February 27, 2011

An Educated Guess

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[7] Comments 

Following this weekend’s ‘bonding’ session between councillors. and between councillors and administrators, it is only right and proper that residents be provided with an indepth report on the outcomes of this weekend. After all, we footed the bill. (And by the way, how much was it?)

Here’s our educated guess as to what really went on:

  1. Major issues such as the Racecourse and the MSS/Planning Scheme did not rate a mention
  2. No questions were asked as to why councillors aren’t informed about certain events such as the MRC 7 lot subdivision
  3. What did get on the agenda were probably inconsequentials, or items that could be discussed without any real change in the overall plans of Newton.
  4. Councillors would have been told time and time again that ‘we can’t afford’ stuff; that the budget is set in concrete and if you really want to change things that this would mean other more ‘deserving’ objectives could not be met
  5. No real discussion on establishing a genuine cost-benefit approach to all services throughout council
  6. No mention of opening up council committees to community representation
  7. No analyses of what constitutes effective consultation
  8. No analyses of quality control over contractors and staff

All would have left befuddled by the countless weasel words – accepting and believing what a wonderful job everyone was doing.

If we have erred in our above scenario, then we would be delighted! So please feel free to correct us councillors!

 

February 25, 2011

Lawyers & Weasel Words

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

The problem with Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang, as we see it, is that they continually forget that they are first and foremost meant to represent their constituents (us) and not pretend they are in a courtroom mouthing weasel words after weasel words. For ‘legal’ issues we as ratepayers fork out over $300,000 per year for a Corporate Counsel and her department! That is not the job of councillors!

Nothing brings this home more clearly than the continuing fiasco over public questions by Mr. Varvodic and the answers supplied by Lipshutz and Hyams. Readers will remember that the last set of minutes from the Recreation and Advisory Committee was in reality nothing more than a list of topics discussed. These were not minutes as per normal from this committee. To prove our point readers should look up the Council minutes of 8th June, 2010. There we have two sets which are expansive, and give a clear indication of what individuals actually said. So why are these latest minutes so bereft of detail?

Mr. Varvodic has sent us his public question which accuses Hyams, as chair of that committee, in censoring the minutes. Technically, this is legal – minutes must be approved by committee members. But is it ethical? Is this good governance? And more to the point, what is he hiding? How come previous minutes are so different in style, tone, and content?

Even more hypocritical is the fact that since Mr. Varvodic’s name was undoubtedly included as a topic of conversation, (ie. Topics were public questions, local law, Frisbee group) then he has every (ethical) right to full disclosure as to what may have been said about him. Hyams’ response to Mr. Varvodic is outrageous in its misrepresentations and deliberate obfuscation. Hyams has stated that:

‘The real and full minutes of the meeting were published at the last Council Meeting…The minutes of Council’s Advisory Committee Meetings record discussion points, motions, outcomes and resolutions. The Inspectorate accepted this approach in responding to Complaint 14”.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The actual minutes of that committee give no inkling as to ‘discussion points’. They are in fact pseudo ‘record of assembly’ minutes. It does Hyams no credit to indulge in semantics and legalese. It does Esakoff no credit to sign whatever nonsense is placed under her nose, and it does this Council as a whole no credit to be continually perceived as abrogating their duty to ensure that legal loopholes do not over-ride basic principles of sound and open government.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT!  We have always been fascinated by the fact that ‘governance’ features as one of the objectives within the Council Plan. No other council that we know of includes such an item in their Community or Council Plan. The fact that Glen Eira does is extraodinary. It simple does not belong there. It is a ‘given’ – legally and by all principles of good government. Readers should carefully examine what this council includes under its categories of ‘governance’ in the Annual Report (Page 80) to see what a mockery the whole exercise becomes. Under the heading ‘Governance’ we find mumbo jumbo about health and safety and the ‘awards’ the council received. Then of course, there are the mandatory statistics about how many calls were answered by the service desk.

 

February 24, 2011

Vision Setting or Junket?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[19] Comments 

This coming weekend is the most important weekend of the year for Glen Eira residents. This is when our councillors and senior executives spend a few days away (at ratepayers’ expense) working on their vision for the coming year.  The results of this weekend away should set the direction for the coming year.

As a pseudo ‘think tank’, ideas should be exchanged, brain stormed, argued – in short, priorities not decisions should be made. And they should be about the big items such as: where are we going with planning; what do we want; how do we prioritise; what should we be doing now and in a year’s time; are we meeting our community’s expectations. Ideally, it should be a time of critical self-reflection as well as a time for setting the agenda for real strategic planning. But will this happen?

We suspect that in reality this annual junket has always been something different. Not a ‘think tank’ but a series of indoctrination sessions where agendas, information, and discussion is determined by bureaucrats. We think it’s about time this all changed. We also think that it’s time residents were given the chance to specify their priorities. So we are now asking the real questions:

WHAT DO YOU WANT COUNCIL TO CONCENTRATE ON IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR?

Please post your views. Councillors need to know what residents think is important for their community.

PS: This traditional sojourn in the country has always been ‘top secret’. No agendas have been published and god forbid, no feedback has EVER been provided. Since we, as ratepayers are footing the bills, and our municipality’s future is on the line, we believe that it is incumbent on councillors to provide their consitutents with FEEDBACK ON WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE KIND OF VISION WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN SET OUT. In other words, inform, engage, and consult with the community. Residents should be insistent in their demands that this occurs.

 

February 23, 2011

More MRC Chicanery & Council Complicity?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[3] Comments 

We’ve received several comments, emails and photos from local residents regarding the notice that has gone up on Station St for a 7 lot subdivision submitted by the VATC (MRC). This news is most disturbing for several reasons:

  • What has happened to the proposed land swap?
  • The sign (see photo) indicates that this application is several months old. There has been no publicity and we even wonder whether councillors are in the know about this. If they don’t, then why has the Planning Dept. of Glen Eira Council decided to keep this under wraps? On whose authority was this decision made and what is their agenda?
  • We’re also told that brand spanking new signage has gone up without stating that as well as the racecourse, this area is also a public park. Again, who knew about this and was council permission for the erection of these signs sought by the MRC and granted?

Once again, here is evidence of one of two things – the MRC thumbing its nose at Council and residents, or worse, that they have worked in collusion with Council and possibly without the full knowledge of all councillors. This is not simply a planning issue. Given the ongoing saga of the C60 and the centre of the racecourse issue anything that pertains to these matters deserves full transparency and accountability. This obviously has not occurred here.

 

February 23, 2011

Council Meeting……Continued

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[4] Comments 

Item 9.1 – Glenhuntly Rd/Beavis St, Elsternwick – Motion to oppose amended plans – Carried – Hyams, Pilling and Tang voted for accepting amended plans.

Esakoff and Penhalluriack both declared a conflict of interest. Hyams took the chair. Lipshutz explained that the original application had been rejected by council and that this is for amended plans. ‘at first blush’ the plans look all right since they represent a ‘down grading’ but when looked at closely this represents ‘a small street that is being choked by traffic’….there’s traffic all day long and there’s a school there…..(and will be) chaotic to the residents’ but not just the residents since this will flow all the way back into Glen Huntly Rd. He went on to say that ‘whilst the character of Elsternwick is changing and is certainly ripe for development’ this plan isn’t ‘appropriate’…one also has to look at carparking……if one looks at the modern trend of cars, that is use of cars one expects this development to be of a high quality….what you see is with high quality housing people have two cars and with two cars ….you’re going to get all that traffic coming out of Beavis St……argument is that people ….will use trams..(but trams are woefully inadequate)…until government takes real notice of insfrastructure planning ….I oppose it.

[One might very well ask: what happened to the argument that people won’t need that many cars living alongside a transport corridor? What evidence is there that ‘high quality’ dwellings will attract people with more cars? Please note: Report states that 22% of the 99 proposed dwelling will be ‘studio apartments’ and only 4 will be 2 bedroom apartments! What should also be remembered is that in the past Lipshutz has stated living close to transport will alleviate the reliance on cars – here we appear to have the opposite argument since the building will be of ‘high quality’!!!!]

Forge – ‘in the wrong place and will cause chaos’

Pilling: (against the motion) – ‘support this….(since) a vast improvement’ on previous application….I think this is appropriate for this site…..public transport, a huge shopping centre…..

Tang: at planning conference there was support for developing the site but ‘no one enjoys’ the experience of shopping there and the car park situation. ‘we saying this site would be good for urban renewal’….one of the strengths (this proposal has is that it does propose) more car parking…..from of development will be approved eventually when they get it right…..it’s also a good spot for housing because we want to see housing utilised in that particular spot…..but not at the level that this is proposing…..it doesn’t fit in….four storeys is what I would be expecting at this site’.

Hyams: ‘regardless of what we do it will be VCAT that is making the decision…..significantly different to what we rejected originally’. Hyams then stated that one reason which influences his decision is that the 10 storey application in Elsternwick was upheld by VCAT…’disappointing but that’s the way VCAT appears to be interpreting our Urban Villages policy….if we oppose it I fear it will go over our heads’ so better to accept with conditions.

Item 9.7: Flooding – Melbourne Water Overlay (Passed unanimously)

Esakoff moved alternate motion (seconded by Pilling). It consisted of asking for further representations to Melbourne Water and Government about improving drains and preventing flooding; and to prepare a report on the damage to Glen Eira from last Friday’s flooding; how the emergency response from council was during and after the flood; look at Melbourne Water and Council’s maintenance to ensure that drains are free of blockages; for council to review and ‘if necessary’ improve response; options to reduce the risk of flooding.

Esakoff went on to read a prepared statement which said that as a result of the flooding ‘some residents believed that council had been slow in response’….Since her statement in the press there was ‘information received which showed this was not the case’. A report from Human Services showed that council was not slow and relied on data received from the SES and other services. 152 properties were listed as flooded. On the following two days council officers ‘visited all of these properties’…’including the residents reported in the Leader saying that no-one from council’ had visited them until Thursday. The website contained information; and at the customer service centre.

Following meetings 621 information packs were sent out to residents that included letters inviting residents to contact council ‘to arrange a visit by an environmental health officer’. Esakoff then went on to outline all the support that was given, including 11 requests for emergency accommodation. Also, all concerns raised by residents at a community meeting ‘have been resolved’. Officers were diligent providing information about financial assistance, clean up advice and personal support. Unfortunately ‘in events like this, there is always a great deal of emotion and we all understand this’, ….’it’s easy to pass the blame but in this case…Council has responded appropriately’. The report is to make sure that ‘no stone is left unturned’

 

February 23, 2011

Penhalluriack’s Speech

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[3] Comments 

We’ve received a copy of Cr. Penhalluriack’s speech last night –

The residents of this municipality know exactly where I stand on the issue of opening up the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for public use, rather than as a private estate for the “rich and famous”, as it has been used by the Racing Fraternity for the past 153 years. 

What the residents of this municipality do not know is where you, the rest of their elected representatives, stand. If you vote against this motion then I’m afraid you will have abandoned not only your moral obligations to this community but also you will have abandoned your fiduciary obligations to ensure that public resources are used to benefit the entire community. 

This is the moment of truth. 

Alan Jones, the very successful Wallabies Coach, once said:

“There are many things we can never get back.  There is time, this very minute, this very second of our lives … we will never have it again.

“Then there are words, what you and I are saying right now will never be heard or spoken in the same light in any other point in time.

“And finally there are opportunities, once missed you are never given the chance again.” 

This is one such occasion.  This is the time, these are the words, and this is the only opportunity you are ever going to get to make amends for 150 years of monopoly that the “Sport of Kings” – even that name rings of arrogance — has over our public recreation ground and our public park.  We must seize the opportunity with both hands, or forever know that we personally have not done our best for the community.  We have let them down.  

Listen to your conscience.  Apply your hearts and minds to this issue. 

Glen Eira has only 1.4 hectares of open space per 1,000 residents.  That’s less than any other local government in Victoria.  14 sq.m. per person.  About half the size of a small bedroom. 

The time of reckoning is here, right now.   Will you settle for a half a car-park, or a real public park?  This choice is of vital importance to every citizens of Glen Eira — and to those who live well beyond our borders.  It can put Glen Eira on the world map of beautiful parks.  

The people have elected you.  The people trust you.  The choice is yours, and yours alone. 

We are about to make a decision which will have lifelong consequences for the population and the surrounds of this municipality. The community has every right to expect that we, as its democratically elected decision makers, put the community’s interests above those of the MRC.  We must ensure that our processes of decision making are beyond reproach. We must ensure we are open and transparent.  We are a government of the people, by the people and, most importantly, for the people.  We all have to justify our stance now, at the next election and, most importantly, to your own consciences as you lie in bed tonight and reflect on what you have done for the wider community. 

Finally, let me remind you of a Select Committee that the Minister for Health chaired in 2008.  One of many supportive conclusions was “that evidence from the Trustees themselves illustrates the complete lack of appreciation for the original purposes of the Reserve as a Public Park and the responsibility to uphold that purpose (the public park purpose) with equal status as horse racing.”  (P.135).  

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

It is some three years after that Select Committee reported to Parliament.  Only now is Council claiming some small portion, some 30%, of the Crown Land.  We are laying claim to a redundant runt accessible only via a quarter-kilometre long tunnel.  Councillors, for the life of me, is that asking too much? 

Following on from that Select Committee, on the 27th November 2009 , the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment the Hon Gavin Jennings, told Parliament …  “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.”  

Council has not made adequate demands on Parliament or the Trustees on behalf of its citizens.  Tonight we have an opportunity to correct that anomaly.  If you vote with your heart and your mind you must vote for this motion

 

February 23, 2011

One Small Step…..

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[8] Comments 

Rumours proved correct regarding tonight’s council meeting and the issue of the centre of the Caulfield Racetrack. We will concentrate on this for now and follow up with the other items tomorrow.

Under ‘Urgent Business’ Cr. Penhalluriack requested that ‘council consider its position on the Centre of the Racecourse under ‘Urgent Business’. Lipshutz voted against accepting the motion. Tang declared a conflict of interest given that he is a Trustee of the MRC. Magee, who is also a Trustee remained in chamber and did not declare a conflict of interest.

Penhalluriack’s motion (seconded by Forge) stated that council ‘codify’ a vision that the centre of the racecourse be used as a park, racecourse and recreational facility and that this vision be clear and ‘unambigous’ as the position of council in its dealings with the State Government. There were four sub-parts to the motion:

  1. That the opaque fencing be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as possible
  2. That training be fenced off and public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the tunnel from Glen Eira Road
  3. The MRC landscape the area and include passive areas, sporting use, toilets and passive areas
  4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training

Penhalluriack made an impassioned speech. In summary he stated that residents were aware of his position on the racecourse, but that they did not know where other councillors stood on the issue. Now was the time to make this absolutely clear. If councillors were to vote against the motion they would not only abandon their moral obligations to the community, but they would also not be fulfilling their fiduciary duties to the community. They have to ensure that public resources are used to the benefit of the entire community.  ‘This is the moment of truth’. Quoting Alan Jones, Penhalluriack went on to speak ‘of opportunities once missed’ and that tonight was once of these opportunities not to be missed. – ‘to give council some real direction in its policy’. ‘This is the time to make amends for 150 years’ …to open our parks’. ‘we must seize this opportunity with both hands’…’we have not done our best for the community’ …Listen to your conscience…..Glen Eira has only 1.4 hectares of open space for 1000 residents – that’s less than any local government in the whole of Victoria, 14 square metres per person…that’s about half the size of a small bedroom….the time of reckoning is here, right now. Will you settle for half a car park or a real public park?’ Penhalluriack then emphasised how important this decision was for every citizen of Glen Eira. Concluding remarks referred to the Select Committee and their criticisms of the MRC Trustees. Quoting past Minister Jennings, that this was a ‘public reserve’ and not a ‘private space’. (Applause from the gallery)

FORGE reiterated how concerned she was to ensure public use of this crown land. That this should meet the needs of all people who come from far and wide. That the motion will indicate to the new government and to residents ‘just how much Glen Eira Council values’ this land. ‘I have great pleasure in seconding this motion’. …’we need the community to help us push this through’….”it’s about time that we claimed what we own’.

Lipshutz moved an amendment – that the following points be included: carparking not be permitted in the centre of the racecourse; that an independent group look after the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Penhalluriack accepted the amendment. Lipshutz then  spoke about how ‘this council has had an ongoing vision for opening up of the racecourse…. My vision is that we have an independent body….not council, not the MRC’…and maybe it will consist of representatives of those groups but it ought to be ….a body that recognises the three purposes, not one purpose….It’s also important that we not be hampered by the vision; it’s a vision but not set in concrete….it has to be a ‘win-win’ for all parties….we should be aiming for that vision but realistically …..we get something rather than nothing…..(the resolution) should not be set in concrete….

Pilling endorsed what councillors said and stated that it was right that ‘council endorse a strong vision’ so that the state government ‘knows clearly in what direction this council is heading’

Magee explained that ‘some months back I decided that I have no conflict of interest’…in the roles I have tonight I certainly feel comfortable…..this (the motion) is an absolute minimum….this shouldn’t be something we have to put our cap in our hands and say ‘please can we use this land’…this land was here long before the MRC was even thought of…..

Hyams explained why Tang ‘might feel a conflict of interest’. Hyams brought up the issue of Lipshutz’s amendment on no parking in the centre and that this might have ‘unintended consequences’ since people couldn’t drive into the park. Penhalluriack accepted this.

Hyams then moved another amendment that ‘The Ceo and Mayor be authorised to liaise with the state government in order to achieve council’s vision’. Penhalluriack did not accept this amendment stating that he thought it was redundant and that the Mayor and CEO are already authorised. Lipshutz seconded Hyam’s amendment. Hyams then stated that there may be some confusion as to who is authorised to speak for council, listing all the current committees. Lipshutz then stated ‘it’s all very nice to have visions…I want to see this vision go somewhere….the Mayor who speaks for council and the CEO who runs daily operations of council….they be permitted to liaise and reflect our vision so that ….the Minister actually understands what this council wants….otherwise this motion sits on the table…gathering dust

Pilling stated that he ‘didn’t think (the amendment) was necessary’.

The amendment was put AND LOST. Only Lipshutz and Hyams voted in favour. Applause from gallery.

Penhalluriack summed up ‘we have something now real to get our teeth into…

Motion carried UNANIMOUSLY 

Comments:

  • This is the first time in living memory that Lipshutz, Hyams and Newton (the latter by implication due to the nature of the amendment) were rolled.
  • Whilst this motion may not change the world, it certainly imposes limitations on what may be ‘negotiated’ without full council approval
  • One small step tonight – but still a long, long, way to go!
  • Congratulations to Penhalluriack, Forge, Magee, Pilling
 

February 22, 2011

Southwick, the Leader & Glen Eira Council

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

Page 3 of this week’s Caulfield Leader  is particularly interesting in its approach to the newly elected member for Caulfield – David Southwick. Every newspaper has the right to investigate, question, and form an opinion. However, this article leads us to ask several questions of the editorial policy and possibly, ‘undue influence’:

  1. Why has the Leader decided to focus on David Southwick in a particularly ‘negative light’, especially when the same approach has not been taken with other newly elected MPs?
  2. Why has the Leader not focused on David Southwick’s PROMISE of community involvement and his assurances in publications prior to the election about the significance of listening to community?
  3. Why has the Leader decided to implicitly criticise Southwick when we are literally still in the ‘honeymoon’ period post election and parliament has only sat for 3 days thus far?
  4. The most important question however is: what influence has Glen Eira Council had in promoting negative publicity, especially since David Southwick has been one of the few politicians to express a view on the Caulfield Racecourse issue?

These are all important questions. The electorate will admittedly judge Southwick on his actions OVER TIME, as they will the Leader in its take on various issues.

The article is reprinted below:

Caulfield MP’s first speech shows big pride, little policy

22 Feb 11 @ 07:09am by Jenny Ling

NEW Caulfield MP David Southwick has used his inaugural parliamentary speech to highlight his passion and pride for the area.

The 15-minute speech, delivered to Victorian parliament’s legislative assembly on February 8, mentioned Caulfield’s strong sense of community, shopping strips, abundance of schools and open spaces.

There were brief references to working for better access to Caulfield racecourse and delivering on the Coalition’s platform “of sound economic management and business growth” and ensuring “the child is put first in any policy decisions”.

But specific actions were lacking.

Mr Southwick said the speech “talked about the broader elements” of parliament life and was “meant to set things up in terms of what the longer term goals are”.

So what has the Liberal MP done for the district’s 53,700 residents since November?

Mr Southwick said he helped the flood-affected community of Cohuna, by sandbagging and counselling people with the Red Cross. This month he met Caulfield police and schools with the aim of setting up graffiti removal and a leadership program for youths. Mr Southwick also met with Alfred Health to discuss the future of Elsternwick Childcare Centre.

 

February 22, 2011

News Flash: Caulfield Racecourse

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

Strong rumour has it that at tonight’s Council Meeting (7.30pm – Town Hall) there is going to be a major debate on the future of the Racecourse.

If this is the case, then we urge all those interested to attend.

 

February 22, 2011

Caulfield Leader

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Editorial: We have right to a review  

RATEPAYERS across Melbourne have a view about how much their council chief executive is paid. It is one of those perennial topics that takes on a particular pungency when rates go up. Now, one council has decided to approach the State Government to review CEOs’ salaries. 

The decision by Hobsons Bay Council sets up a debate about what constitutes a fair deal for those nonelected officials who run our councils. It seems contrary at best that Melbourne City Council’s CEO package of between $360,000 and $379,999 is more than either the prime minister or premier’s wage.

The average council CEO’s salary package is about $307,000, up almost $40,000 in four years. 

These are big packages that are designed to ensure councils attract the best people for the job. While most ratepayers understand the sentiment, they would quite rightly argue that capping a salary at even $250,000 is not likely to downgrade the position much at all. At a time when thousands of households are struggling, it is entirely appropriate that CEO salaries be reviewed. 

But to make no attempt to review the generous packages looks like a lost opportunity to help increase council accountability and transparency at the corporate level. 

Letter to the Editor: Wash excuses down drain  

GLEN Eira Council should better represent the needs of our community. The areas of Ormond and McKinnon flooded by storm water on February 4 are known flood areas. Our council should have been more proactive in preventing an inundations of this scale (‘‘Storm devastation’’, Leader, February 8).

If the contention is that Melbourne Water did not upgrade the drainage, why did Glen Eira not advocate more strongly for this to be done? Why did Glen Eira not put the drains in itself? Enough of the cost-shifting excuse. 

Why was the drain over which the Frankston railway line runs not adequately maintained? If this is not directly a Glen Eira responsibility why was it not advocating for this to be done by the responsible authority? Ironically, three days later, council contractors were blowing grass clippings into the drains just to clog them up again!

People’s lives and livelihoods have been severely impacted by this extreme event the scale of which could have been prevented with a more proactive council.

We need a council that is less obsessed with cost shifting and more interested in representing the needs of the community that it is supposed to represent.  Further, our council needs to remember that Glen Eira’s boundary extends south of North Road.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »