January 13, 2011

Time Stands Still in Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

We thought it would be instructive to see how Glen Eira may have changed over the years – to discover whether processes, services, and governance practices have actually improved in the past 6 years. Our guide has been public and councillor questions dating mainly from 2004. We conclude that basically residents have the same concerns today as they did six years ago – childcare, aged care, openness and transparency, effective communication/consultation and planning issues. Reading these questions it is obvious that nothing much has changed in Glen Eira – except that public questions are no longer taken on notice. The quality of current answers however is another issue!! These questions provide a sad commentary on how little has actually been achieved.

“As Council has made a profit from selling of aged care facilities within the City and not actually increased places in the City, I ask what is being done with the profit and further what is being done to seek government funding in order to increase aged care facilities in the City?” (26th May, 2003)

“What are Council’s public policy objectives for child care and how do they achieve them?”(3rd May, 2004)

“The treatment of Childcare under the State Government’s new competitive neutrality policy requires the implementation of a public interest test prior to the application of CN pricing because of the inherent public policy issues associated with childcare.Can Council please explain why it has failed to undertake a public interest test prior to applying CN pricing policies to childcare services?” (3rd May, 2004) 

Cr Sapir referred to a public interest test and asked if one had been carried out and if so to what degree. She further asked; “what consultation process did Council take to advise parents that there was a proposed fee increase”? (24th May, 2004) 

“Why Minutes of Council Meetings are not available for distribution on request at the Caulfield Library? Should not that be part of standard policy of engagement of the community? Ready availability of such documents should add to the proper governance of the Council?” (24th May, 2004) 

“Can you please advise why did the Council cut down several 25 to 30 metre high trees on the corner of Jasmine and Birch without consultation with the near byresidents?” (9th Feb, 2004) 

“Since the Glen Eira Council has decided to stop subsidizing childcare centres with ratepayer income in the next financial year, will Glen Eira ratepayers see a reduction in rates as a result?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“Re Council Statement of Financial Performance to 29 February. Can you please reveal the source or sources of the above budget revenue of $954,000 from ‘other’sources in above budget? Have our drillers struck oil?” (22nd March, 2004) 

“How does Council justify that public questions that were asked in March 2003 have received a response on 6 April 2004 advising that the questions do not conform with Council’s public question time procedure. Please provide appropriate and specific explanations as this does not comply with acceptable time frames to me as by now I have given up on getting adequate answers from Council.” (13th April, 2004) 

“Why won’t Council undertake a ‘Public Interest Test” on childcare to assess community response?” (15th June, 2004) 

“The Community Plan that was passed this evening is supposed to provide a plan for the community to use as a means of measuring Council’s performance up to 2010. The indicators for 2010 however need further clarification. Which 3 park masterplans are intended for development? What does Council mean by consulting with the University? What are the character amendments that are to be adopted?Which community centre is to be built? What about the 3rd community centre? What are the implications of keeping rates to at least 10% below our 7 Benchmark Councils? These are but a few questions that need to be answered in a Community Plan that purports to be a vision for the future?” (15th June, 2004) 

“We would be most grateful if a meeting could be arranged with relevant councillors and staff (prior to the release of second round offers scheduled for 27th August), in order to discuss the Council’s enrolment policy which fails to give priority to the children currently attending ‘3 year old kinder’ and who wish to continue on with their pre-school education at the same kinder the following year?” (16th August, 2004) 

“As Cr Erlich has observed the report to tonight’s meeting is interesting but unless a measure of input is used together with output, it is largely meaningless from the point of view of effectiveness. Will Council consider reporting the appropriate ‘INPUT’ as well as ‘output’ in future service reports?” (6th September, 2004) 

 “Will the Council apply its generous concessions given to tennis clubs to childcare centres and if not could it please explain why the council’s policy that services used by a minority of the community should be cost neutral and not subsidized by ratepayers, applies to childcare centres but not tennis clubs?” (27th September, 2004) 

“The Agenda papers for Council Meeetings have for some time included public questions and answers. I note that the Agenda papers have, for the last 2-3 meetings, not included Public Questions and Answers. Can Council explain why this is so? Is there anything preventing Council from continuing with this practice?”(8th November, 2004) 

“Of all C type Amendments proceeded with a statutory process:1. How many have used the full statutory process of 6 steps? 2. How many use only 2 steps? 3. How many used broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process? and 4. How many used a public discussion paper as part of broad community consultation prior to step 1 of the statutory process?” (29th November, 2004) 

“Will Council put the proceeds from sale of Council land toward purchase of alternative open space in Glen Eira, & that purpose only.” (29th November, 2004) 

“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?” (29th November, 2004)

 

January 11, 2011

The Penhalluriack & Forge Submission

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

It seems that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack have spent the time and energy to draft a submission to the VEAC inquiry on public open space. We applaud their efforts.

The submission is available here.

 

January 11, 2011

VEAC, Racecourse & Council

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

Submissions to the VEAC inquiry into public open space in metropolitan Melbourne have now closed. We look forward to reading the many submissions that individuals and councils have submitted. What should be particularly fascinating is the response from Glen Eira Council. Given that this item only came up at the final council meeting of the year (and the call went out in October), we can only speculate as to the kind of submission that will go in. Of greater interest to residents are the processes that went into any final submissions. Given that the Christmas break has occurred, as well as the holiday period, and the fact that there are no council meetings scheduled until February, we wonder if:

  • Councillors had any say in the writing of the submission?
  • Were they ‘consulted’ in any shape or form?
  • Did they get to see the final version prior to its being submitted?
  • Did they care – or simply abrogated their responsibilities to the administration?

If all of the above questions are answered in the negative, then it once again demonstrates how councillors (either willingly or unwillingly) are excluded from partaking in any truly democratic and representative process. The voices of our councillors will once more have been neatly silenced and side-stepped, even though we assume that the actual submission will have been drafted in their name – ie. Glen Eira City Council!

 

January 10, 2011

Accountability, Transparency and Rule by Nobody

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Any organisation worth a cracker will ensure that each disseminated document carries the author’s name as well as the executive in charge of authorising the document. In this way, transparency and accountability become an integral part of bureaucratic process and we, the residents, know exactly where to sheet home the blame for fudged figures, inaccuracies, or simple omissions of fact. It all boils down to good governance. The alternative is ‘rule by nobody’. Glen Eira often works in this latter fashion. Far too often we’ve found that important reports tabled at council lack any identification as to who is responsible and accountable. The recent ‘notification’ for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development is a case in point. Even stranger is that in all cases where a name is provided, the report simply states ‘ENQUIRIES’!!! Not good enough. The service desk is for ‘enquiries’. Are they therefore also responsible for Planning Schemes?  What a wonderful non committal term ‘enquiries’ is! What a multitude of sins it is able to hide!

By way of contrast we direct readers to the manner in which Kingston and Port Phillip table reports. For example, the last Kingston council meeting minutes contain numerous officer reports. On each occasion readers are informed in the following manner: “Approved by: Tony Rijs-General Manager, Environmental Sustainability. Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning”. The same goes for Port Phillip. 

Even worse is that over the past year several crucial reports were tabled in Glen Eira without any accompanying information as to author or responsible executive/manager. These included: 

  • 17th May, 2010. A report on Aquatic Facilities 
  • 8th June, 2010 – A report on the National General Assembly of Local Government seeking authorisation for councillors to attend
  • 29th June 2010 – A report seeking approval to facilitate forums on Public Transport
  • 21st September, 2010 – the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees vacancy.
  • 12th October, 2010 – Childcare in Elsternwick
  • 3rd November, 2010 – A report on meetings with the Melbourne Racing Club & Trustees 

Are we really meant to believe that no-one is responsible for such important issues as the Racecourse, and Childcare and the $42,000,000 GESAC? Why is there not one single name attached to any of these reports? 

One must also wonder at the consistency of some reports. For instance, Newton’s name was on a 23rd February 2010 document on Special and Advisory Committees and delegate appointments. Our layman’s understanding of delegations is that a CEO must remain aloof from any committee nomination. Does this explain why on the 21st September the report seeking replacements for Whiteside on various committees is ‘anonymous’? Further, Paul Burke had previously reported on arrangements for VEC held elections but on the 10th August, 2010 we find that reporting on the VEC role in filling Whiteside’s position has now fallen to the corporate counsel. Mr. Burke is also put down for ‘enquiries’ on such issues as Packer Park under the guise of reporting back on community consultation. His report is far more than a  summary though – it becomes the argument for dismissing community feedback and endorsing the petanque, bocce and bowling green option! 

And what do our good councillors do about all of this? Nothing!!! Reports are allowed to be tabled anonymously and again, not a whimper! It would seem that accountability and responsibility is low down on the list of priorities. We come back again and again to our perennial question – why is it that in so many areas involving governance, accountability and transparency, Glen Eira is always the odd man out?

 

January 8, 2011

A New Beginning, or More of the Same?

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

The next 3 to 4 months will reveal much about the mindset of councillors. Residents will be able to judge whether the few sparks of resistance and independence by a minority of councillors will go down in history as a mere flash in the pan, or become the catalyst for real change in Glen Eira. Crucial issues loom – the C60; the racecourse centre development; planning delegations to council officers; a ‘review’ of the consultation policy (commented on previously) as well as potential changes to the Local Law in terms of alcohol free zones and the introduction of a vexatious questions clause. Each of these issues, how they are handled and how much the community is involved, will tell residents all they need to know about these nine men and women.  We will know exactly:

  • Whether councillors are fulfilling their legal obligations to shape and direct strategic planning
  • Whether councillors are finally exerting their mandate to rule (in line with community values) leaving administrators to simply administrate
  • Whether councillors are finally paying more than lip service to principles of community engagement and consultation

There can be no ‘new beginning’ for Glen Eira until councillors fully embrace the following principles as set out by the International Association of Public Participation (and endorsed by the VLGA). Nothing will change unless councillors insist that these principles become the bases of decision making within Glen Eira.

Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation

  1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
     
  2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
     
  3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
     
  4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
     
  5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
     
  6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
     
  7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

We sincerely hope that 2011 will bring a revolution to the way this council operates and to the current perceived mentality of ‘we know best’! Such practices have been disasters. To continue along these same lines will only further alienate many in the community and signal the continued erosion of democratic process, accountability and good governance.

 

January 6, 2011

The New Broom & C60

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

The State Election has come and gone. Forgive the cliché, but we may be at a ‘new dawn’ not only in the State, but more significantly in Glen Eira. With a Liberal Lower and Upper House the time is ripe for significant change. The Southern Metropolitan Region has indeed seen a remarkable turnaround. Of the 11 parliamentarians, 9 are now Liberal. In the Upper House 3 are Liberal, 1 is Green and 1 solitary member is Labour. What does this augur for Glen Eira? How will these figures impact on the Caulfield Racecourse development and the C60? How will it impact on what has traditionally been seen as a Liberal dominated Council? Will it energise an otherwise compliant and passive lot of councillors to finally listen to their community? What planning changes should the community expect following the pre-election promises of these Southern Reps – especially Southwick? We ask again – will they deliver on such promises? 

Listed below are the names of members, their districts, and their contact details. We urge residents concerned about planning, and other issues, to contact their state representatives and to lobby for what they believe is important for this municipality and its surrounds.

First Name Last Name District/Region Party Position Contact
David Southwick Caulfield Liberal MP 95273866
Ann Barker Oakleigh Labor MP 9568 4625
Michael O’Brien Malvern Liberal Min Energy & Resources + Gaming + Consumer Affairs 9576 1850
Clem Newton-Brown Prahran Liberal MP 99819501
Martin Foley Albert Park Labor MP 9646 7173
Louise Asher Brighton Liberal Min Innovation Services & SB+ Tourism & Major Events 9596 9680
Elizabeth Miller Bentleigh Liberal MP 9557 6661
Murray Thompson Sandringham Liberal MP 9598 2688
Graham Watt Burwood Liberal MP 9809 1857
Ted Baillieu Hawthorn Liberal Premier + Min for the Arts 9882 4088
Andrew McIntosh Kew Liberal Min for Anti-corruption Commission 9853 2999
TOTAL ASSEMBLY Liberal + Labor   9 + 2    
John Lenders Southern Met 1 Labor MP 9529 1733
David Davis Southern Met  2 Liberal Min for Health 9888 6244
Andrea Coote Southern Met  3 Liberal PS Families & Community Services 9681 9555
Sue Penniciuk Southern Met  4 Green MP 9530 8399
Georgie Crozier Southern Met  5 Liberal MP 9555 4101
TOTAL COUNCIL Liberal + Labor + Green   3+1+1    
 

January 2, 2011

Our New Look for 2011

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
1 Comment 

We hope you’ll like the new ‘leaner and cleaner’ interface of Glen Eira Debates.

All posts have been classified under 10 distinct categories which are found on the right hand side of the page. By simply clicking on one of these categories, all relevant posts may be retrieved.

Our banner will periodically feature current issues and news such as the full documentation to the C60 Planning Report. Again, all that is required is a mouse click to retrieve the information.

As always, we look forward to your responses and ideas.

 

December 29, 2010

C60 & MRC Plans

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

MRC plans more meetings at Caulfield

Adrian Dunn.  Herald Sun, December 28, 2010

MELBOURNE Racing Club plans to hold more meetings at Caulfield – its premier racetrack.

 Club chairman Mike Symons said the club wanted to increase the number of meetings at The Heath by at least five a season, and no longer restrict the track to headline meetings. 

He said he would like to see Caulfield host as many as 28-30 meetings a season, seven more than this season.

For the best part of a decade, Caulfield has deliberately held only what it termed “premier meetings”, leaving Sandown to host all the industry “turnover” fixtures.

“I’ve never been a supporter of that (saving Caulfield for premier meetings),” Symons said.

“When you have A-grade facilities and a terrific track then you should utilise them as much as you can. Caulfield’s track performs very well from a wagering perspective and a performance perspective. Our view is, without wishing to compromise the performance of the track, there is scope to conduct further meetings at Caulfield.”

The MRC also plans to restructure its raceday program for its two feature February meetings by running all the Group 1 races at the tail of the meeting.

Channel 9 has thwarted the club’s bid to have the last three races on Blue Diamond Day as Group 1 races by ending its broadcast before 6pm.

But, Symons said three Group 1s – the Blue Diamond, the C.F. Orr Stakes and the Oakleigh Plate – would be races six, seven and eight on the nine-race card in February.

In another effort to secure a long-term income stream, the club last week finalised its purchase of seven hotels outright, as well as entering a separate joint venture with Country Racing Victoria for an eighth.

MRC chief executive Al Robertson said the club’s eight hotels and four club venues contained 738 gaming machines, which he projected had the capacity in the next five years to make “in excess of $15 million free cash”.

Robertson said under gaming legislation scheduled to be passed in August 2012, revenue is to be split 55 per cent/45 per cent between venue owner and the Government. “We see it as an extremely attractive investment,” Robertson said.

Meanwhile, VRC chief executive Dale Monteith will visit China next month to inspect television screen technology to be used when the club replaces its old Members’ Stand.

“The old members’ grandstand was built in 1923 and we’ve managed to keep it going and will so until we replace it in 2015, 2016,” Monteith said.

“With a new facility we believe we can grow our full membership from 23,000 to 30,000 and beyond and help pay for it.”

++++++

What the above report does not highlight is the impact that these plans will have on surrounding areas. With more race days residents can expect:

  • More traffic and congestion
  • More training
  • More drunkenness and loutish behaviour
  • More horse manure!
  • More gambling, more ‘profit’ to the MRC
  • Reduced access for local residents

Once again local residents have been totally ignored by the MRC.

 

December 22, 2010

Seasons Greetings!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
1 Comment 

We wish all our readers a fantastic and safe festive season and a healthy 2011. To our Christian friends a very Merry Xmas; to our Jewish friends a happy recently passed Chanukah, and to our Muslim friends a belated Happy New Year.

Glen Eira Debates will be taking a short break – unless something of major significance occurs. We will use this time to redevelop and reorganise our website and to start the New Year bigger and better. Thank you to all who have taken the time and trouble to comment on our posts, and also a big thank you to all those who have read our musings. We hope you’ve found them informative and helpful. As always, we welcome any suggestions for improvements and topics that we have not as yet covered.

A reminder about the time extension for VEAC submissions til mid January. You may also email (gedebates@gmail.com) us your submissions and we’ll put them up in the public interest. Public open space is a huge issue for Glen Eira and it requires extensive coverage.

Finally, a big thank you to Glen Eira Councillors for providing us with so much fodder this year. Without you, this blogsite could not exist! -:)

 

December 20, 2010

Glen Eira & Public Open Space

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

From The Age:

‘Garden state’ at risk as population flourishes

 
Marika Dobbin and Jason Dowling
December 20, 2010
Victoria’s reputation as the garden state is under threat due to its increasing population.

Victoria’s reputation as the garden state is under threat due to its increasing population, the first ever inventory of public land and open space for metropolitan Melbourne has found.

The state government commissioned audit by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council found an increasing population and limited opportunities for the creation of new parks and gardens would mean further declines in public open space per capita for all municipalities bar one – the south-eastern City of Knox.

It forecast that open space per capita would halve by 2026 for growth municipalities with rapid housing development, such as Cardinia in the east, Hume in the north-west and Whittlesea in the north-east.

It warned that councils and government authorities must be vigilant in their planning processes to offset population growth with the creation of new regional parks.

”Otherwise levels of open space per capita in outer municipalities may decrease to lower levels than some inner municipalities,” it said.

The report identified hundreds of sites, totalling 1161 hectares, of disused land owned by the Crown and by more than 22 government departments and public authorities.

But it found there were limited opportunities to convert surplus public land such as decommissioned schools, old rail reserves and unused buildings into green open space, particularly in established areas, because most of the sites were small and fragmented.

It recommended a central listing of all surplus public land that would give notice of forthcoming sales, so that local councils would have better chances to buy land for the creation of new parks and gardens.

The audit also found that sales of surplus public land have reaped $600 million over the past 11 years to meet revenue targets set by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Centre for Population and Urban Research director Bob Birrell said the report revealed that not only was there no money from government to create new open space, but that scarce space in established suburbs was being lost.

”We have continual claims from government and those in the planning fraternity that we can have it both ways – a denser city and a more liveable city,” he said. ”But I think that this report shows that’s not true.”

He said the report showed developers of apartment blocks and housing subdivisions were required to pay ”next to nothing” to help establish additional open space in their local areas to account for extra residents.

VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said communities with access to green open space had a better quality of life, improved physical and mental health, and lower mortality rates. He said such space was particularly important for young children.

”It’s not just a mater of protecting green open space but enhancing what we’ve got so that it attracts people and is better used, whether that be with lighting, paths or play equipment,” Mr Harper said.

The report recommended that water production areas, such as those owned by Melbourne Water, be opened up for other activities such as nature observation, bushwalking and picnicking.

It found that 145,620 hectares or 26 per cent of land in metropolitan Melbourne had native vegetation, higher than previously thought. It found significant areas of native vegetation in the outer fringes of Melbourne.

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

A reminder to readers that submissions to the VEAC discussion paper may still be lodged – extension of time has been granted until mid January. (See: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/metropolitan-melbourne-investigation/reports for a full rundown on the various discussion papers).

Below is a table deriving from the Discussion Paper.

Municipality Public Open Space (hectares) Public Open Space (per 1000 People – 2006) Public Open Space (Per 1000 People – 2016)
Glen Eira 180.5 1.4 1.3
Kingston 731.8 5.2 4.8
Port Phillip 390.6 4.3 3.7
Bayside 443.7 4.8 4.6
Stonnington 172.3 1.8 1.7
Monash 776.2 4.6 4.3

Questions this raises:

  • Why is so much of the scant public open space in Glen Eira primarily used for sporting facilities and hence a minority of the population?
  • Why has there been no review of the Open Space Stategy in over a decade?
  • Why has the Recreation Needs Study, which was the catalyst for GESAC, become the primary strategic vision for the use of public opn space?
  • How much public open space is GESAC removing from the community?
  • How much public open space will Council actually gain from the Caulfield Racecourse fiasco?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »