October 20, 2010

Good Governance: Sold for $45,000?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Presented below are a sequence of events relating to the sale of land at Nina and Niki Crts., Bentleigh. Once again this episode would appear to raise serious questions as to the governance practices of this council and the role of both administrators and councillors. As always, we invite councillors to present their point of view if they believe that our facts are inaccurate.

In chronological order, this is what transpired:

  • Council minutes of 24th February, 2009 record a request for a report moved by Magee and  seconded by Staikos –

That a report be prepared on the former drainage site between Nina Court and South Road in Bentleigh East. In particular the report should concentrate on the possibilities of this drainage site becoming a pocket park.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

  • On June 9th, 2009 council officers tabled a report with the stated purpose of ““The removal of ‘drainage reserve status’ of the land in preparation for the sale”. The report notes that attempts to sell the land had been ongoing since 2005 and that since “the proposal is facilitating the disposal of land not required by Council, the planning scheme requires a condition to be included on the permit that states that the additional lots must be consolidated with abutting land within 2 years of the date of issue of this permit.”  
  • On June 30th, 2009 officers again tabled a report, ostensibly responding to the Magee/Staikos request for a report. It’s purpose however was titled: “To review whether to proceed with the sale of a former reserve adjacent to Nina Court, Bentleigh East “. For the most part, the report outlines past history, the fact that there is ‘unsociable behaviour’ on this strip of land; that  it is not under ‘good visual surveillance’, etc. etc. but the crunch paragraph is – “In 2005 Council resolved not to proceed with the sale as the offers received were well below market value and did not accord with Council Policy. Council’s resolution also called for officers to pursue further negotiations.” Further justification is given with – “The subject land is smaller than many pocket parks. It is also narrow and poorly located. Accordingly it has very restricted recreational potential resulting in limited benefits for the community that larger parks provide. Due to the site’s size there is little opportunity to provide valuable informal recreation opportunities such as play spaces, areas to play informal ball games, or fly a kite.” The final clincher is ‘There is little merit in establishing this former reserve as a pocket park so close to other parks” AND “The land will be able to be put to better use by adjoining property owners” and council pocketing more dollars! Conclusion? “In officers’ opinion, the land is not suitable for public open space on grounds of safety and the best solution would be for it to be incorporated into surrounding properties with the proceeds used for higher priority open space projects.” 

Magee and Staikos (to their credit) then moved the following motion which was passed unanimously. 

That Council:(i) Not proceed with the sale of the former reserve between Nina Court and South Road, Bentleigh East, (ii) Retain the land for use as open space, and (iii) Notify affected owners and occupiers of Council’s decision. 

  • On February 17th, 2010 the Leader carried council’s advertisements announcing the sale of the land to two residents for the price of $21,500 and 31,500 – a grand total of $54,000 (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
  • On October 12th, 2010 (item 9.9) was presented. The recommendation was: “To seek Council’s consent for the sale of a former drainage reserve abutting 13 Nina Court and 16 Niki Court Bentleigh East.” This was accepted unanimously after being moved by Hyams and Pilling. 

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? 

  1. Council’s resolution of 30th June, 2009 not to proceed with the sale HAS NOT BEEN RESCINDED.
  2. What happened between June 30th and February 17th when the advertisement went into the Leader. Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is nothing presented in council chambers as to the deliberations and rationale for this decision? Or is this simply another example of decision making behind closed doors?
  3. Why in the October 12th report is the price mentioned only $45,000, when in the advertisement we have the grand total of $54,000 (see:http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
  4. How can councillors unaminously vote for sale when in June 2009 they voted against sale – unanimously? A case of amnesia – especially by Magee? Not one word was spoken – not a whimper from anyone. So, we ask, do councillors actually bother to read what is in front of them? Does anyone think that this backflip should not be explained – especially when we are continually assailed with the message that open space in Glen Eira is miniscule?
  5. And why, when one looks at these documents, do the names keep changing all the time? We have Nina Crt, Niki Crt., Nepean Highway, all tossed about. Is this just camouflage?
  6. And finally, as authors of such reports, what role has the administration played in all this? What obfuscation has there been? From our standpoint it seems that the intention to sell the land is longstanding, so regardless of what councillors want, we’ll steam roll through our own agenda.
  7. As per usual, we maintain that governance – in terms of transparency and accountability – are once again the victims in this highly questionable sequence of events. 

As Pauline Hansen used to say – ‘Puhleeese EXPLAIN’!!!!!!! At the very least residents deserve to know how in the space of 7 months a unanimous decision NOT to sell land is mysteriously overturned without explanation, without clear transparency in open council and nobody says boo!! Simply not good enough!

 

October 19, 2010

Council At Last Gives In To Pressure

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
1 Comment 

We received an email from one of our readers requesting that its contents be put up as a post –

A recent post (below) outlined councils intention to raise rents by a considerable and unjustifiable amount.  News to hand indicates that rents have not risen as proposed but have increased a small amount only.  Word has it that many people in the community were rightly disgusted with council’s proposal and community action has resulted in a change of heart.

My questions are:

  • Why was this appalling decision to increase rents by such a large percentage undertaken in the first place?
  • Why is there only a response from council when the community takes action?
  • Why can’t we have council policies in place that respect the financial circumstances of those renting their homes from council?
  • Why does a such a lack of trust in council actions result in the community having to scrutinise every decision?

The only good outcome is the decision now to increase rents by a small amount – what would have happened if the community had not got behind this issue?

Our Caring Council – Huge Rent Increases for Council’s Social Housing Residents (an earlier comment in ‘Resident’s Corner’)

Councils lack of support for its residents who are most vulnerable is evidenced in recent notification to its social housing tenants of a rent increase from $270 per fortnight to $390 per fortnight – a huge $60 per week increase in rent. This is fact!

This increase is being charged to those who can least afford it. The tenants of these independent living units have no assets and live on full aged pensions or disability pensions. Where will they find another $60 per week from to pay this? Residents are not happy and complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

Why would Glen Eira council make this decision? What is the benefit?

The decision flies in the face of supporting older people as they age. It flies in the face of State government policy in the just released Ageing in Victoria Plan which acknowledges the huge issue of housing for older people stating “Accessible and affordable housing will be critical as our population ages….. an adequate supply of suitable housing allowing older people to live comfortably and safely within their communities will become more important as Victoria’s population ages.”

What does our council do? It makes housing less affordable and places vulnerable older people and people with disabilities in a more tenuous and stressful position!

This issue cannot be left for the tenants to fight on their own! Council talks about advocacy and support for older residents in its Draft Ageing Strategy and increasing rents by such a huge amount shows that the words in the strategy are meaningless like so many other strategic documents produced by this council.

 

October 19, 2010

The Power of Words

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
1 Comment 

We ask the question ‘what is the role of a newspaper’, especially a local newspaper? Is it to inform; to engender interest in local issues; to publicise events, or is its role to pander to those interests that may be high on the list of chief advertisers? A simple headline is capable of altering perspective, shifting the emphases, turning neglect into a virtue, making black appear white, and hopeful aspiration the  equivalent of planned and consistent action.

We ask these questions as a result of today’s article in the Caulfield Leader concerning the Elsternwick Childcare saga. Emblazoned across the page there is the headline: “Childcare Reprieve’”. Then we have ‘Council does U-Turn on policy and calls on government help to keep centre open’. Most people would probably see the words ‘reprieve’, U-turn’ and think problem solved! Childcare will go on. Council has caved in to pressure! Nothing could be further from the truth. With possibly unconscious irony, we report that the definition of ‘reprieve’ is:  “a formal temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence esp. of death as an act of clemency”!!  The use of the term ‘u-turn’ is also highly suspect. Let’s face it – council budgetry policy has  never changed. Finance to buy, find alternate accommodation, renovate other buildings has never been an option. The rhetoric has always been ‘it’s not our responsibility – it’s up to State and federal governments”. In an earlier post we used the headline – Councillors perfect the art of doing nothing’. We still stand by this viewpoint. It’s just a pity that the Leader failed to also highlight these facts.

The full Leader article reads:

PARENTS lobbying to stop the closure of Elsternwick Children’s Centre are hopeful State Government intervention will save it. After six months of maintaining that another childcare centre was unnecessary, Glen Eira Council is reconsidering allowing the door to close on the Kooyong Rd building, owned by Alfred Health.

At last Tuesday’s council meeting, the councillors voted to seek help from the government to ‘‘use all means available’’ to ensure the land continues to be used for child care. Alfred Health has not ruled out selling the site or extending the lease, but it seems unlikely.

Nursing and site co-ordination director Janet Weir-Phyland said Caulfield Hospital was working with the health department on ‘‘service planning requirements’’. ‘‘Our planning now also needs to accommodate a new ward f or acquired brain injury patients,’’ Ms Weir-Phyland said.

Alfred Health has let the building to the council for 21 years, with the lease expiring in December 2011. Sixty-four families use the centre. Save Local Childcare Coalition spokeswoman Nicole Owen said the parents’ group wanted the council to buy the building. ‘‘We’re still hopeful . . . we can secure the site,’’ she said.

Mayor Steven Tang said the council would meet again with Alfred Health. ‘‘Issues of time and cost involved in building a new children’s centre would most likely prevent any alternative being ready in time for the end of the current lease,’’ he said.

 

October 18, 2010

C60 Panel Report

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

This post is entirely speculative. Given the information that we have, we are simply exploring a couple of possible scenarios and wishing to alert the public to what may be a most unfortunate outcome in regard to the C60 Panel Report.

The report was handed down in July 2010. Thus far nothing has been forthcoming from officers or council. The next council meeting is set for November 3rd. That is OVER 60 days that council has had to deliberate and present their recommendations. The law requires a response in 60 days. It therefore seems that Council may not have met its legal obligations thus allowing the developer to go straight to VCAT. This has already happened with the Bay Rd development in Bayside.

So the questions come thick and fast:

  1. Will the developer stand on his rights even if the C60 report is on the next council agenda?
  2. Is this a deliberate ploy by council to wipe its hands of any decision making and again say it’s all VCAT’s fault?
  3. Are councillors fully aware of these time limits? If so, what have they done about it?

Our suspicions are further raised when we read the following paragraph that is on the MRC Caulfield Village website:

“Overall the submissions made to the Panel recommended Caulfield Village as a positive response to Melbourne’s expanding population and demand for services close to public transport.

Council’s closing statement described Caulfield Village as “a reasonable response to the opportunities and constraints afforded by the land and the area” and that “a development of the magnitude proposed has the capacity to bring about significant public realm benefits and contribute significantly to the achievement of community ‘betterment’ leading to a clear net community benefit”.

 

October 16, 2010

VCAT: A Convenient Scapegoat?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Magee, with righteous indignation, declared  in relation to the application at 848 Centre Road – ‘a terrible decision, so VCAT shame on you’!! (Council’s version of events is printed in the minutes). So once again, VCAT becomes the culprit bringing down decisions that councillors bemoan and residents suffer from. 

Let us state quite clearly that we do not endorse, condone, or in anyway support VCAT’s decisions. Nor do we blithely accept council’s version of events! It is exceedingly easy, and politically savvy, to throw up one’s hands and to lay ALL the blame at the feet of VCAT and the State government as this council has repeatedly done. Yet, when one looks closely at the various judgements a different picture emerges. Listed below are extracts from the Centre Rd judgement. We especially wish to highlight: 

  1. The member’s repeated remarks about council’s failure to provide ‘evidence’ and,
  2. The ‘failure’ of council to get its act together
  3. Questions as to the ‘preparedness’ of council in presenting cases 

We cite directly from the judgement: 

“Neither the Council’s Traffic Engineers or VicRoads raised any concerns regarding the likely traffic generation or any potential safety issues at the intersection. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that removal of the four dwellings is justified on traffic safety grounds.  

The Council submitted that the areas should be increased in size to 60m² in order to accommodate sufficient landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. This view, however, is not supported by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who, in their referral comments, raised no concerns regarding the opportunities for landscaping throughout the site. 

I also note that the Standard relates to the following Objective: To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.

  1. 20.           Further, the associated decision guidelines refer to the useability of the open space area, its orientation to the street and the sun, and the availability or access to public/communal open space. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, there is no mention of landscaping in either the Objective or decision guidelines.
  2. The Council quite fairly conceded that the proposed courtyard areas are adequate for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, and I agree. I can find no support in Clause 55.05-4 for an increase in the courtyard sizes. In my opinion, the proposed open space areas are of dimension and area that are appropriate to this development. I agree with the comments of the earlier Tribunal that some flexibility can be exercised in assessing the open space provision against the Standard, given the apartment style of the development.
  3. The courtyard spaces are able to accommodate landscaping, including appropriately sized canopy trees. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that areas of at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of approximately 5.0 metres are unable to support adequate planting to enhance the amenity of the development and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.
  4. 30.           From my reading of the documents provided by the Council, notably the referral comments of the Traffic Engineer, it is evident that the 6 metre width reflects a desired outcome – rather than one which is necessary to ensure that the driveway can function in an acceptable manner. I note the Council’s submission that the increased width is required to comply with an Objective of Clause 55.03-9. I was not provided with any evidence to the effect that compliance with Standard B14, and with the requirements of VicRoads, would not allow this Objective to be met.
  5. 31.           I consider that a fair and objective assessment of this issue, based on the information before me, must lead to the conclusion that the proposed 5 metre width is acceptable. Had I been presented with evidence which demonstrated the width to be inadequate to allow for the passing of vehicles, then I may have formed a different view.

 Conclusion:

  1. What do such decisions reveal about the current planning scheme and its inadequacies?
  2. What do such decisions reveal about the adequacy of council’s presentations at VCAT?
  3. What does all this say about adequately protecting residents?
  4. What does all this say about the recent planning scheme review?
 

October 14, 2010

Councillors Perfect the Art of Doing Nothing

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
1 Comment 

The minutes for council meeting of October 12th are now available. Item 9.7 concerned the Elsternwick childcare. The actual motion read:

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

In order to ensure the continuity of childcare in Elsternwick and align Elsternwick Children’s Centre with Council’s other long day care centres, Council seek the assistance of State Government to use all means available to enable the land at 269 Kooyong Road, Elsternwick (Lots 3 & 4) to continue to be used as a child care centre as it has for the past 21 years.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

We also request readers to make note of these sentences from the financial report also considered at this council meeting- “The forecast result expected for the financial year is an operating surplus of $8.95M as compared to the original adopted 2010-11 annual budget of $6.97M.

Please note that any surplus from day-to-day operations is used to accelerate capital works projects.”

Capital works obviously does not include childcare centres!

 

October 13, 2010

Council Meeting: 12th October

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[19] Comments 

A report on last night’s council meeting is below. The minutes of course are not up as yet, so this is a ‘preliminary’ summary of the main events.

  • Elsternwick Childcare: Placards were apparently displayed by members of the Local Childcare Coalition opposing the imminent closure of the Elsternwick facility. Councillors (apart from Lobo) all trotted out the party line that childcare is not the responsibility of local government but rather the state (and federal) government! All of course were 100% committed to maintaining the centre – they just didn’t want to spend any money to ensure its continuation. That must be done by the State government. Chief proponents of this view were Lipshutz and co.
  • Hyams moved an amendment to the Local Law Review committee’s recommendations that Centre Rd be considered for potential naming as an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’. This was opposed by Lipshutz with the argument that we don’t need it; that the police don’t want more work, they will do nothing to enforce it and hence the job will fall on the already overworked council officers. The amendment was eventually passed with the acknowledgement that council isn’t committing itself to anything but that by putting it on the agenda for future discussions all options are left open.
  • Murrumbeena planning application. Placards were again held up with the signage ‘save our suburbs’. Instead of 3 to 4 storeys and 80 odd apartments, this development was ‘reduced’ to two storeys and (only 50) apartments. Traffic congestion was acknowledged as a potential problem!
  • Lobo attempted to raise the issue of ‘unauthorised sporting activities’ again, with his ‘request for a report’. There was no seconder, so the motion lapsed.
  • Penhalluriack requested a report on the discussions and decisions made between council and the MRC over the Caulfield Racetrack. Lipshutz queried whether this was necessary since it might create the impression that councillors did not have full faith in the officers. This was also commented on by Hyams. Forge then stated that perhaps any report need not be made public, but just kept to councillors. Penhalluriack agreed with this and assured everyone that he was not implying anything about officers.
  • Public questions again featured many from the Social Soccer Club. Responses were per ‘normal’.
 

October 12, 2010

How Weak are Councillors’ Bladders?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[8] Comments 

The record of assembly of councillors printed in the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a fascinating document. We are left to wonder whether councillors have incredibly weak bladders since this specific meeting was nothing short of a swinging door of councillors leaving the meeting and returning a minute later. Please note the procession taken directly from the record –

7.17pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room

7.18pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room

7.45pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room. Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.02pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room.

8.03pm Cr Magee left the Briefing Room.

8.04pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

8.04pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.05pm Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.08pm Cr Magee returned to the Briefing Room.

8.44pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.

8.45pm Cr Lipshutz left the Briefing Room.

8.46pm Cr Lipshutz returned to the Briefing Room.

8.47pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room and Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.

8.48pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.

Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.

8.54pm Cr Esakoff left the Briefing Room.

8.55pm Cr Esakoff returned to the Briefing Room.

Such comings and goings are unbelievable. Yet the only declared ‘conflict of interest’ comes twice from Tang – one notable instance is when the Municipal Inspector’s Recommendations are discussed!

The Local Government Act requires councillors to declare any conflict of interest even in an assembly of councillors. Why isn’t this noted in the record? Why isn’t the nature of the conflict of interest included? Why are all directors present so that in effect this becomes a defacto council meeting behind closed doors? Is this an example of ‘winky pop’ in action? Or are we, the poor public, simply left to speculate on the state of each councillors’ bladder?

 

October 11, 2010

The Councillor Code of Conduct

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
Comments Off on The Councillor Code of Conduct 

Tomorrow night’s council meeting has a recommendation from its Local Laws review committee regarding the Councillor Code of Conduct. The recommendation reads – “No changes suggested’. Hence, it seems that Lipshutz, Tang and Pilling are satisfied with the current document!

Most of the current crop of Councillor Code of Conduct documents closely follow the stipulations set out in the Local Government Act. The act covers things like conflict of interest, integrity, honesty, community participation, etc. etc. It is relatively straight forward and most councils have policies which refer to, or cite the act –  and that’s it! Straight forward, no semantics, no ambiguity, no ‘directives’. Not Glen Eira however! Glen Eira has produced a weighty tome of 22 pages. In contrast, Port Phillip’s policy is 3 pages; Kingston’s policy is 2 pages and Bayside’s policy is 10 pages.  What on earth can these councils say in a fraction of the space that it takes Glen Eira to articulate?

Why is Glen Eira’s Councillor Code of Conduct so ‘fulsome’? What does it contain that no other council bothers to include? What is the reasoning behind such a detailed document? Below is a selection from this Code of Conduct. We’ve highlighted what we believe to be important sections. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions as to the intended impact of such clauses, the reasons for their existence, and the ramifications for the community. Finally, the central question is: do the following clauses improve governance, or are they intended to gag ‘dissidents’ within the councillor ranks, and to create further divides between council and the community? 

 “Demonstrating commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises;” 

There may be times when a Councillor as an individual disagrees with a majority decision of the Council and wants the community to know that. Although Councillors are entitled to present their own views, in doing so, each Councillor should nevertheless acknowledge that:…an overriding concern ought to be to achieve a balance in the matters that are communicated and to strive to achieve an outcome that presents the Council as effective and cohesive. 

Councillors have a duty to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions, giving reasons for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. 

Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings. In discussions leading up to such decisions, in Assembly of Councillor Meetings not open to the public, Councillors may explore a range of positions and express a range of views. Those views must not be reported outside those meetings. To do so would discourage full discussion of developing issues and the ability for Councillors to firm up their views as questions are answered and information provided.

 

October 10, 2010

Councillor Appraisal: The MAV Checklist

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
1 Comment 

Printed below are extracts from the Municipal Association of Victoria’s (MAV) publication “Citizen to Councillor: A Guide for Prospective Councillors.” As previously requested, please feel free to assess each councillor against the following job specifications and give them a ranking out of 5  – either as an overall mark, or for each criterion. 

  • Councillors guide the development of local policies, set service standards and priorities and monitor the performance of the organisation. Other responsibilities of councillors include determining the financial strategy and budget, allocating resources, and liaising with other levels of government, the private sector and non-government community groups. 
  • A major task for councillors is to represent their constituents and advocate on their behalf on a wide range of issues.  
  • Councillors, both individually and collectively, are accountable to their community. They have a responsibility to respond to requests for information, be prepared to explain the reasons for their own or the council’s actions, and defend council proposals.  
  • The process of drawing up the Council Plan generally includes consultation with the community and enables councillors to influence the direction of the council.  
  • Councillors contribute to the review of the council’s planning scheme including the Municipal Strategic Statement, and actively participate in the development of local planning policies to form a sound strategic basis for decision making.
  • Councillors provide an invaluable link between the community and council. A council should consult and engage its community and, in so doing, reflect the aspirations of that community. 
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »