November 21, 2010

A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
1 Comment 

We received  the following email and it is printed below –

Some items of particular interest are: 
 
9.9   Fraud and Corruption Policy (This seeks to stop councillors from discussing fraud cases,  EVEN AFTER a case is proven in court. (and so already in the public domain).   
 
9.14 Racecourse Committee 
        1. The committee, as envisaged, is a blatant abuse of democratic process.
        2. It removes the rights of the majority of councillors from making decisions about the biggest single
            public asset in Glen Eira. Five Councillors, those who are not members of the committee, will have their
            rights to represent the Community of Glen Eira, completed removed. This is in breach of the
            provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 for transparency and accountability.
        3. It guarantees that everything will remain secret and under wraps, regardless of the public interest.
        4. It prevents a number of councillors from representing the community view, under the guise of potential
            ‘conflict of interest’
       .5..Members of the general public have no rights, and have no guarantees of access to the 
            committee meetings, for non-confidential items, unlike Council meetings which are – by law – held with
            open doors. . 
 
9.15 Council’s Response to Inspectorate (written by Peter Jones, Acting CEO
Briefly, this typical, sham ‘response’ to the inspectorate report,. is offered by Mr. Jones.
 
    1.  Mr. Jones wants councillors to conduct all their business using the official (ie ‘wire-tapped’) council email addresses. This is supposedly to ‘ensure all business communications are open and auditable’. Next we expect, the staff will want all conversations between councillors and ratepayers tape recorded as well..
 
   2.  Committee meetings (but apparently not the existing councillor, or council staff, committee meetings), should (in the future) have accurate recording of meetings. Apparently Mr. Newton’s administration has failed again. Why don’t they already have ‘accurate recordings’?  All decisions are supposed to be accurately minuted, by law. All other normal councils manage to do this, so what’s wrong with Glen Eira?
 
 3.  Peter Jones advises that councillors should not provide ‘unauthorized opinion on behalf of the council’.
Mr.Jones, they don’t. No Councillor can provide opinion on behalf of Council. That is the Mayors job, if she/he is up to it. Read your own Council Local Law, Mr. Jones..
 
This is all just tedious, kindergarten stuff. I am glad I am not a councilor. 
 
 

November 19, 2010

Censorship in Full Flight?

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[2] Comments 

Ah, looks like Glen Eira Debates is making an impact when we compare the Assembly of Councillors ‘records’ over the past few agendas and the current one. If detail was skimpy before, it is now almost non-existent.  A curt sentence of about 5 words is all the community can now expect. Yet, the censors can’t eliminate all data and those grudgingly made ‘subject listings’ provide further room for speculation. We’re very curious about the following:

  • A Pools Steering Committee that discusses ‘assembly of councillors’. Is it their business?
  • The 26th October Assembly of councillors which discussed ‘records of assembly’!!!!!
  • A revisiting of the October 12th records of assembly. Was this to curtail such expansive ‘minutes’ as “Exchanges between councillors in the Council Chamber and through emails’ – especially when Lobo wanted this relabelled as ‘racism’? Or could it be the somewhat embarrassing notation as: ‘Can councillors be reimbursed for legal costs incurred as a result of the Municipal Inspection’? Or even the ‘untouchable’ such as “CEO appraisal by council’. We can only conclude that councillors and/or administrators were not too happy with previous records of assembly. The result is now obvious. Another major win for secrecy and back room discussions with no accountability to the public.

 However, we are most pleased to report that the previous, apparent ailment of many councillors is now rectified. Their bladders have improved markedly!

 

November 19, 2010

How To Rig the Game?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

The Agenda Items for the next council meeting (23rd November) are out and as per usual, make for fascinating reading. Given the recent fiasco over the planning conference for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development, we did a little more digging and have come up with the following table. Please note that all of the 6 items were given the ‘stamp of approval’ by council officers.

We’d like residents to focus on two things:

  1. Size of potential development and number of adjoining properties notified
  2. Number of objections and how this is inversely proportional to the number of notifications?

We wonder why?!!!!!!!! 

Item 9.1The construction of a 4 storey building with 32 dwellings at 389-395 Neerim Road• The construction of 17 double storey dwellings with an entry fronting Emily Street• Basement car parking and the reduction of the carparking requirement (visitor car spaces).  13 properties notified4 signs erected

26 objections received

1 letter of support
Item 9.2The construction of a three storey building comprising 22 dwellings and a basement carpark 10 properties notified1 sign

27 objections
Item 9.3Construction of three (3) double storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay 9 properties notified1 sign erected

16 objections and 1 petition
Item 9.4Use of the land for the purpose of a Maternal, Child and Health Clinic (Medical Centre) and a reduction in the car parking requirement associated with the use 18 properties notified2 signs erected

5 objections
Item 9.5A double storey building comprising two dwellings with basement car parking 23 properties notified1 sign erected

2 objections and 1 petition
Item 9.6 Construction of buildings and works to the existing tennis club house (decking, ramps and storage room)  29 properties notified1 sign erected & no objections
 

November 18, 2010

News Flash: Neil Pilling

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[3] Comments 

Cr. Neil Pilling will be standing in the State election as a Green Candidate for the Upper House in the Southern Metropolitan Region.

Council minutes of 10th August record: “Cr Pilling has previously sought Leave of Absence for the period 23 July to 22 August. He is a candidate for the seat of Goldstein in the Federal Election”.

This is now the second time within 4 months that Cr. Pilling will be taking leave from his Council duties in order to concentrate on ‘electioneering’. Whilst Cr. Pilling is perfectly entitled to seek a political career, we can only ask: With two months leave in such a short period of time, how well is/has Cr. Pilling represented his Glen Eira constituents? Should the community have been made aware of Cr. Pilling’s political ambitions prior to his election in November, 2008?

 

November 17, 2010

It’s Time!

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

 “CONSULTATION can always be improved and I am a strong supporter of the council’s Community Consultation Committee.  When asked if residents should be able to address council meetings, I had suggested that pre-meeting procedures involving planning conferences, forums, community surveys and written submissions were sufficient avenues to engage without adopting this suggestion. This does not mean that other methods of consultation should not be investigated. Nothing should discourage residents from making a submission, unfortunately few do.” 

Cr Steven Tang, Glen Eira Council. – Leader, Sept.8th: 2009 

We beg to differ Cr. Tang! When figures for interviews, forums, questionnaires, focus groups are all lumped together as they are in the Annual Report (Page 82), then it is quite misleading to assume that Council’s consultation methods are truly multi-faceted, or that the community repeatedly fails to avail itself of the opportunities provided. By and large, the only way that the community gets a ‘formal’ look in is via formal submissions and public questions.

We’ve therefore taken the trouble to quantify our assertions – to present facts rather than spiel. Our analysis includes all public minutes from December 16, 2008 until November 3rd, 2010. That is, the current reign of these councillors. We cannot, of course, vouch for the total number of contacts such as phone calls, emails, letters, private meetings that may have occurred. These are never published so that the community actually never gets to know such vital statistics as: how many complaints have been registered? How many compliments have been registered? How many queries have been successfully answered? And the most important, how ‘satisfied’ are residents following their contact with council and councillors? Our figures reveal:

501 separate approaches to council

258 known individuals who either submitted public questions or submissions. We listed the names a few posts back. The ‘unknowns’ include:

8 individuals signing a petition;

14 ‘unknown’ on amendment C75;

2 ‘unknowns’ on Council Plan;

23 ‘unknowns’ on Bicycle Strategy;

1 ‘unknown’ on Early childhood Development Plan;

18 ‘unknown’ on Toilet Strategy;

5 ‘unknown’ on amendment C76;

23 ‘unknown’ on Street Tree Strategy.

Our analysis also revealed a total lack of consistency in process and policy as to the publication of submissions. For example, those submissions falling under Section 223 of the Local Government Act revealed the names of correspondents. Others, that fell outside these parameters were ‘revealed’ only, it seems, when it was politically advantageous, or fairly innocuous. Those issues that could be expected to draw major criticisms were deemed ‘not suitable for publication’! We have the full submissions on the Toilet Strategy, and the environmental strategy (the latter including names), yet the Planning Scheme Review, Bicycle Strategy submissions are totally missing. Why? What is council’s real agenda here? Why do they publish some submissions yet ‘hide’ others and in the case of the Planning Scheme Review, and the Early Childhood Development Policy, offer only a bare skeletal, so-called ‘summary’. If toilets can be given the spotlight, then surely something as fundamental as the Planning Scheme also needs to be put under full scrutiny?

The most important finding however relates to outcomes. We repeat our previous questions. We want to know:

  • Of all those individuals and groups who bothered to write, were they ‘satisfied’ with the outcome(s)/responses?
  • Were they even answered? Ie. what’s been done about the petition?

This is our ‘hidden agenda’. We request all those people and groups that we’ve previously listed, contact us (gedebates@gmail.com) and let us know exactly how ‘satisfied’ they are with the manner in which their submissions, questions and petitions were responded to and acted upon. Did your viewpoint or suggestions actually change anything? Were your problems attended to, fixed up? Were the answers provided accurate and relevant? Or were you simply fobbed off?

This council, the administration and councillors must now be called to account by YOU, THE PUBLIC. Their failures should be exposed, and where relevant, the ‘successes’ highlighted. But most importantly the community has to judge performance on outcomes and decide whether we want these same individuals to continue being councillors and administrators.

More detailed analysis will appear in the days ahead.

 

November 17, 2010

Logic 101 Council Style

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Moorabbin Leader, Nov.17th 2010

Fury over attack in park

Residents say their concerns over Memorial Park safety after dark are ignored

 McKINNON residents are outraged a man was attacked and robbed in Memorial Park after their calls for lighting to be installed in the park were ignored. The 27-year-old Malaysian man was assaulted by a group of men while he was walking through the park, at the corner of Wattle Grove and McKinnon Rd, about 12.45am on Saturday, November 6. One man punched the victim in the face, and when he fell to the ground two other men began kicking and punching him before stealing his backpack. 

Embona Taskforce Sgt Andrew Collison said police did not believe the assault was racially motivated. But the incident has appalled residents, who say they have asked Glen Eira Council for years to put lights in the park to improve safety. The park’s complete darkness provided a ‘‘haven for scumbags’’ resident Annie Morrell said.

‘‘This attack could have been prevented,’’ Ms Morrell said. ‘‘I rang the council and asked them to do something about it and I was brushed off. It’s ludicrous. Someone will be attacked again.’’ Kate Deneiffe said she wrote to the council four years ago asking for lighting be installed at the park. But director of community relations Paul Burke said one reason the council did not install security lighting in parks was because it could ‘‘encourage the very antisocial behaviour we all try to discourage’’.

‘‘Council is working with the Caulfield police on this matter and we will have regard for any suggestions that they may have.’’

*************************************************************************************

 Costly artificial grass cheaper to keep, says council

 GLEN Eira Council has taken the unusual step of laying hundreds of metres of artificial grass on an Ormond roadside median strip. The median strip, between Tucker and East Boundary roads, separates a service lane from busy North Rd. Similar strips on the west side of North Rd are filled with concrete.  

Director of community relations Paul Burke would not reveal the cost of installing the synthetic grass, but Mary McKay from Easy Turf Melbourne said most companies would charge $ 65-$ 80 a square metre. This meant the cost of the median strip turf could have run to tens of thousands of dollars. Mr Burke said the council installed the turf because the narrow strip posed a ‘‘significant safety risk’’ to workers mowing and maintaining real grass. ‘‘(This) meant traffic management controls had to be put in place each time the strip was maintained. ‘‘While these controls protect the safety of the men and women in the work area, they can be a cause of frustration to busy motorists.’’ Mr Burke said the synthetic grass would be cheaper to maintain than real grass and ‘‘a further positive outcome was grass clippings that used to end up in the stormwater network no longer do so’’. 

*************************************************************************************

With this logic, we can assume:

  • Safety of staff is valued more highly than safety of residents
  • Spending millions on sports lighting is more important that lighting for safety
 

November 15, 2010

Racecourse Planning Meeting: The Farce Continues

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

Below is a chronological account of the Planning Meeting for the centre of the Caulfield Racetrack.

  • No signage at town hall alerting residents where to go. Doors were locked. Eventually informed by Crs. Forge and Penhalluriack (once they themselves found out) that the meeting was to occur upstairs in one of the rooms
  • Present 11 residents; Crs. Penhalluriack and Forge (as observers); Magee chaired the meeting and Town Planner was to take notes and ‘explain’ the application. An projector displayed the plans on a wall.
  • Not everyone received a copy of the plans since not enough were made available
  • NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MRC WAS PRESENT
  • Magee’s role as chair was questioned since he is a member of the MRC trustees and therefore whether this constituted a ‘conflict of interest’. Magee claimed it didn’t since this meeting was not a ‘decision making’ meeting.
  • Several residents began by criticising council and its failure to adequately inform the community of this meeting, as well as failing to provide sufficient copies of plans. Town Planner responded that 432 letters had been sent out; notices placed around the racecourse and advertising in Local Papers. She emphasised that council was adhering to the law since their obligation was only to notify ‘abutting’ residents. Several present complained that they ‘abutted’ the racecourse and had not received notification via council. The point was made that council always acted upon the LETTER of the law rather than the SPIRIT of the law and that this was not good enough. Town Planner retorted that she had received only one objection earlier and one handed in today. A resident present stated that he had submitted an objection and asked Magee whether he had read it. The response was ‘no’.
  • Complaints were also made about the indecipherability of the plans; that the meeting should have tabled the application in its entirety. Several residents claimed to have inspected the file, but that in each instance the documents differed.
  • Magee explained that the purpose was to act upon the application – not its purpose and use. Town planner affirmed that even though a car park was drawn in the plans, council’s role was only to grant permission for the ‘shovel’ to go into the ground – not how this land was to be used. Argument degenerated into confusion, and semantics.
  • One resident walked out half way through meeting
  • Major criticisms of the plan included: building a car park on open space and the community’s land; the fact that council officers had ‘negotiated’ with the MRC and hence ‘conflict of interest’ questions arose again
  • Magee insisted that the land belonged to the Commonwealth when numerous residents informed him that it belonged to the State as per Queen Victoria’s caveat.
  • Magee also informed the meeting that the Town Planning officers would go away and write up their report and it would be available in the agenda items and council would then consider the recommendations. When asked if the public could address council, Magee’s response was ‘No’. One resident pointed out that residents do have the right to address councillors at council meetings upon the discretion of the Mayor! Cr. Forge said that she would be bringing this up with her fellow councillors.
  • Other concerns were the ‘legality’ of the application – Magee and Town Planner did not know. Safety issues – ie the pedestrian tunnel to access the centre where people had to walk through dust and dung, as well as car traffic. 

The predominant mood of the meeting was anger, and dismay at the failure of council to be proactive in its advocacy for residents. Most present felt that the entire meeting was farcical and a fait accompli!!!!

If you were present and would like to add your comments on anything left out in the above, please do so.

 

November 14, 2010

THE WHITESIDE EMAIL AND LETTER

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

My fellow concerned citizens, 

As requested, please find attached the text of my letter of resignation from the Council of the City of Glen Eira, dated 30 July 2010 

I’m sorry I cannot reply to you individually due to the large number of responses I received, but I would like to express my thanks to you all for your interest in the good governance of the City. I also thank you for your sentiments of support. Many of you reminded me of the issues we dealt with together over the last 5 years. Some of you asked why I did not raise some of these issues more publicly whilst a Councillor. I understand this point but the Local Government Act allows certain matters to be treated In Confidence, and I have to abide by the law in this situation. However I can assure you I raised many concerns both with individual Councillors and with the Council as a group. 

I would like to encourage all of you to involve yourselves in Council matters and to demand transparency and accountability. For example:

  • Attend Council meetings every 3rd Tuesday at 7.30pm at the Council Chambers and submit questions in writing before 12noon on the day of the meeting Questions can be about any relevant matter, but  questions should be specific, constructive  and short, to elicit the best possible response..
  • Become informed about issues, individual Councillors attitudes and behaviours which may affect their decision making on particular issues.
  • Appreciate the quality and hard work of the Council Officers and Staff who have been recognized by State and Federal Government for their high achievements in many fields
  • Communicate your opinions to your Councillors and be aware of the importance of the position of Mayor who must lead the Council and be unbiased and sensitive to the interests of the whole community.
  • Read the most recent Report by the Local Government Inspector and his criticisms of some Councillor behaviours.  

I continue to live in Caulfield North and remain interested and concerned for the long term future of the Municipality.   

Sincerely 

Helen Whiteside

14 November 2010

 WE’VE UPLOADED THE LETTER HERE and also under ‘Why We’re Here’.

 

November 14, 2010

URGENT Racecourse Planning Conference on Monday

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

A quietly arranged Notice by Glen Eira Council and MRC circulated only to adjacent properties of the Racecourse, invites people to a Planning Conference to discuss the plan to open up the middle of the Racecourse to the public.

When: Monday 15 November

Where:  Glen Eira Town Hall cnr Glen Eira & Hawthorn Roads

Time: 6.30 pm

Questions to ask are:

  • How big is the proposed Public Access area in comparison to the Racecourse grounds?
  • What facilities are being proposed for this area?
  • What access facilities are being proposed?
  • What access facilities are arranged for the disabled?
  • What times the Public Access area will be available for public access?
  • What does the MRC propose to do about horse training facilities at the Racecourse?
  • How does horse training affect public access to the Public Area?
  • How does horse stables and its environmental problems affect contact with general public as proposed?
  • What precautions have been made in regards to health and safety issues if training is to be retained?
  • How long is the training of horses to be retained at the Caulfield Racecourse?
  • Are there plans to increase the Public Access area on the Crown Land after horse training is removed?

Readers, these questions are also relevant to be asked of ALL candidates at the current State election.

The Caulfield Racecourse is a asset worth over $2 billion dollars  that is of State wide and National significance, and of international fame. It was earmarked by the Crown Grant of 1858 by Queen Victoria, and confirmed by King George VI in 1949.  The Grant is very specific as to its three uses “for a Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park at Caulfield in the Parish of Prahran”.

 

November 13, 2010

Are You ‘Satisfied’?

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

We’re conducting some online research and need your help. We specifically want to know the following:

•How do you rate the outcomes of your formal interactions (ie. submissions, public questions) with council?
•Were your questions/submissions adequately responded to? Were they acted upon?
•Were the responses relevant, accurate, and enlightening?
Below are a list of names. These are people who have had direct interaction with council via public questions and submissions. If you know anyone on the list please alert them to this research. Yours and their feedback is important. We can be contacted via gedebates@gmail.com

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »