January 28, 2011

Agenda Items: Here We Go Again!

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

Tuesday night’s agenda contains several interesting items. We have reports from the Pools Steering Committee and the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee. In typical Glen Eira fashion both of these so called ‘minutes’ have assumed the mantle of ‘Records of Assembly’ – meaning that one line sentences are legally the official ‘minutes’ of these meetings. For example, all we get from the Pool Steering Committee is:

“Matters considered 

(i) Previous Minutes

Security over Shutdown Period 

(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”

 The recreation committee is a little more forthcoming with information but it still remains on the very, very scant side – ie.

“Public Questions – ground allocations

Discussion regarding public questions in relation to ground allocations and authorised and unauthorised usage. Discussions covered;

• enforcement of the Local Law,

• fencing/taping off the ovals to keep unauthorised groups off and protect the grounds,

• perceptions of conflict of interest,

• usefulness of the Local Law,

• Local Laws in other municipalities,

• distribution of the Frisbee Report,

• guidance provided to Officers in relation to the Frisbee report,

• outcomes of the Municipal Investigation in relation to matters concerning the Frisbee group, and

• whether the Local Laws needed to be changed.

Action: Officers continue to monitor the situation and the matter be considered at a future date”.

 Then of course, there are the planning applications. As per usual, those which are likely to be the most contentious have the least number of notifications, yet the highest number of objections. Council obviously works on the principle of inverse relationships! Here is a table which we’ve drawn up from the various items to illustrate our point.

121-123 Murrumbeena Rd 3 storey (32 units) 18 properties notified (28 notices) 51 objections
51 Hill St Double storey (8 units) 12 properties notified (22 notices) 20 objections
16 Malane St Double storey (8 units) 9 properties notified (13 notices) 60 objections

 There’s also a VCAT appeal where officers recommend acceptance of amended plans. The number of notifications is not listed, but there are 88 objections.

Finally a couple of interesting items from the in camera section – (1) again legal advice pertaining to the payment of ‘legal fees’, we presume, for councillors fronting the municipal inspector with their lawyers, and (2) under ‘personnel’ an item about contracts. Given that the only contract that council has control over is the CEO’s, then speculation should be rife about what’s going on here!

 

 

January 26, 2011

Planning Delegations

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[8] Comments 

A previous post commented on the upcoming delegations to officers, paying particular attention to the ‘Conditions and Limitations’ under the Planning and Environment Act. We noted the fact that in Glen Eira the Planning Committee is NOT a special committee; that there is no official ‘councillor call in’, nor does the Planning Committee consist of councillors as community reps. In our municipality power is wielded by unelected officers as outlined in this council description of what the Delegated Planning Committee is. As a further means of comparison, we’ve uploaded the current Stonnington ‘Planning Delegation Guidelines’ .  Apart from the differences in composition, and the limitations on the powers of the committee, the fact that this document is freely available online, again stands in stark contrast to the practices of Glen Eira.

Stonnington is not alone in providing its residents with policy manuals and information as to the protocols under which a variety of services operate. Kingston, for example, has  a complete listing of all its protocols and guidelines online. We challenge readers to locate any similar documents on the Glen Eira website – assuming of course, that they even exist!

 

January 25, 2011

Letters to the Editor

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

Today’s Caulfield Leader –

Development protesters have got it right  

REGARDING the proposed Murrumbeena Rd/Emily St developments, I totally agree with the protesters. Buildings of this size are not appropriate in the area for all the reasons stated (‘‘Flat out protesting’’, Leader, December 14). I live in Omama Rd and there was a recent proposal to build eight units in our street. A number of residents attended the Glen Eira Council offices at the time of the submission, which was rejected by council as being inappropriate for the area. However, by the time it went to VCAT, the council had done a backflip and did not dispute the building of six units with only one visitor parking space. I can only imagine the impact in an area that is already notorious for its railway crossing. 

Green land disappearing  

LITTLE wonder Glen Eira has the lowest (amount of) space, they are developing there like crazy. The Caulfield Racecourse reserve is a classic example. Public land about to be developed into 23-storey buildings, and hardly anyone is really questioning it. In a decade or two, the racecourse club is said to have plans to sell the whole course for development. This means no more park in the centre and no trees or green areas. 

Developers close in  

UNDER the highly controversial planning scheme Melbourne 2030, developers were given a free hand to develop all over Melbourne, with no regard to the effects on the people. Now with this report, we are seeing the damage it is doing to our way of life (‘‘Space race as Glen Eira feels the big squeeze’’, Leader, January 18). It’s time for a change of direction quick smart.

 

January 24, 2011

The Racecourse: Counting your Chickens……

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

A message from Peter Marshall, Vice-President Administration

2011 PARKING PERMIT ARRANGEMENTS – CAULFIELD CAMPUS

I am writing to you as a staff member who will be eligible to purchase a Caulfield campus parking permit in 2011. 

In previous years, all of the parking bays utilised by holders of a blue parking permit at the Caulfield campus have been located on property owned by the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC).  MRC has formally advised the university that as a result of the proposed racecourse precinct redevelopment, commencing in mid to late 2011, the MRC cannot guarantee the availability of land for parking beyond  31 July 2011.

 To ensure we can guarantee the availability of parking spaces across the full year we will no longer utilise the car parks at the MRC previously utilised for blue permit parking.  To replace these parking spaces we will redesignate 240 metered parking spaces in the multi- deck car park on the campus as blue permit spaces, and provide an appropriate number of blue parking permits available for sale in 2011. We will also redesignate a further 80 metered spaces as red permit spaces.

To ensure these additional blue permits and the associated spaces are available to students, staff members will no longer be eligible to purchase a blue parking permit at the Caulfield campus.  Staff members will continue to be able to purchase red parking permits and we expect the increase in red permit spaces to be sufficient to meet demand based on past usage rates.

It is emphasized that to optimize usage of available spaces, red parking permit holders are guaranteed the availability of a parking space, while the availability of spaces for  blue parking permit holders depends on the level of daily demand.  This system is similar to parking across the university. The prices for the parking permits at Caulfield will remain as advertised, which are $650 for red parking permits and $350 for blue parking permits.   

We do understand this change to parking arrangements may cause some concern to staff and students at the Caulfield campus however we stress that this matter is beyond the control of the university.  The impact of the reduction in blue permit parking is offset to some extent by the excellent public transport servicing the campus and we strongly encourage students and staff to consider alternative transport options. Further information on alternative transport can be found at the website of the Office of Environmental Sustainability at http://fsd.monash.edu.au/travel-parking.

Queries and comments regarding car parking arrangements in 2011 should be forwarded to: https://my.monash.edu.au/askmonash

 
 
 

January 22, 2011

Good Governance? – Advisory Committees

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


The lack of transparency and accountability in the way that Advisory Committees are set up and run by this Council remains an issue of great concern. By exempting Advisory Committees from the strictures imposed on Council Meetings, and Special Committee Meetings as a result of the ‘meeting procedures’ of the Local Law, there is the resultant decision making behind closed doors syndrome, as well as, the failure to be transparent about the bases for such decision making.

Let’s elaborate! The Local Government Act, under Section 93:6(d) states: “in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process”.  When Advisory Committee notes are tabled in Council, there is the inevitable motion to accept the ‘recommendations’ made by these committees. Only on the rarest occasions has there been any documentation that accompanies such ‘minutes’. Hence the community has no real knowledge,  or understanding, of WHY certain recommendations have been made. Nor are they in possession of the necessary facts and figures which might account for such decision making.

Also at issue is the question of how well the entire group of councillors participates and understands why such recommendations have been made. Each advisory committee (although open to all councillors) usually consists of two to three councillors and an equal if not greater number of officers. Our questions are:

  • do all 9 councillors get to see, much less read, the reports tabled by officers at these various Advisory Committee meetings?
  • If they don’t then does this make a mockery of the rubber stamping which goes on a full council meetings?
  • With no public disclosure of officers’ reports, are the very principles of transparency and good governance rendered null and void?

Readers also need to be aware that these Advisory Committee meetings are in reality ‘secret’ – that is, they do not disclose agendas, do not allow public attendance, and as with the Environment  and Consultation Committees, can take up to 7 months for ‘minutes’ to be finally tabled at council meetings – when often the recommendations for certain actions have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!!!

The ongoing justification is that councillors need to ‘firm up’ a view via discussion. Fine, but their recommendations are generally made on the bases of officers’ reports. These are either firm positions, or the officers proffer various options. This information should be available to the public. Officers and councillors must be accountable. With the current set up they are not!

Finally, one needs to consider again why other councils deem it appropriate to include community reps on advisory committees; why other councils publish agendas of these committee meetings; why other councils allow full public attandance at these meetings. Why is it that Glen Eira’s formats do not come within a bull’s roar of such procedures? We suggest that the answers to these questions all go to the heart of governance issues at Glen Eira.

 

January 19, 2011

Streuth on Newton

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

Streuth has posted a comment which we repeat as a separate post:

Streuth, reading ‘gleneira’ makes me sick in the stomach as so much wrong is happening in our Council compared to other Councils. Concerned Resident, you are right to suggest Councillors should delegate their authority to staff within limits. Since Andrew Newton came to Glen Eira, first as a Chief Financial Officer, then Director of Corporate Development, and finally as a CEO, he has usurped year by year the authority, power and full control over Council affairs. The result of that is now very clear. Newton has sold out Glen Eira in every possible way: population wise, land wise, service ways.

All this has happened under the watch of elected Councillors: Grossbard, Erlich, Martens, Kennedy, Neve, Longmuir, Marwick, Sapir, Goudge, Esakoff, Hyams, Bloom, Walsh, Bury, Lipshutz, Staikos, Whiteside, Robilliard, Spaulding, Feldman, and Ashmor. Newton ‘the Wizard of Oz’, once uncovered, is simply a manipulator, scaremonger and autocrat. And none of the Councillors mentioned could or can do anything about it as Newton intimidates, and in all probability threatens legal action if need be. He does not shirk from strong arm tactics, calling the police if necessary, and sacking staff he does not like or are not in line with his politics. It is not an accident that there were 3 investigations in Glen Eira since 1998. He has never been a passive participant in any of those investigations.

The new Councillors are ‘babes in the woods’ and signs are already there that they are going the same way as the previous lot. They cannot manage Andrew Newton, manage properly controlled and limited delegations, setting performance criteria for him, and assessing appropriately his performance. Barring a Royal Commission to find out the truth, or a Revolution to get rid of all the old Councillors and Newton – the long suffering Public will just have to cop it sweet.

Concerned Resident, (I’m assuming you’re the same individual who used to post to Mary Walsh’s old blog) you might know all that as you seem to have been there and you may still communicate with the top brass through the master ‘spin doctor’ Paul Burke, manipulator extraordinaire, who knows how to divide and rule. You should be concerned Concerned Resident, but your concern should be directed towards poor residents, poor ordinary staff, and poor Councillors, who are subjected to this regime of undemocratic, autocratic, and unethical behaviour.

 

January 18, 2011

Frank Penhalluriack Letter

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

From today’s Stonnington Leader –

Move over, racing industry

JUST south of Stonnington lies the least used park in metropolitan Melbourne.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is 25 times larger than the MCG, yet it has just 20 race meetings a year. The problem lies with the 600 horses stabled and trained there.

They make it virtually impossible for the public to use what is zoned as a ‘‘recreation ground and public park’’. Horses are dangerous; it’s time to shift them to country Victoria, where horses can frolic and be free. Already 80 per cent of horses running in those 20 race meetings are trucked in. Why not truck them all in? Stonnington and Glen Eira are starved of open space. Sorry, racing industry – it’s time to selflessly move over, and give the public a go.

Cr Frank Penhalluriack, City of Glen Eira.

 

January 17, 2011

Delegations: The Glen Eira Way

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[10] Comments 

At the first council meeting of the year, we anticipate that the deferred item on delegations will again be presented with the ‘conditions and limitations’ sections fully legible this time! The comments made here are limited to the planning area, but there are many other items of delegation being suggested, all of which require in-depth consideration by councillors before any rushed decisions are made.

Delegations are particularly vital in planning applications. We provide the following comparisons so that residents may see exactly how much Glen Eira cedes to Officers with the subsequent removal of decision making from councillors. These comments are not meant to decry the value of delegations per se – they are vital for any municipality to carry out its day to day operations. Whereas other councils delegate with strict limitations on the powers of officers, this does not appear to be the case here. Glen Eira delegates 97-98% of its planning to unelected council staff who, we believe, do not have guidelines from council as to what levels of development controls the councillors consider reasonable or appropriate. In many cases ‘political’ decisions and judgments must be made, but without councillors’ guidance on such matters the City Planners are at a loss to know what to do. Planners are competent to make many planning judgments, but are not ‘competent – in a technical sense – to make value judgments that require familiarity with wishes, needs, and opinions of the community. Councillors have this competence, for they are directly elected by the community to represent community values.

We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin, Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide ‘advice’.  This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

 There are many other differences as well – 

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip)  

Glen Eira’s Delegations under the Planning and Environment Act clearly cede enormous power to select individuals. We maintain that these delegations limit councillors’ input and lack the transparency and accountability that is evident in the processes adopted by other councils. Councillors should not be simply ‘rubber stamping’ these staff suggestions. In short, Councillors are elected, of the Community, by the Community, for the Community. Council staff, on the other hand, are not elected at all. It is certainly time that Councillors took the reins in running this Council as is their required duty and to ensure that decision making on something as important as planning is not left to unelected bureaucrats alone.

 

January 15, 2011

Open Space: Where’s the Money Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

MEDIA RELEASE FROM THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING – Wednesday May 28, 2003

Funds for public open space in the City of Glen Eira will grow according to the number  of residents who move into new subdivisions, the Minister for Planning, Mary Delahunty said today. Announcing approval of a scheme that will link developer contributions to the density of the subdivision, Ms Delahunty said approval of Amendment C20 to the Glen Eira planning scheme would introduce a formula to help developers determine their open space contribution.

“Although the City of Glen Eira has terrific parkland, it is a relatively meagre supply overall – running a poor second for the least amount across all metropolitan councils per head of population,” she said. “Part of what the Bracks Government is striving for under Melbourne 2030 is more open space where it is limited and where demand is growing as well as a more certain planning process, where the likelihood of dispute is reduced.”

Ms Delahunty said the amendment reflects the same open space principles that have been in place in Glen Eira, but makes the outcome more certain by fixing the contribution rate payable by developers.

The member for Bentleigh, Rob Hudson, said lack of public open space is a concern for residents and council has also struggled to bargain with developers for appropriate contributions to open space – often ending up in the hands of the appeals tribunal. He said the council had sought the reform. The changes include:

  • Developers of subdivision in suburbs relatively well-served by public open space will pay less, whereas the charges for subdivisions in suburbs less well-served will increase;
  • Developers of subdivisions close to parks will pay less;
  • Developers who provide less than 40m2 of open space for most dwellings will pay more; and
  • Subdivisions of six units or more that provide useable communal open space will pay less.

“For example, if you are building a 4-lot subdivision in Bentleigh, are within 300 metres of a park and are providing an average of 40m2 of private open space per unit, you will need to contribute 2.5 per cent of the value of that land to public open space,” he said. “These changes will make the system for creating public open space in the City of Glen Eira more certain without placing an undue burden on developers,” Mr Hudson said. “Local parks are a vital part of our urban fabric, which we must support and maintain for the long-term – so we have liveable places for current and future generations,” he said.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Glen Eira Council Annual Reports for the periods ending June 30th, 2002/3 to 2009/10 reveal the following income from open space levies –

2003      –             $1,249,000

2004      –             $1,453,000

2005      –             $1, 049,000

2006      –             $1,253,000

2007      –             $1,151,000

2008      –             $821,000

2009      –             $1,518,000

2010      –             $1,664,000

QUESTIONS

1.     Land prices have skyrocketed, development has skyrocketed in Glen Eira, yet from 2003 to 2010, the increase in revenue was less than half a million. Why?

2.     Monies are meant to be spent on ‘public open space’ and ‘improvements’. To the best of our knowledge only 1 property (Packer Park) has been added to the open space of Glen Eira via these monies. Why?

3.     $10,158,000 has been declared as open space levies. Where has all this money gone? Why hasn’t it been used for the primary intended purpose, especially since Glen Eira repeatedly claims to have a lack of public open space?

4.     Has council collected all the monies it is entitled to, or have various developments escaped these costs over the years? If so, how many, and why?

This is your job councillors! Insist on the answers to these questions!

 

January 13, 2011

Back to the Future – Again!

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

Here are some ‘highlights’ from councillor and public questions from 2005. Readers should remember that recent council meetings also contained public questions on: mayoral elections and qualifications; councillor conduct; planning and ‘confidentiality’. And of course the Municipal Inspector’s report on the Newton reappointment process. The more things change the more they stay the same in Glen Eira! 

“Considering that the land for the Rosanna Street Nursing Home was re-zoned from Public Park & Recreation Zone to Residential 1 Zone, what Open Space Contribution is to be levied on this development and to what purpose will this levy be applied.” (12th December, 2005) 

“Can Cr Feldman assure us that there were no meetings by six Councillors to decide on the Mayor and why did many residents know who was going to be mayor before the vote took place?” (12th December, 2005) 

“The Whelan report concludes that the responses given to the Inspector in relation to the reason why some former Councillors changed their mind re the appointment of the CEO were not credible (page 86). On the 15th May 2005 the former Mayor, Margaret Esakoff, in response to a request from the community to explain Council’s behaviour in relation to this issue was not as open as possible about the Council’s decision in that she was unable to give reasons why Council delayed the reappointment of the CEO, nor was she able to explain why it would not have been in the public interest to do so, and I quote: ‘I do not believe there is any value to be gained delving into the minutiae of who did what, when and to whom and nor do I think it is appropriate. What is important is that the matter is resolved and we can now move on.’ Under the draft Code of Conduct and/or the provisions of the Local Government Act it is expected that Councillors are open and accountable for their decisions. What recourse does the community have should its elected representatives flaunt the Code or the Act?” (10th October, 2005) 

…. At present with its corporate structure and culture community representatives are advising only the Committees of Friendly Cities (10), Finance (3), and Arts & Culture (1), 14 in all. All other Advisory Committees have no Community Representatives. Officers and self-appointed Councillors that change each year run those Advisory Committees. Given that the State Government requires Councils to consult extensively with its communities on strategic directions using Melbourne 2030 Framework, and as part of the Sustainability Accord: 1. What steps has the Council Administration taken to involve broadly and in depth the Glen Eira community in its continuous planning processes? 2. Has the Council administration considered emulating the Consultation processes of Glen Eira creators? (10th October, 2005) 

“Will Council provide an explanation as to why Cr Goudge singled out certain members of the public gallery on 13th December 2004 and made disparaging remarks about them by saying, and I quote from the official minutes of that meeting, “they are prone to have a bit too much to drink”? Is this acceptable and approved behaviour by an elected representative of the community? (23rd May, 2005) 

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “I’m interested to receive advice on what types of documents that senior Council Officers including yourself are privy to that are off limits to elected Councillors?” 

The CEO responded suggesting that it would be better if he provided written advice. He added; “documents that are involved in the transaction of Council business are generally available to Councillors. Documents which are covered by, for example the privacy act where the purpose for Council having the document or having the information is not related to matters that are before the Council would not be generally available.”

Cr Goudge asked the CEO, “Just so that I understand, there are some documents that are available to senior Council Officers but not available to Councillors even under request of FOI?”

The CEO responded saying; “There would be lots of those, yes, for example, personnel files.” (2nd May, 2005) 

“In Council minutes of 7/2/05, CEO Newton reported that there were only 4 ‘outstanding reports’. On this basis: 1. Will Council acknowledge the minute’s inaccuracy since Cr Esakoff on 1/12/03 requested a report on Elster Creek Trail? 2. Will Council account for the reasons for this inaccuracy? 3. Will Council inform the community as to why this report is still outstanding after 16 months?4. Will Council inform the community as to its official protocols and time limits in dealing with petitions? 5. Will Council explain why the Elster Creek ‘petition’ was refused tabling in light of the fact that its website refers simply to instructions as a ‘guide to wording’?” (11th april, 2005) 

“Why has Glen Huntly been allowed to degenerate/deteriorate into a run-down shopping strip, in marked contrast to Carnegie, Bentleigh & Elsternwick?” (21st March, 2005) 

“That a report be prepared on the potential to amend the Local Law in respect of the election of a Mayor to allow an opportunity for nominees and/or candidates to speak for up to five minutes prior to any vote to elect a Mayor.” The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (7th February, 2005) 

“It would appear that most items of interest to the Community are classed as confidential” 

“It was reported in the “Leader” that Cr Esakoff would work towards bringing harmony within the Council Chambers. Would Cr Esakoff be prepared to share with the ratepayers of Glen Eira: 1. Her plan to achieve this goal 2. the time line in which she proposes to achieve her goal 3. the cost to the Glen Eira Ratepayers to achieve this goal and 4. how will the Glen Eira Ratepayers be able to measure her success or failure to achieve this goal?” 

“Would Council assure ratepayers that open Government will be restored in Glen Eira forthwith. How can the events of this evening be justified in what is meant to be a democratic and accountable Council?” 

“The Statutory Planning report claims (14.1) “Decisions made for this quarter are higher than applications received” yet total of active applications is higher in Nov & Dec – 04. Why? Also would it not be better to show an index of Decisions Made/Applications received and by Council, Office, Manager & DPC for number of appeals which also are reported to show about a 20% increase over previous years. Why is this? (28th Feb, 2005)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »