March 28, 2011

Where’s the Business Acumen?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

How good is Glen Eira at running commercial enterprises? How good are their business plans? How good is their homework? How comprehensive is their analyses of current commercial climates and how good are they in estimating where a dollar could be made? Looking at history, we have to conclude that their track record on commercial endeavours is exceedingly poor. GESAC is starting to sound like it might be the latest white elephant.

Most landlords (and that’s what council is when we consider GESAC) will have ironclad contracts in place. They simply hire out space and it is up to the tenant to outfit the place, provide staff, and do whatever is necessary to make a buck. The owner is simply there to ensure that everything is safe and above board.

GESAC has been calling for ‘expressions of interest’ for potential tenants for several months. The propaganda machine has been in full swing. We’re told that everything is on budget, that 5 zillion tons of concrete have been laid, etc.etc. What we haven’t been told is how many commercial operators have actually shown any interest whatsoever? And of those that might have applied, how many have been deemed as ‘suitable’? This Saturday’s Age Tender advertisement has given us further cause to doubt the business acumen of Glen Eira. Here’s the ad –

“Reference No.: 2011.034
Provision of Gymnasium Equipment to Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre

Requirement: Provision of a suite of gymnasium fitness equipment including installation, ongoing maintenance and centre staff training.”

One very feasible conclusion that could be drawn from this ad, is –

  • There has not been any expressions of interest (or at least not considered viable)
  • If, as a last resort, council is contemplating ‘managing’ this itself, then what’s the cost?
  • Does this mean that instead of rent coming in, council will be forking out to guarantee that all premises are occupied?
  • Where will this added ‘cost’ be itemised in budget figures, and will the final figures really reveal the truth? Will we still be told that the ‘cost’ is $41.2 million?
  • How well did the ‘business plan’ foresee the possibility of commercial disinterest?
  • How many actual ‘expessions of interest’ have there been overall? Are we dealing with something that will end up costing the community millions and millions simply because planning, strategising, and other considerations are proving to be inaccurate? Who should take the blame for this?

The bottom line is clear. Organisations only go to tender, and pay for services themselves, when they have to – that is, when no-one is interested! Of course we could be wrong in all of the above, as so many Anonymous responses tell us. So, what’s everyone elses take on that tender advertisement?

 

March 26, 2011

Now For 14 Storeys!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[7] Comments 

Our rumour was correct. An application is in for a fourteen (14) storey development almost next door to the 10 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick.

To view the full details of the plan, see: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1759&h=0

Lowlights include:

  • Waiver of carparking and loading
  • 109 residential apartments
  • Developer’s traffic engineer states: “there were at least 162 vacant spaces within the survey area from 7pm onwards”. Other conclusions of note in regards to parking are:

 

March 25, 2011

Update: April 4th Racecourse Special Committee Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[15] Comments 
From Council’s Website:  
On 23 March 2011, the MRC contacted the Council and requested that the Planning Permit Application for “Works in the centre of the Reserve for the construction of a carparking area, fencing, amenities, playground equipment and sporting/fitness equipment” (Planning Permit Application No.: GE/PP-23061/2010) be placed on hold until such time as the MRC has concluded its discussions and negotiations with Glen Eira Council in regards to the extent of these works.

Accordingly, this planning application is not before the Council and will not be considered at the Meeting on 4 April. The only item will be Amendment C60.
 

March 24, 2011

C60 & Caulfield Racecourse

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

 

March 23, 2011

Secrecy: What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Us!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
1 Comment 

Secrecy is of course appropriate in some cases. But not when it denies residents access to vital policy documents, strategies and plans. Glen Eira is unique in its commitment to provide as little information as possible to its residents and if it is provided, to hide it away so that access and easy retrieval requires the skill of a Sherlock Holmes, together with the nose of a trusty bloodhound! Why?

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

The availability, or lack thereof, of major policy documents is a case in point. In contrast to neighbouring councils, Glen Eira’s website is deplorable in its content and design. No direct links on the home page to ‘policies’, ‘strategies’ or ‘plans’; searches under ‘policies’ lead to planning documents that are archaic, dating back as far as 1999 and so on…..

This we suggest, is more than poor web design but intended to make things as difficult as possible for residents AND to possibly cover up the fact that in contrast to other councils, Glen Eira is really bereft of up-to-date policy development that matters. For example: there is no sustainable design strategy; there is no transport strategy; there is no gambling strategy that we could find and it goes on and on. Our point is simple: all policies, all strategies should be out in the open and easily accessible.

Below are the policies/strategies from other councils, all accessible via direct links from the home page. Those with an asterisk indicate the areas that we believe Glen Eira does not have any official policy. Council plans, budgets, codes of conduct, etc. have been omitted from the list.

BAYSIDE:

Cultural collection and management policy

Cultural collection policy*

Economic development strategy*

Electronic gaming policy*

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – Municipal Arrangements

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – operational Arrangements

Register of significant trees policy*

Sports facility policy*

Tourism strategic action plan*

Whistleblowers/Improper conduct

Youth policy

PORT PHILLIP:

Heritage recognition program policy and strategy

Sustainable design policy*

Waste wise strategy

Youth framework

Playground strategy

Memorials and monuments*

Port Phillip Collection Management Policy

Festivals Framework*

Urban History consultative committee*

Inner Melbourne Action Plan*

Climate Change Commitment*

Active and Creative City Framework*

St. Kilda Botanical Gardens Future Directions Plan

Fisherman’s Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy

Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach 2011*

Industry and Business Strategy*

Housing Strategy 2007

Beacon Cove Planning

Activity Centres Strategy

Ormond Road Urban Design guidelines

Governance Statement*

Good Governance guide

KINGSTON:

Alcohol and Other Drugs Action Plan*

Fire Prevention Plan

Gambling (Poker Machines) Strategy*

Graffitti management Plan

Guide to Business Conduct*

Open Space Strategy

Public health Plan

Whistleblowers Act

Kingston Biodiversity Strategy*

Kingston Industrial Strategy*

Investment Policy*

Pandemic Influenza Plan*

(http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=2394&h=-1 – Policy Manual)*

STONNINGTON: 

Art Acquisition Policy*

Caretaker Policy

Cultural Diversity Policy*

Disaster Relief donations Policy*

Key to the City and Freedom of Entry Policy*

Responsible Gambling Policy*

Road Safety Policy*

Sustainable Transport Policy*

Stormwater Environmental Management Plan*

 

March 22, 2011

Caulfield Racecourse & C60: Indecent Haste!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[10] Comments 

Today’s Caulfield Leader Advertisement (tiny) on Page 12 –

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE PRECINCT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING

4 April 2011

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on:

  • Monday 4 April 2011 in the Caulfield Pavilion, Caulfield Park, Balaclave road, Caulfield commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be:

  • Melbourne Racing club (MRC) Planning Scheme amendment C60 and a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve – to hear oral submissions from interested parties (a maximum of three minutes per submission)
 

March 21, 2011

Secrecy & Good Governance: An Intolerable Mix

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

The Glen Eira Audit Committee Charter (Council Minutes: 22nd July, 2008) states:

Term of Membership
Independent members of the Committee are not officers or employees of Council and have no executive powers. Independent members shall be appointed for an initial term of three (3) years after which time they will be eligible for reappointment. No independent member is to be appointed for more than two consecutive three year terms unless Council resolves otherwise. Terms will be scheduled to facilitate continuity of the Committee such that no more than one Councillor and one independent member’s terms cease within the one year”

The current independent members of the Audit Committee (Gibbs and McLean) have been on the committee since at least 1997 in Gibbs case, and McLean possibly soon after. That makes it roughly 14 years straight – and now it looks like they may have been granted another 3 year ‘extension’ bringing the grand total of consecutive service to close on 17 years! Even more disquieting is the way in which these reappointments have been handled – all executed via single, camouflaged one liners in Council agenda items.

The in camera items of February 22nd,  2011 read: “under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Audit Committee Membership”. Identical items are noted in the minutes of: 22nd May, 2006; 8th April, 2008; 24th February, 2009 and the 17th March, 2009. So it appears that each time either Gibbs or Mclean’s term of service is close to finishing, there appears this single innocuous and buried item that is voted on in camera. Yes, this fulfils the legal requirements of a ‘council decision’, but we have to ask:

  1. Why is this done in secret? Why is there no public announcement of reappointment? Why is there no recommendation from the audit committee that is minuted? Why on earth does such an item deserve the classification of ‘confidential’ unless the intention is to keep this from the public?
  2. Why does every other council we have looked up include such items in their Audit Committee minutes (ie. recommendation to reappoint or advertise) and some even issue a media release on the subject. Yet, Glen Eira is always silent, always secretive.
  3. Why does Newton insist on this practice – since he alone declares an item to be ‘confidential’ and determines that it be listed for in camera discussions?
  4. What of all the other councillors? Do they question? Do they want to know why the reappointment is so ‘secret’? Does anyone even think that 17 years of the same independent members of an Audit Committee is not according to current best practice and especially the recently released Minister’s Guidelines? Or is the simple fact that amidst the mountain of papers landed in councillors’ laps, this one single sentence is somehow engineered to escape notice?
  5. What does Newton have to gain by such secrecy? And what does this do to the public’s perception of the governance practices within Glen Eira?

Perhaps a few interesting examples from the minutes of Glen Eira’s Audit Committee meetings require reflection by residents –

Feb 5th, 2008 – “Mr McLean suggested that for future audit reports the internal auditor’s comments could be more positively stated. For example, under item 1 “Total purchase from vendors” on page 2 of the report, the wording “all the above appeared to be reasonably justified” be changed to “all the above were justified”. 

14th December, 2010 – “The Chairman stated that he and Mr McLean would meet separately with Management to discuss further enhancement of the BCP (Business Continuity Plan) documents.” 

Secrecy is the hallmark of Glen Eira and as we’ve said, the modus operandi of its administration. But it relies on complicit and compliant councillors in order to succeed. The result is to the detriment of the community and to the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

March 19, 2011

The Cat is (Finally) Out Of The Bag!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[21] Comments 

We have long maintained that the modus operandi of Glen Eira Council is secrecy and more secrecy.  In particular, there appears to be a distinct lack of ‘openness and transparency’ between administration and councillors. At last council meeting, our suspicions were verified.

In response to Cr. Penhalluriack’s question to Newton regarding the potential risk associated with the Glen Huntly mulch facility, Newton responded:

“The report that Cr Penhalluriack is referring to went to the Audit Committee at the Audit Committee’s request on the 24 February which is three weeks ago. All recommendations are being implemented. Had I been given notice of these questions I would have answered them tonight but I was not given any notice. I’ll have to take them on notice for later reply.” 

Now why on earth should the audit committee have to ‘request’ anything? If the organisation is at risk, then it is absolutely incumbent on Newton to table that information asap. This was obviously not done, and it appears that ‘action’ was initiated only as a consequence of Penhalluriack’s urging. 

This is not the first time that we have had to query exactly what information is disseminated to committees and councillors by the administration. There was the recent instance where Glen Eira faced over 40 criminal charges over the Clayton tip and a potential fine of millions. Nothing was published, and we suspect, that perhaps none, or very few councillors knew this was happening. Then there is also the MRC and Newton ‘negotiations’ where another ‘request for a report’ had to be turned into a formal Council resolution before any information was forthcoming. 

To make matters worse, the audit committee’s charter omits practically all reference to administration. Port Phillip on the other hand, makes it abundantly clear what it considers to be the role of administrators and their duty to keep committee members informed and cognisant of any potential risks. We quote:

“The Committee is to be kept informed by Council management regarding financial reporting, risk management and risk exposures of the organisation”.

Nothing like this appears in the Glen Eira charter, leaving councillors, committees and others, literally with their pants down! 

Newton must be accountable to council and he must explain:

1.    Why the report was not provided to the audit committee without being ‘requested’

2.    How long did it take for councillors to be made aware of the potential risk?

3.    Which delegated authority allows Officers to deal with such risk matters without reference to the Audit Committee and/or Council?

4.    Who are the Policy Officers who  administer risk matters of such nature?

6.    When will the charter be tightened up so that administrators are mandated to fulfil their obligations and cannot escape scrutiny because of poorly worded policies and documents? 

 

 

March 18, 2011

How Many Lawyers Does it Take to Stuff Up?

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

Forgive the levity of this post, but we thought we might have some fun with our legal eagle councillors and all of those working in compliance, corporate counsel, and so on. We could even be talking 50 well paid staff and councillors. So, how come they can’t get a simple thing like one sentence correct? 

We cite the opening sentence from Section 4.8.2 of the Councillor Code of Conduct which reads

“Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings”. 

In the first place, councillors DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS – only Council does that! In the second place, the only decisions made at ‘statutory’ meetings are the election of the Mayor, and possibly membership/delegations on committees. Ordinary council meetings are not ‘statutory’ meetings – they are simply Council Meetings! but we guess the use of such language is imposing, impressive, obfuscating, and in the end just plain wrong! And we didn’t go to law school either.

 

March 17, 2011

Law, Legality and the MRC

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

The following letter, written to the auditors of the MRC is published with the permission from the author, Mr. Jack Campbell, MBE. We have bolded what we believe are significant sections and deleted the author’s address. At the time of this posting, no response to this letter has been received! We are also informed that a meeting between Council and the MRC occurred this afternoon.

14th December 2010. 

Morton Watson and Young –  Chartered Accountants

51 Robinson St,

Dandenong 3175.

Dear Sirs,

 Re:    The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. 

I write to you as auditors of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust drawing your attention to some apparent irregularities.   As you know the Trust has, since 1858, controlled Crown Land now worth well over $1 billion for the purpose of not only a racecourse but also a public recreation ground and a public park.  The Trust was criticised by The Legislative Council’s Select Committee on Public Land Development, which produced a final report in September 2008. One would presume the Trust would take cognisance of the report, which was chaired by David Davis, the Minister for Health and Ageing.

I now respectfully draw your attention to the following, and ask for your comment:  

1. The Grandstand (Head) Lease to the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) expires in September 2012.  The final 3-year renewal, which could have proceeded (following due notice) in September 2009, has not been effected.  It follows that there is no lease, and a monthly tenancy of this Crown Land by the MRC is not legal and its occupation should cease.

2.  Notwithstanding point 1, the Grandstand (Head) Lease seems to only cover the Crown Land north of the racetrack, in which case the MRC has no right to sub-lease either the Western or the Neerim Road areas, or to use the ‘flat’ for training, car parking and other commercial ventures.

3. The sub-lease to Monash University has expired and the documentation is missing.

4. The sub-lease to Hore-Lacy of the ‘Western Stable’ complex is also missing and has probably expired.

5. A newly executed lease (23rd April 2008) for the Neerim Road Stables is also missing, and it would appear that Freedman Brothers and Mitchell have already broken their lease by vacating the leasehold.   The remaining trainers are Mason and Aquanita Racing who, without the MRC having a legal head lease, may be occupying the Crown Land illegally.

6. The Deed of Maintenance and Development executed 17th February 1997 seems to have fallen behind in its reporting and the MRC’s annual development plans seem to be routinely altered at the sole whim of the MRC.

7. State Government permission is sought and granted for buildings and works to proceed despite no current valid lease between the Trustees and the MRC.

8. An anachronism of the past is that the Trustees accounting period is calendar rather than financial, and the amount of rent, and when it is due from the MRC, is vague and indeterminate.  $180,000 p.a. seems to be the amount, giving a return of less than 0.02% on the real estate value.  What is clear, however, is no monies are returned to the community.

9. Without consulting the community the Trustees have indicated an intention to issue a further Grandstand Lease in September 2012, and have asked the MRC for a ‘wish list’ to ensure they get whatever their ‘heart’ desires.  (The previously negotiated ‘Communiqué’ between the MRC and Council is ineffective.  If the MRC is to retain control of this land fresh and sincere negotiations are essential to provide a direct and positive benefit to the community.) 

I am sure you are familiar with the Select Committee’s report, but for your ease of reference here are some of its recommendations: 

RECOMMENDATION 5.8

That the Government investigates:

• the history, membership structure, responsibilities and current arrangement of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees, particularly in relation to its duty to uphold not just horse racing, but all the purposes of the reserve in the original Grant;

• the purpose to which money raised by horse racing has been used;

and

• ways in which the Government can ensure that the Board of Trustees operates in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with the terms of the Grant.

RECOMMENDATION 5.9

That the Master Plan for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve redevelopment be the subject of wide public consultation incorporating the municipalities of Glen Eira, Stonnington, and Port Phillip.

RECOMMENDATION 5.10

That the Minister for Planning strongly consider appointing community members and/or people with park and recreation expertise as nominees of the State Government to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees to provide a balanced representation of interests and expertise.

RECOMMENDATION 5.11

That the day-to-day management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, by delegation from the Trustees to the Melbourne Racing Club, be reconsidered. 

At the hearing it became apparent that some Trustees did not even know the boundaries between the MRC’s freehold land and the Crown Land which they control and govern. 

On the 27th November last year the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Hon Gavin Jennings, told Parliament …  “that there might be some lingering concerns about the way in which this public reserve may be opened up to the community. In terms of my responsibilities as the Minister for Environment and Climate Change who deals with the land element, I wanted to be satisfied that the net benefit of this would derive a community benefit and that there would be the potential once and for all to make sure that the community is aware this is a public reserve and not, as it may have been perceived for decades, a private space.

“We are unswerving in our determination to ensure that there is a public benefit derived from this public reserve.”   (Hansard, my emphasis.)

Finally, fundamental breaching of the Crown Grant provides that the authorities may ‘re-enter upon the said land … and to hold possess and enjoy … as if this Grant had not been made’. 

Yours faithfully,

A. J. E. Campbell

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »