopping centre in the whole of Australia. So I really don’t see that there will be much development in the way of retail around Caulfield. It will remain as a local shopping centre, with a slightly struggling supermarket. But even if you bring in another 3000 people, …I don’t know how well that will go.

Then you’ve got the Monash University Caulfield Campus with their own plans to get bigger and stronger, and I would have thought that they had trouble with the amount of land they’ve got. A very condensed campus. Especially when you consider that it’s not in a major city centre. Normally you would expect in Australia that any kind of tertiary institution would have access to quite  extensive playing fields to keep the youth of the day healthy and here there is really not a lot.

….So all in all, there seems to be three state level influences and one local…..Then there’s the State government’s intention in the Melbourne 2030 …..for the reasons I explained earlier I don’t think it’s going to be a Major Activity Centre unless the state government moves in and gets fairly serious about it and it would have to do some substantial (with) road operations and probably lose Caulfield Racecourse entirely for it to become big enough for it to classify as a Major Activity Centre. I think that one is just waiting to fall over.

So when you stand and look at all those, you have to look as a resident and ask ‘what do we want for the area?’ Should the Monash University campus become bigger and take over more area? Should the racecourse move in and extend itself towards the tramline and create some sort of entertainment precinct which seems to be almost, reading between the lines, being a competitor for the casino? Or should we land bank a lot of the land around there  for future transport infrastructure? A very legitimate thing to do but without the state government stepping in and doing the planning work it’s hard to see. I have difficulties with the plan that’s been proposed because it doesn’t seem to address any of those issues. It addresses the land that is owned by the MRC and its specifically dedicated to allowing the increase of density of that area….I had a look at the Incorporated plan which is when you draw little boxes and say ‘that’s what it’s going to be’ and I’ve worked on a number of those, and they never end up like that., because when you actually look at details you find that they don’t work. So you end up having to go back and get another planning permit anyway. So the Incorporated Plan overlays don’t really work ……

What’s been proposed is to increase the densities and to reduce the required car parking under the planning regulations. I don’t know that that’s a terrifically good idea. Essentially it seems to me that the MRC has been acquiring that land over the last 40 or 50 years for the purpose of car parking to make sure the racecourse has adequate parking on race days. and I imagine most of you, if you are residents, and have driven past on a raceday, you know that they need every bit of it. So, taking up that land that they’ve got for carparking and putting buildings on it and reducing the required car parking seems to be not a really good idea….I had a look at the MRC aims for their organisation …and they were to ensure they had a cash flow to provide prizes for races….selling off the land in order to have the prizes….it doesn’t seem to me that the whole thing has been thought out. ….I haven’t come across anyone in the community who has said ‘wow I’m just waiting for them to redevelop that land’…’I really wanted 20 storey buildings there, that’s why I moved in’….

It should be done over a very much larger area than just that limited area that they’re talking about. …(20 storey) has another disadvantage….the only thing that will be built there are lots of units…..when you allow a building to be sold off as own your own units it’s almost impossible to redevelop that site later on. Because to do that you have to go and deal with 20,40,100 owners of individual units to buy that block of land. …..If you want an activity centre that you want to develop over time as this was units, now it’s going to be an office block…if you allow that plan to be developed as own your own units – forget it. You can’t do it. It’s just locked in forever. So essentially we’re looking at a proposal to create a very high density set of units in that area and to reduce the carparking availability for the other purposes. So when…they want to move the roads so they can put an extra railroad line in, they won’t be able to without buying 80 odd owners of units. which doesn’t seem to me to be very smart. ….We should  be working to convince the State Government that they ….need to have a look at this from their own point of view because too many state level interests are being overridden by this local and very specifically owner based proposal.

 

May 4, 2011

Hansard: 3rd May

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

Caulfield Racecourse: development

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I address my adjournment matter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The minister would be aware that last week an agreement was reached between the Melbourne Racing Club and the City of Glen Eira that will provide more public use of the centre of Caulfield racecourse. My electorate of Caulfield is aware of my efforts to provide more open space in the electorate. As I have said on numerous occasions, the city of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality, and my constituents are naturally interested in maximising the open space available. The Caulfield racecourse is part of Crown land that is considered open space, but it has had little promotion and few facilities available to the public. Caulfield is a great racecourse that is world renowned, but outside of race day it remains empty and underutilised. 

The agreement that I was part of facilitating between the Melbourne Racing Club and the City of Glen Eira means that the Melbourne Racing Club will provide $1.8 million to upgrade the park. The new park within the Caulfield racecourse will be open outside of race day on some 352 days of the year. It will have five precincts, including a picnic area by the lake, a large dog-off-leash area, walking and jogging paths, areas for fishing and a junior soccer pitch. All of these will exist inside a racecourse. I am extremely happy with what has been achieved for Caulfield by improving access to the centre of the racetrack — — 

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! If members at the table would like a conversation, please leave the house.  

Mr SOUTHWICK — Access to the centre of the racetrack and the creation of a wonderful new resource  will be greatly appreciated by my constituents. The next part of the puzzle for my constituents is the land adjacent to the racecourse known as the Booran Road reserve. This was part of a land swap by the pervious government. It is now Crown land and has the potential of being a great sporting precinct.

I call on the minister to visit this area and meet with community representatives to investigate how this land can best be utilised to provide a great community resource for local residents. 

This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement. I look forward to the minister visiting Caulfield to look at what we have been able to achieve and to take up the challenge of the next part of the puzzle in delivering the Booran Road reserve.

 

May 3, 2011

Extravagance or Sound Management?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

We’ve commented numerous times on what appears to be the wastage of ratepayers’ monies. We’ve highlighted shoddy workmanship, the necessity to have things done and then redone, and generally no visible quality control within cooee. The latest episode in this continuing pattern is to be found in the in camera items of the current minutes. We quote:

“That Council appoint WM Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN. 005 711 222 as the contractor under Contract No. 2011.047 Beech Street Car Park Rehabilitation & Associated Landscaping Works at Princes Park, Beech Street Car park, Caulfield for the sum of $476,675.10 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered.” 

Instead of frugality we appear to be experiencing major extravagance. Half a million dollars for ‘landscaping’  and ‘rehabilitation’ for a car park that was redone less than 4 years ago! Anyone who cares to wander down to Princes Park will undoubtedly come away scratching their heads and asking “What’s wrong with the carpark as it is?” 

When residents are repeatedly told that rates have to go up, and that various programs are in jeopardy because there is not enough money to go round, then the decision to spend half a million dollars on a carpark that was recently done is extraordinary. This only serves to raise further questions about the management, priorities, and common sense of our councillors and administrators.

 

May 2, 2011

What Petty & Devious Games We Play!!!!

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

The minutes for last Wednesday’s Council Meeting are now up. We wish to direct readers’ attention to the Right of Reply by Penhalluriack, and the verbal response provided a little later by Newton to Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report. Two things in particular stand out

  • Newton’s little speech is immaculately punctuated
  • Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply is almost unintelligible BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNCTUATION.

Now we find it impossible to believe that if Newton’s words can be sensibly recorded, that the same privilege should not be extended to Cr. Penhalluriack. If two people typed up and edited these minutes, then person Number 1 would definitely pass his primary school. Person Number 2 is in bad need of remediation. However, we suspect that the motive for such discrepancy has nothing to do with education and knowledge of punctuation. It would appear to again be deliberate. Please note the following:

Newton – 6 commas and 7 fullstops in 127 words

Penhalluriack – 3 commas in 535 words Plus the absence of inverted commas, apostrophes, etc.

We’ve copied the two speeches directly from the minutes. Readers, make up your own minds!

NEWTON: “In relation to Item 11.1 on tonight’s Agenda, Requests for Reports. Firstly, in October 2010 Council sought a report on, to the best of my recollection, every meeting with MRC and Trustees. That report was submitted to the Council Meeting of, to the best of my recollection, the 2 November 2010. The resolution was at that meeting to note the report.

To the best of my recollection that was unanimous. To the best of my recollection the Mover was Cr Penhalluriack. Since November 2010 the only contact I’ve had with the MRC or Trustees has been in implementation of Council resolutions. During the last two years I have never exercised the CEO’s delegated power in relation to the MRC or Trustees.”

PENHALLURIACK: “On the front page of the local Leader in an article ‘Mulch to fume about’ I think Cr Hyams suggests it should really be mulch ado about nothing I’m mentioned in it and it says I may have a Conflict of Interest because I sell mulch and similar products in my business. 

This issue was addressed by the Municipal Inspectors different terms same issues and it was also addressed by me directly to the Audit Committee in my submission to the Audit Committee to ask them to investigate the mulch sheds. 

I do not believe there is any Conflict of Interest whatsoever and had I thought there was I would have not raised the issue as I have with the Council. 

The article goes on to say I raised concerns about the disease a form of pneumonia then it tells you how much of course the independent assessment cost and the independent assessment found that levels of bacteria and fungi in the air were not elevated and there was no negative test results to indicate any current health risk according to a Council report. What the expert report didn’t do was analyse the mulch it would have cost ten percent of the amount and the situation when they did their testing was that the mulch shed had been effectively emptied so there was not dust in the air whatsoever. The mulch at the back of the shed was damp moist composted and not likely to spread into the atmosphere generally certainly maybe as an aerosol within the mulch shed itself but not around the back of the mulch shed where the testing was done. Now it’s erm, I’m quoted as saying I’m concerned about the community safety not about whether I sell mulch or not it’s next to a school and next to a children’s playground. The literature I’ve seen anything within two hundred metres should be carefully monitored. I say the shed costing one hundred and sixty thousand dollars was built at the current site in 2009. The shed unfortunately was badly designed right from the start because when the testing was done the mulch in that shed had been there for two years. Mulch when it is produced commercially for customers be they commercial customers or free customers is pasteurised. The Australian Standard says that mulch should be pasteurised. 

The selective quotations from the Leader are a good example of very poor reporting. They quote the report, no negative test results. They don’t say that the report also said exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk to exposure of various fungi, yeasts and moulds and bacteria including legionella. They don’t say that the mulch was not pasteurised as it should be to accord with the Australian Standard AS4454-2003. 

What they don’t say is that a community wide outbreak of legionnaires disease occurred in Pas De Calaise, France from November 2003 to January 2004 and of the eighty six laboratory confirmed cases eighteen were fatal. 

Council voted on this matter they voted responsibly when they knew all of the facts and I believe the article in the Leader is misleading and false and needs to be criticised at this Council Meeting by me.”

 

May 1, 2011

A Comment By Cr. Pilling

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[15] Comments 

A few thoughts about this blog-site, the content and some of the comments.

Some of the postings are informative and offer insights to what is happening particularly at Council meetings and that is to be applauded.

Increasingly though it seems a case of councillor/council bashing no matter what the merit of decisions made, myself being the latest recipient.

I appreciate constructive critisism but many of the postings/comments seem otherwise.

I have found all the councillors to be decent, conciencious and hard working – in short it is a good team to work amongst.

I stand by both my recent decisions on the racecourse centre and C60 and challenge the moderator and readers in the real world (not cyber) of how they would have delivered better outcomes given the circumstances.

 

May 1, 2011

More Records Set

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[4] Comments 

Glen Eira Debates is going from strength to strength. April has seen us break new ground in setting an all time monthly record of 14,066 hits – that’s over 2000 more than our previous record in March. The past two weeks have also witnessed consecutive highs with just on 3,700 hits per week.

We thank our readers for their contributions thus far, and in particular thank Glen Eira Council for providing us with all the necessary fodder for our posts. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the disenchantment with this council is mounting – our stats are evidence of this. What is also clear is that residents appreciate the opportunity to voice their opinions, discuss issues and share information. Something we believe is totally alien to this council.

We reaffirm our commitment to present all views; to inform the community as to what is really going on, to analyse issues, provide evidence, and continue to publish in the public interest. Your support thus far has been terrific and we ask that you continue publicising our existence. The community’s voice can, and ultimately will, make a difference to the way this council functions!

 

April 30, 2011

The Facts & Nothing But The Facts!

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

We have received a copy of the $5,000 consultant’s report into the now closed mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. In recent days there has been much publicity and reaction to this closure with allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ against Cr. Penhalluriack. It really seems that the response has in large part been an orchestrated attempt to either discredit Penhalluriack, or create a neat diversionary tactic from what is a far bigger issue for the residents of Glen Eira – the C60 and the complete acquiescence of this council to the will of the MRC. It also just happens to be Cr Penhalluriack who has been the chief opponent of the MRC (and council) in this whole ‘negotiation’.  So we ask: is the current furore mere coincidence or deliberate? If the latter, then by whom? Who has most to gain by discrediting Penhalluriack is the question that needs answering!

We’ve also written previously about the whole saga and the important sequence of events (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/how-good-is-newtons-alibi-part-2/.  To reiterate:

  1. Newton is responsible for ensuring the complete health and safety of his work force and residents
  2. Newton had the consultant’s first draft on his desk for at least 12 days before it was handed over to the audit committee. The Audit Committee (comprising Lipshutz (6 years straight) and the ‘evergreen’ Gibbs and McLean (12/13 years straight) basically did nothing.
  3. Why the need for several versions of this report? Was anything altered between version 1 and version 2? If so, why?
  4. Why did councillors have to ‘request’ a copy of the report instead of it being distributed to all immediately – especially since the report did recommend that Council take specific actions to ameliorate the potential risks?
  5. Who was responsible for the placement of the mulch heap at Glen Huntly park in the first place? Why didn’t Council’s Health Section recognise the potential dangers and veto such placement? Why did it take Penhalluriack’s persistence to finally initiate a scientific consultant’s report only after two months of his badgering the Audit Committee? Surely risk management needs to be acted upon immediately?
  6. Why has Newton not provided councillors with a copy (if it exists) of the Adcock (Dept of Health) advice? Was this in fact a real ‘report’ or ‘advice’, or simply a phone conversation? Again, we remind readers that this very same Department of health has on its website the following statement: Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….”
  7. Why were graphic photographs ‘accidentally’ omitted from Newton’s response to Penhalluriack. This is not the first time that ‘selective editing’ has occurred!
  8. How ‘intellectually dishonest’ is the sign that was subsequently placed over the now defunct mulch facility? The intent was obviously to blame councillors.
  9. Why is Penhalluriack copping all the flack, since the vote was 7 to 2 – that means that at least another 6 councillors were persuaded by his arguments and evidence!
  10. Why should the Leader suddenly feature this story on its front page, when as we’ve stated previously, there has been a heap of much more important news happening in Glen Eira. Who also put 3AW onto the story today – all primed with the Darren Cooksley’s of this world to ‘have a go’ at Penhalluriack. Serendipity, or an orchestrated campaign?
  11. Residents should be more concerned with the fact that a tin shed, and an ineffective sprinkler system is cited as costing $160,000. Tenderers and other contrctors must be laughing their heads off at the cost/benefit analyses that this administration runs. Seems like it’s money for jam!

Finally, the report itself. For those who can’t be bothered reading the entire report, we’ve highlighted some of the important findings. They are quoted verbatim –

“Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi, despite the favourable air quality testing results.”

“the current warning signage was assessed and is not adequate, hence additional warning signage is required’.

‘Exposure to shredded mulch, potting mix, or compost, including general garden compost and commercially available products can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi (yeast and moulds) and bacteria, including Legionella”.

‘Longbeachae is the strain of legionella most commonly associated with composts, mulch and potting mix” (compare this statement with the supposed ‘advice’ from Adcock as claimed by Newton!)

“Some commercially available mulch products are not considered to present a risk of exposure to Legionella where they have undergone a pasteurisation process. However, mnay commercially available composts and mulch products present a risk of exposing users to fungi and bacteria for eg. Legionella.”

“The material stored at Glen Huntly Park is not pasteurised or treated and therefore has the potential to exposure workers, users and the general public in the surrounding area to elevated levels of bacteria and fungi above background. Potentially most at risk groups are members  of the (public) who collect and use the mulch material for gardening, the compact truck loader driver and other council workers who regularly work with the mulch material’

“Bulk sampling of the mulch stock pile for legionella was not carried out as this is a difficult test to conduct and based on literature and other information sources there is certainly a potential for this to exist, although it may quite likely not show up in sampling. Air sampling for Legionella is not considered an effective method of sampling due to the short time span of the bacterium in air.” (NOTE: THE ACTUAL MULCH HEAP ITSELF WAS NOT TESTED)

So, what does all this mean? We conclude:

  • Correct risk management practices were not carried out in a timely fashion
  • Poor decision making as to location means that attention must be diverted from this central question
  • Penhalluriack has been the target of a deliberate smear campaign
  • The consultant’s report conflicts with the ‘advice’ Newton claims to have received from Adcock
  • Penhalluriack’s coloured photos (conveniently omitted at first) clearly show the dust spray and the dangerous incline that the loader is working at. Both situations should not have been allowed to occur.
  • Why should something as simple as a tin shed cost the earth?
  • The reluctance to disseminate important information to all councillors represents a failure of good governance
  • here’s the missing photo – in glorious technicolour!

 

April 29, 2011

Joint MRC & Council Media Release

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

Please take careful note of the David Southwick statements included in this media release and also the qualification – IF HORSE TRAINING IS REMOVED!

Friday 29 April 2011

Agreement on public use of Racecourse Centre

Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club have reached agreement on increased community use of the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

More facilities for the community to enjoy including a picnic area by the lake,  large dog off leash area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. The lake area will be available to the public 352 days a year and the whole of the centre on all days other than race days and major event days.

Additional access will be provided including a new pedestrian rout from Neerim Road across the racecourse, vehicle access through the tunnel after 9.30am with 20 car spaces reserved for the community and a separate footpath through the tunnel.

Fences will be converted to open up views across the Reserve starting with the corner of Neerim Rd and Queens Avenue. If horse training is transferred from Caulfield, additional areas will be added to Glenhuntly Park.

The Mayor, Cr Margaret Esakoff, said: “Council has been working to achieve public use of public land and we welcome the agreement for the benefits it will provide to our community”.

Melbourne Racing Club CEO Alasdair Robertson said that the Club and Council had worked closely together to deliver an outstanding result for the Community.“The MRC will provide a new $1.8 million public park in the racecourse infield. The MRC will pay for the design, landscaping, community facilities and ongoing maintenance of 5 recreational precincts.”

The infield public park will include new BBQ and picnic areas, a kid’s play area, shade and toilet facilities, a boardwalk around the lake including areas for fishing and a junior soccer pitch.

State Member for Caulfield, David Southwick MP worked with both parties to bring about the agreement. He said: “this is a great result for the people of Caulfield with the creation of new open space, new facilities and access to the Racecourse Reserve.” “I am very happy that I have been able to bring the Glen Eira Council and the Melbourne Racing Club together to facilitate this result and to promote greater access to this significant open space in Caulfield.” “Our community had real concerns about the lack of access to the inside of the track and about the low amount of open space in the City of Glen Eira. This agreement creates an excellent destination for a variety of recreational activities and will be greatly enjoyed by Caulfield families”

The Agreement and plans are on Council’s website.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »