December 17, 2015

Round 2 – Lobo V Hyams

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[30] Comments 

We draw readers’ attention first off to yesterday’s Leader article.

The following occurred towards the end of the meeting after countless flurries across the chamber on previous items and the defeat of another attempt by Delahunty to pass a motion. The item under discussion here was Delahunty’s Request for a Report following the two earlier unsuccessful attempts.

++++++++++

Delahunty moved that a report be done to ‘inform councillors of the best way to engage the community and police’ in an ‘open forum’ to ‘discuss the security of events’ on council land. The report should ‘also explain council’s role in managing risk’ and the role of police. Okotel seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that what she was hoping to do was ‘provide some moving off point’ from this ‘quagmire we find ourselves in’ and that ‘sections of our community feel more at risk than others’. Said that this was ‘unacceptable’ to all. Agreed with Lipshutz that it was ‘unacceptable’ to have armed guards ‘outside schools’ and synagogues. Council’s ‘role is one of leadership’ and ‘bringing the parties together’ so that people can understand and ‘question those feelings of a lack of safety’. Wanted the police to ‘hear those concerns’ and for them to ‘make suggestions as to what role they can play’ in alleviating these feelings of insecurity. Said that it is ‘right’ that ‘I want a little less guns’ and want ‘people in the community to come together and to discuss it’. Hoped that ‘we can move forward from here’ and wanted to ‘progress the issue and do something about it’. Said that what ‘we really need to do is engage in conversation’ and that’s the objective of the report request.

OKOTEL: said security is ‘of great importance’ to residents and thought a forum as a means ‘to commence dialogue’ was a good idea and would hopefully bring ‘tangible outcomes’. The report focused on events but she hoped it would be the ‘springboard’ for a wider discussion on ‘community safety’. Said that residents had contacted her about safety issues ‘around train stations’ for example. So hoped this could be the ‘beginning of an ongoing dialogue’ and ‘improving safety’.

MAGEE: said that recently police had run a forum on safety and it had covered events on public land and ‘talked about strategies within Glen Eira’. They revealed that the ‘police will only inform the community to a certain level’ and that ‘most of their methodology will not be discussed in public’. Number of police and the weapons they carry will ‘never be disclosed’. They said that they would be ‘happy’ to comment on any council event and to ‘give us advice’ as to how ‘they see security’ could be improved. But the ‘operational methodology of the Victoria Police stays within the Victoria Police’. Supported the report but thought that the advice they would get from the police would be about ratios of attendees to police and not operational. ‘What we don’t know is that second tier’ and what’s ‘standing off’ on the event. Report will ‘be good’ but ‘will be general’ and he ‘would be disappointed’ if the police did ‘give us detail’ about their operations.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Magee and since he didn’t think the ‘report is going to hurt’ he will support it. Thought it would make ‘good copy’ in the Leader. Said he can’t understand Delahunty saying she hates guns but votes against having ‘a high fence to protect kids at the Hadass School’ and wants operational matters disclosed so that for his ‘kids and families this is unacceptable too’.

LOBO: said that ‘security is important’ but ‘above all the communities have to integrate’ and if ‘communities work in a vacuum then this type of thing will happen’. Stated that the government protects everyone including Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff – ‘they have the best protection’ but ‘if you do these type of things people will target them more’. Stated that council shouldn’t be involved in security because ‘that is not our business’ and didn’t need to be ‘discussed with the police at all’. ‘I could have had a gun because I was called a terrorist in 2010’ (Note: this comment undoubtedly refers to an email by Lipshutz to Lobo asking if the bank that Lobo claims to have worked for in the Middle East was responsible for channelling funds to terrorist organisations). ‘I don’t have one so you don’t have to be worried’.

HYAMS: said that it ‘sounds uncomfortably like’ because the Jewish community ‘protects itself it is asking to be attacked’. He found Lobo’s comments ‘extremely disturbing’ and like ‘comments that have been made all through history by people with very bad character’. He ‘urged’ Lobo to ‘clarify what he meant by that’.

LOBO: said that ‘if you focus on yourself’ and that ‘you are the only one’ then ‘you are drawing attraction to others’.

HYAMS: ‘that comment shows such a lack of understanding’ of history that ‘it blows my mind’. Said that the ‘only reason’ that Jews are a ‘greater target’ than other groups is ‘because it draws attention to itself’. Wanted to know ‘what sort of a country are we living in’ when an ‘elected councillors’ can say ‘the reason you’re attacked is your fault’? ‘There are thousands of years of anti-semitism’ and the ‘Jewish community doesn’t ask’ for ‘what happens’ and they attempt to ‘protect themselves against what happens to it’. ‘That is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard said in a council chamber’. Asked Pilling to ask Lobo to ‘withdraw’.

Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw the last comment you made’.

LOBO: ‘I would be happy to retract’ but said that his point was ‘we should not isolate ourselves’.

Pilling asked Lobo again to retract his comment.

LOBO: ‘okay, I retract’.

Pilling asked Esakoff if she wanted to speak and she replied ‘no’.

SOUNNESS: said he supported the motion and ‘looked forward to a productive conversation’. About ‘bringing our community together’. Important to remember that ‘we are sharing our community together’ and ‘we should be enjoying the richness that all of us bring to the table’. Even thought the report ‘doesn’t say that’ thought that ‘we should be looking to how we can be united’.

PILLING: supported the motion. Didn’t think that ‘much’ would come out of it but ‘information’ is always good. Said that some of the comments made ‘are unnecessary’ and he warned Lobo that he will ‘call’ him if ‘you step out of line’ and ‘won’t give you the benefit of the doubt’ which ‘I have tonight’. ‘We are a good council and we should all work together’.

LOBO started to speak but Pilling stopped him.

DELAHUNTY: said that the motion was about a public forum and that she wasn’t asking ‘for operational details’. Said she found it insulting that some people’s ‘families’ should be more safer than ‘other people’s families’ Arguing that ‘nothing much will come’ of the report is ‘disheartening’ but this is only a request for a forum. Said she ‘isn’t asking for information from police’ just that they ‘show up’. And if they don’t show up then ‘that’s something we need to talk about as well’ because sections of the community for ‘one reason or another’ ‘feel that they are at greater risk than others’. Said she enjoys ‘a great life in Glen Eira’ and doesn’t feel unsafe. She isn’t touched by domestic violence but others are and ‘we discussed this around this table’ and they discussed ‘wearing white ribbons’ so now they are discussing people ‘feeling unsafe particularly because of their religious’ affiliations. It’s a ‘call for a report’ and not a ‘call for some really insulting comments’ to be made. ‘What an absolute disappointment that little discussion was’. Lipshutz ‘talks about living in the real world’. Said that ‘I live in the real world too’ and in ‘this real world I sought election so that I could change things’ and ‘this is one of the things I want to change’. So ‘we shouldn’t just be passing reports because it doesn’t hurt’ but to ‘do something’ and if ‘you can’t do something then get off the chair and let someone else have a go’. ‘This is absolutely ridiculous’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

December 16, 2015

Round 1 – Delahunty V Hyams

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

PS – ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW CEO

mck

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

DELAHUNTY: whilst reporting on this meeting, Delahunty referred to Item 8 of the minutes which stated – “The Committee noted the paper on changes to Council’s risk profile.”. Said ‘we had a paper presented’ and that she wanted the mover and seconder of the motion to accept the minutes of the advisory committees to ‘amend their resolutions’ in the minutes so that the ‘paper’ would be incorporated into these council minutes. This amendment was not accepted by Hyams and Lipshutz. Sounness seconded Delahunty’s amendment.

DELAHUNTY: asked Newton to confirm whether the paper presented to the Audit Committee was written by himself and whether he considers it to be confidential. Newton stated that he did write it and was confidential. Delahunty went on and said that she thought the paper would be available under FOI and that she thought it was ‘important’ for people to see ‘items such as this and how they reflect on the risk profile’ of the organisation. Said that council takes its ‘risk profile very seriously’. Said that the paper is about the changes to the risk profile ‘of the organisation as a whole’. Believed that ‘it is an important paper for the public to have access to’ and that ‘it would go some way’ to help people understand ‘some of the media reports’ of recent times. Asked councillors to find ‘in their hearts the transparency’ that is important and to release the paper because ‘the public is intelligent enough’ to ‘have a conversation about risk management’.

SOUNNESS: said he had attended the meeting and thought the paper was ‘factually important’ and highlights ‘the risks looked at by council’ and without specifying anything that he might feel ‘uncomfortable’ about some of ‘what those risks might be’.

HYAMS: thought that Delahunty’s implication that councillors didn’t want the item put into the ‘public’ domain was because councillors didn’t think residents were ‘intelligent’ enough and there were ‘lots of other reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order and stated ‘that’s not what I said’

HYAMS: ‘that’s exactly what you said’.

Pilling then asked Delahunty on ‘what point of order’ and she replied ‘on misrepresention’. Pilling fumbled and mumbled and asked Delahunty to ‘clarify’. Delahunty said that she said that she thought that residents were ‘intelligent enough’ and ‘did not infer’ that council thought otherwise.

HYAMS: stated that ‘Delahunty’s comments speak for themselves’. Continued that ‘there are plenty of other reasons’ why you might want to keep something confidential’. The Local Government Act has 9 such sections and so do other branches of government. Found it extraodinary that Delahunty could want the ‘underbelly’ of Council published and he was ‘sure’ that if the Audit Committee wanted it published they would have provided for this. Said he was ‘quite disappointed’ with the motion.

Delahunty then asked Newton that she thought it was Lipshutz who had asked for the ‘insurance map’ to ‘be released’ to full Council. Said that this was just ‘another example of Audit papers that come before council’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he is being ‘misrepresented’ and that he didn’t ask for this.

DELAHUNTY: apologised and said that she thought ‘it might have been’ Lipshutz and that it could have been someone else. But it is ‘still another example of audit papers’ released.

NEWTON: confirmed that something like this had been ‘suggested’. Said that there are papers that go to councillors and vice versa.

LOBO: claimed that the ‘basic responsibility’ of a councillor is to ‘heighten the awareness of residents of risk’. Said in this instant if the ‘servant is serving his master’ then it is the servant’s ‘responsibility to tell where the risk lies’ and ‘why we hiding all the time’ and that people’s ‘perception is that we are not trustworthy’. Thought it was ‘time to break’ this perception and ‘start a new year 2016’.

AMENDMENT PUT TO THE VOTE – VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

AGAINST – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESKAOFF, PILLING, OKOTEL, MAGEE

Original motion then put and speakers asked for.

LOBO: said that CEO is retiring and that there is ‘normally a procedure’ for an exit interview with a ceo ‘who has served more than a decade’. With Newton leaving ‘he could tell us what we do not know’ so ‘that’s another risk we may have’.

LIPSHUTZ: sprang up on a point of order.

DELAHUNTY: asked Pilling to determine the ‘grounds’ of Lipshutz’ point of order.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Lobo was ‘talking about what should happen’ and not ‘what did happen’.

DELAHUNTY: claimed that if this was about ‘relevance’ then the issue was ‘considered at number ten of the Audit Committee’.

PILLING then ‘over-ruled’ Lipshutz and said that the issue was raised at the audit committee.

LOBO: said that he was ‘used to rubbishing’.

LIPSHUTZ – another point of order and Pilling asked him to ‘speak to the issue at hand’.

LOBO: said he was speaking to the issue because ‘my masters are here’ (ie gallery). Said that they had ‘left’ the exit interview to the ‘discretion of the CEO’ and he ‘may or may not have accepted’ but ‘it is his responsibility to let us know why he resigned on the 20th October – a very good date’.

PILLING: said that it ‘is true’ that Lobo raised this at the audit committee meeting. The ‘offer was made’ to Newton and it ‘was declined’ and ‘that is the end of the story’. Said that it was ‘not mandatory’.

Motion put and carried. Voting against – Lobo, Sounness, Delahunty.

Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling, Magee

 

December 15, 2015

What A Sick Lot!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Just a very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. Full details in the days ahead. However, tonight’s events distinguished themselves by disclosing to a good sized gallery how governance and unity do not exist in Glen Eira. The animosity in chamber was palpable.

The lowlights –

  • insult after insult hurled across the chamber between various councillors – Lobo, Magee, Lipshutz, Hyams the main culprits
  • open government again the loser to the gang of six (Magee an enthusiastic joiner)
  • inconsistency in argument on vivid display once more
  • public questions basically fobbed off with non answers

On planning applications the results were –

  • 9 storey for Centre Road – unanimous refusal
  • Bent Street – permit (Lobo voting against)
  • Centre Road 5 storey and 63 units – permit
  • Murrumbeena 4 double storeys – permit
  • Nicholson Street Bentleigh – permit

Watch this space for our reports on what happened!

 

December 14, 2015

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave When We First Practice To Deceive?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

Apologies to the author for our misquoting this line in our heading. However here is a very carefully worded council Media Release designed no doubt to deflect recent public criticism of the Lipshutz/Hyams’ sponsored ‘guns in parks’ fiasco. Yet, it is the wording itself which only succeeds in raising numerous questions –

  • The media release refers to ‘current’ and ‘future’ events. What of PAST events – ie the Shabbat Project and (possibly) Chanukah in the Park?
  • The media release speaks of ‘administration’ of the Firearms Act? Surely ‘administration’ of an Act is distinct from seeking permission for licences? So the question becomes – did council seek permission from the ‘commissioner’, ‘police’ or anybody else with authority?

GECC_-_Firearms

PS – SOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

g

let

 

December 14, 2015

Agenda Items – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Item 9.2 – Centre Road/Browns Road, Bentleigh East.

Application is for a part 3 and part 5 storeys building and 67 dwellings. Officer recommendation is ‘up to 63 dwellings’. Of the 67 proposed dwellings 60 are to be single bedroom apartments, 6 double bedroom apartments and one 3 bedroom apartment. Officer recommendation is to ‘amalgamate’ some of these so that another 3 two bedroom apartments are created and one additional 3 bedroom apartment in the revised dwelling numbers of 63 units.

Whilst this represents an interesting new position in that this is the first time we remember an officer’s report commenting specifically on the issue of ‘diversity’ and imposing conditions that will only marginally increase the number of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, we remind readers of the following comments made by our wonderful councillors in previous decisions. Once again the question of consistency and arguably integrity (depending on who the applicant is) raises its ugly head.

HYAMS on the MRC Amended Plan for Caulfield Village where 3 bedroom apartments were gutted to create more single bedroom units so that just on 61% of the proposed 463 dwellings got the nod to be single bedroom dog boxes – “‘I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. . So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity.

PILLING (on same item) – On profit council has to look at the ‘planning process’. 26 3 bedroom places ‘are a plus’ but’ not for us to determine’. Said that council ‘can encourage but we can’t actually have that law’. And this also applies to ‘social housing’. This will ‘happen’ at some point and ‘it’s up to the developer to provide it’ even though council might like it in ‘every part of the development’. Just because council doesn’t ‘like’ it isn’t enough reason to vote against. Council has to make its decisions on ‘good planning’ processes such as the planning scheme, incorporated plan and development plan.

OKOTEL (same item) – was ‘concerned’ about the reduction of three bedroom apartments but she accepts that these could ‘be difficult to sell’ and ‘nobody wants to see vacant dwellings’ especially when ‘there is such a need for housing’. ‘It’s better that apartments are built and purchased’.

The above quotes speak for themselves!

 

 

December 13, 2015

Local Government Act Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

The Victorian Government is currently undertaking a review of the Local Government Act and it has appointed a Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee to assist with the task. It has invited public submissions which close next Friday 18 December. We strongly recommend that you make a submission to the review to register your concerns and to ask that the Local Government Act be amended to ensure that Glen Eira City Council is compelled to be a far more transparent and accountable institution.

With less than a week to go before submissions close, this Council is up to its old tricks. No formal resolution endorsing a submission; no submission made public and no discussion in chamber. Needless to say this is not how other councils are doing things – Bayside, Stonnington, etc. Whatever Glen Eira is submitting has been decided behind closed doors. This is one very good reason why the Act needs reforming.

Here are some suggestions to consider:

The Local Government Act should make it mandatory that:

  • All councils have Notice of Motion
  • All councils have ‘dissent from the chair’
  • All councils adhere to regular rotation of Audit Committee membership and council committee membership
  • All councils present live broadcasts of meetings
  • All councils publish agendas and full minutes for advisory committee meetings and that these meetings be open to the public
  • All CEO positions be advertised
  • No CEO be appointed for more than 2 consecutive contracts (ie a limit of ten years)
  • Staff Code of Conduct be published
  • Key Performance Indicators for CEO and senior staff be made public
  • Minutes to include how each councillor voted
  • The provision of open, timely and evidence based public consultation on major issues, including the public work shopping of significant issues
  • Community representation on all advisory committees
  • Public questions answered by individual councillors at start of meetings if question addressed to them
  • Ensure that budgets reflect community views

We are sure you will be aware of many other instances of systemic Council failure which can and should be remedied by appropriate reform of the Local Government Act. Please do so to assist to give the necessary weight to the changes we need in Glen Eira.

Your submission can be made through the Local Government Act review website at http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission or by post to Local Government Victoria, PO Box 500, Melbourne, VIC 3000, by no later than Friday 18 December 2015. Submitting through the website requires you to log in.

Alternatively (and you may find this easiest) simply send an email to hannah.wood@dewlp.vic.gov.au and clearly mark your submission for the attention of the Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee. Note: each submission is to be released publicly unless the submitter requests that it be withheld.

 

 

 

December 11, 2015

Agenda Items – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

In this post we will concentrate on two important aspects of council’s operations as they are depicted in the Agenda Items – (1) continued selective editing and publishing timeline of Assembly Meetings and (2) community consultation committee as a mirror of this administration’s attitude to genuine community consultation and representation.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Local Government Act (Section 80A) stipulates that  – The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable—

  • reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and
  • incorporated in the minutes of that Council

This is clearly not happening in Glen Eira. Minutes from the 27th October and from the 10th November are still to be tabled and made available. Yet, when we look at what has been published, the order is astounding and we believe quite deliberate. It is not therefore adhering to the Local Government Act but rather indulging in political machinations that attempt to keep certain items (like the guns in parks) under wraps for as long as possible. Why was the November the 4th assembly included in the minutes of the 24th November Council Meeting whilst the highly contentious 20th October meeting was only published for this agenda (15th December)? And what has happened to the missing Records of Assembly? Here are the respective council meetings and the Records of Assembly minutes published for each of these council meetings.

24/11/2015  Council Meeting

6 October

13 October

November 4th

15th December 2015 Council Meeting

20th October

17th November

24th November

Some items from these latest records deserve highlighting –

Cr Delahunty – can an update on the recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust be given. Councillors who are Trustees gave an update to the extent they were permitted to by the Trust’s Code of Conduct.

Cr Delahunty – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse.

Cr Sounness – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse. Role of the Private Building Surveyor.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

Quite frankly, we have to wonder why council even bothers in having this committee – apart from going through the motions and pretending that Glen Eira is so community conscious and ‘democratic’. Meeting after meeting achieves bugger all in our view. Here is the evidence to support this claim –

The committee minutes of 19th February 2015 show that a presentation was made by Iain Walker of the New Democracy Foundation. The foundation is geared towards ‘the idea of citizen juries’ and to ‘place decision making in the hands of community members’. The minutes also state that ‘discussion on selection process, structure of juries, methods used, authority given to the jury and costs occurred’ took place. The ‘Action Item’ was for officers to send Mr Walker a ‘letter of thanks’!

Now 2 meetings later we get this morphed situation –

Report on how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and advise about any statutory obstacles which may impede implementation

A report was presented that provided an overview of how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and the statutory issues in pursuing this approach. The report identified that the approach has been used in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, US and Canada. It has been adopted as a way of engaging citizens and ensuring that local government spending reflects the needs of local communities. Australia has developed their own particular take on participatory budgeting that seeks informed recommendations on budget decisions through the citizen jury or panel format.

Although there are no statutory limitations or requirements for the implementation of participatory budgeting process, there are some potential restrictions that need consideration in exploring application of such a model. The most pertinent include:

  • Council consists of democratically elected members who are afforded the responsibility to govern and make decisions on matters affecting their municipality and community.
  • There are substantial costs associated with implementing a quality participatory budgeting process.(New Democracy Foundation estimates $85-90,000)

Any recommendations made by a participatory budgeting process are still required to be approved by normal Council arrangements. According to the Local Government Act 1989, Councillors are the legal authority to make decisions whilst participating as a member of the Council in a formal council meeting.

Action: Further discussion participatory budgeting and options for Council to use this approach to be on agenda for the next meeting in February. Officers to contact the ‘New Democracy Foundation’ to discuss options for a participatory budget process including costs and timelines.

 

COMMENTS – There is nothing in any of the minutes to indicate that ‘participatory budgeting’ was now the focus instead of ‘citizen juries’ in general (based on the previous Iain Walker presentation. No doubt it will take another 3 or 4 meetings (ie at least a year) for anything to happen. And it would be so wonderful if instead of highlighting the presumed ‘negatives’ of an issue, the ‘positives’ were also included! But then, that is the Glen Eira way – pretend to listen, then do nothing. As we’ve previously stated – progress in this council occurs at glacial speed!

Some other examples of inexplicable tardiness follow –

Minutes of 27th May feature this gem – Discussion occurred on what Council should consult on and whether new Council policies should be subject of community consultation. The discussion was adjourned to a future meeting so that John Fien could begin. Result? This fundamental issue has now disappeared into the dustbin of history!

Minutes of 19th August 2015 include this – The committee considered that the use of social media could enhance community engagement and that an increased use of social media would be of benefit to Council. Action Item – Officers to prepare a paper setting out how other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced.

But this current set of minutes includes the following –

Report – How other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced –This report is being prepared by Community Relations and will be presented at the next meeting of this committee in February 2016. Thus in Glen Eira it takes at least 6 months for anything to even be initiated much less implemented.

The best however comes with this from the current minutes –

Definition of consultation and informing the community

Susan McKenna (community representative) sought clarification on Council’s definition of consultation. In the Community Engagement Strategy; consultation is described as obtaining community feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. This definition reflects the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), Public Participation Spectrum.

Susan stated that the revised plans for the Booran Road Reservoir development are not currently on the Council website.

Action: Councillors present committed to raising these issues at a future Assembly of Councillors

Comments: SO WE’VE NOW HAD A COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE GOING FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS AND THE BASICS REMAIN UNCLEAR. We also know that officer reports are tabled at these meetings but never made public. We also know that past community reps have found the process completely unsatisfactory and resented the continual doctoring of minutes or very selective inclusions. We offer our commiserations to the current crop of community reps who no doubt are trying their utmost to ensure that improvements are made but are continually stymied by a culture that sees no place for community views, much less genuine participation and god forbid ’empowerment’ for the community!

 

 

December 9, 2015

Secrecy & More Secrecy!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

The recent outcry against the secret vote for ‘guns in parks’ highlighted once again how Glen Eira continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy and abuse of the legislation. In 2011 we featured a post which itemised the number of decisions made in camera and the number of decisions which were subsequently reported in the minutes (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/

Not too much has changed since. Countless items that feature in the agenda papers for in camera decision making are not reported in the subsequent minutes and what is even worse, there is no explanation as to why only some items include the number of applicants for the tender, the criteria, and most importantly the estimated cost. Countless others simply describe the vague nature of the tender and that’s it!

But the most damning indictment of all is that an examination of the minutes proves once and for all how decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny.  On the 8th April, 2014 the following tender appeared in the in camera agenda items –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of a contract for refurbishment of the Caulfield Park Conservatory Number of tenders received 8; Number of evaluation criteria tenders

assessed against 3

Estimated contract value $250,000

No outcome for this item was recorded. Yet at the very next Council Meeting (29th April, 2014) there is the extraordinary report and subsequent vote to demolish the conservatory – despite 2 rounds of public consultation and 2 previous resolutions that demanded it be maintained and restored. So what happened on the 8th April that caused this change of heart? What did it cost to produce and advertise the tender documents? Or is it the case that behind closed doors on the 8th April it was decided to scuttle the debate and the subsequent meeting was merely to ‘ratify’ an already made decision? Even if we are wrong here, it does not say much for council and councillors when public money is wasted on tendering and within three weeks this all comes to nought!

Things get even worse with the following –

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works (21st July 2015)

Nothing was forthcoming. Hence residents had no idea – (1) if a contract was awarded (2) what was the price and (3) exactly what does ‘associated works’ really mean.

There are other gems too which illustrate the nastiness and internal bickering that has been part of Glen Eira ever since Newton set foot in the place. Here are some examples – again not disclosed and we can only wonder how much more of ratepayer funds went into lawyers’ pockets without disclosing the amounts –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (9th April, 2013)

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (6th November 2013)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.3 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the contract for Community Energy Efficiency Program.

12.2 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.(11th June 2013)

The results of the following items were not disclosed in the minutes –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for the provision of legal services.

Number of tenders received 5

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against 5

12.4 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (17th December 2013)

which relates to the contract for internal audit services

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of prequalified supplier panel for the procurement of trucks

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for processing of organic waste

12.4 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to the appointment of Community representatives to the Citizen of the Year Awards Committee

 

But the one we love the best is the ubiquitous nonsense of – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter.

12.4 under s89 (2)(f) ‘legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct.

12.1 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee (4th February 2014)

12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to insurance

12.3 under s89 (2) (f) “legal advice” which relates to “Code of Conduct – Possible Additions” (july 22nd 2014)

12.2 under (f) “legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct. (18th March 2014)

12.5 under s89(2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to additional open space.

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for Tender 2014.043 Provision of Wide Area Network (Wan) Infrastructure

12.5 Under section S89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” Open Space Strategy – gap areas. This report does not recommend any acquisition of any housing. (5th September 2015)

 12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works 21st july 2015

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates the appointment of a contractor for the supply of fuel for Council’s vehicle fleet.

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to disposal of general household waste

12.0 under s89(2)(a) “personnel”, minutes of Community Consultation Advisory Committee meeting of 19 February 2015 relating to nominations received for Community Representatives on the Committee

Thus it goes on an on. Why on earth residents can’t be told who is the contractor for disposal of general household waste’ or who will be the supplier for fuel and how much this will cost, is literally beyond us. Why the secrecy? Or is it all designed to make it that much more difficult to follow the money trail and to see who is getting what?

We should also be prepared for the fact that when the new Code of Conduct comes out post election that there will be the attempt no doubt to gag councillors even more. You don’t spend thousands upon thousands on lawyers and then maintain the status quo! And please remember that the legislation does not MANDATE in camera decision making. It merely suggests that councils ‘MAY’ decide to deem certain items confidential. In Glen Eira this has come to mean practically everything whilst other councils are prepared to publish their decision making on commercial tenders Glen Eira doesn’t. Whilst other councils are prepared to publish their ceo performance assessments, Glen Eira doesn’t. And whilst other councils are far more specific in their descriptions of confidential items Glen Eira is content to say again and again – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. That is double speak at its absolute best and indicative of a council who pays no credence to their obligations of transparency and accountability.

 

 

December 9, 2015

Council Sell-Outs!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

When it comes to the MRC, Council turns a blind eye again and again.

Two days ago the CMFEU had their annual picnic day at the racecourse. Contrary to the so called ‘agreement’ –

  • Cars were parked in the centre of the racecourse – a definite ‘no-no’
  • No traffic wardens to manage the mayhem – although radio reports kept warning motorists to stay clear of the area
  • No warning to residents
  • No clarity as to whether this constitutes a ‘major’ event or not?
  • In short, council simply lets the MRC do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

029

The Caulfield Village is now really taking shape along Station St and residents should not be surprised to find that what was supposed to be a 5 storey building (according to the Incorporated Plan of 2011) became a 6 storey building with the Development Plan. Please also note how balconies are now allowed to intrude as far as they like into the setbacks – courtesy of another Amendment that was gleefully promoted by council. We can hardly wait for all the other cave-ins to occur when the next set of Development plans come in for the remaining two precincts. Well done council for selling out residents completely!

005

 

December 8, 2015

Guns In Parks?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

PS – AND HERE’S PILLING’S EFFORT WITH NEIL MITCHELL -http://www.3aw.com.au/news/glen-eira-mayor-refuses-to-answer-sensational-gun-claims-20151208-gli2e4.html

Delahunty’s interview on yesterday’s Neil Mitchell program –

https://audioboom.com/boos/3912931-glen-eira-councillor-mary-delahunty-with-neil-mitchell

leader

Our following comments are directed to the processes that surround the in camera Special Council Meeting of 20th October 2015.

Council’s Local Law categorically states that ‘urgent business’ will only be entertained under Section 225(1) –if a matter of an urgent nature has arisen since circulation of the notice paper and the Council resolves to consider the matter as urgent business

How can something be considered as ‘urgent business’ when –

  • The records of assembly for the 6th October contain the following – Cr Lipshutz – letter to Cr Hyams from the Jewish Community Security Group. With the Shabbat Project approaching Council needs to deal with the issues raised in the letter AND
  • From the records of assembly for the 13th October – Agenda Item 10 – Urgent Business – Cr Lipshutz, Security at community events.

The Shabbat Project is an annual event. It is not something that crops up at the last minute. We also don’t know the date of the letter to Hyams and why it should come not from the official organisers, but the ‘security group’. If the matter was really that urgent then legislation provides the means for a Special Council Meeting to be called at any time – either by the Mayor alone or with the signatures of 3 councillors.

The whole process appears to be continually mired in controversy and is fast becoming a divisive item. Here is an extract from the Minutes of September 23rd, 2014. Poor process and lack of good governance are evident – ie ‘the rescinding of a ‘council decision’ via email – when no such decision is recorded in any of council’s minutes as far as we know!

URGENT BUSINESS

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That a matter of the Shabbat Project be regarded as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

(a) Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

  1. That Council rescind its decision contained in the email to Mr Tom Winter on 19 September 2014.
  2. That subject to any prior bookings that Council hire the meeting room at the Caulfield Park Pavillion to the organisers of the Shabbat Project (the organisers) for the 25 October 2014 (the date) on Council’s usual terms and conditions and grant a permit to the organisers for the use of Caulfield Park on the date for the purposes set out in their application including a permit for the use of fireworks subject to Council’s usual terms and conditions including but not limited to:

(i) Compliance with all safety requirements in relation to the use of fireworks;

(ii) There being no interference or damage to the cricket pitch area; and

(iii) There being no interference with the use of the ovals for sport on the date and the following day.

DIVISION

Cr Sounness called for a DIVISION on the voting of the MOTION

FOR                 AGAINST

Cr Lipshutz     Cr Delahunty

Cr Hyams        Cr Sounness

Cr Okotel        Cr Magee

Cr Pilling         Cr Lobo

The MOTION was put and CARRIED on the Casting Vote of the Chairperson.

The Shabbat Project mentioned in the first record of assembly for 2015 featured numerous events in Melbourne (October 22nd).The Age also ran a story including this paragraph – In Melbourne, meanwhile, Jews of all ages and from all denominations were united in the spirit of the occasion, with more than 2400 people baking challah and attending the havdalah concert at Caulfield Park, and hundreds attending dinners, lunches, shul services, picnics, talks and everything in between.

Thus the question remains whether Council’s secret resolution was to provide ‘security’ for the Shabbat Program alone, or to ensure that Chanukah in the Park was able to switch from Caulfield Park to the racecourse once fears arose it might be cancelled altogether.

Further complicating matters is this Age report from November 23rd 2015 reporting on the ‘cancellation’ of Chanukah in the Park (See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/security-risks-prompt-cancellation-of-jewish-event-chanukah-in-the-park-20151123-gl5po9.html). Of interest in this article are the views of several prominent Jewish Leaders who claimed that the event should still have occurred at Caulfield Park and that security was not a problem. The Leader (December 1st issue) claims that the event at Caulfield Park was cancelled on November 25th and once again it is claimed that the event could have gone on as originally intended. Whatever the ‘official’ date for ‘cancellation’ it is clear that ‘security’ was well and truly on the minds of Lipshutz and Hyams from early October. Whether this was strictly for the Shabbat Project events or intended to carry over to Chanukah in the Park is anyone’s guess.

In a ‘memorandum’ dated the 15th October Magee called for a Special Council Meeting. An Age advertisement appeared on the 16th October. That makes it 4 days prior to the actual Special Council meeting. The legislation (Section 89(4) requires 7 days notice. If notice is any shorter then the legislation also requires that Council MUST – specify the urgent or extraordinary circumstances which prevented the Council from complying with subsection (4) in the minutes. This has not been done.

We could also question whether the reasons given to conduct the meeting in secret are valid (ie security of land, etc) since the clauses quoted are only applicable to council meetings and Special Committee Meetings. There is nothing in the cited legislation which provides Special Council Meetings to be closed to the public!

Thus we get to the Special Council Meeting of 20th October and the highly questionable reasons for excluding the public. We quote –

“matters affecting the security of Council property” AND “any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person”.

The final phrase of the motion is important – which relates to the provision of security services for events on Council property.

If the switch to the racecourse was the objective, then we maintain that the above justifying clauses are entirely spurious since –

  • The Racecourse is NOT ‘COUNCIL PROPERTY’
  • What ‘prejudice’ to council or ‘any person’ could exist? And what does this even mean?
  • Did the Trustee’s who have responsibility for the Reserve give their permission?
  • Did any ‘negotiations’ take place with the MRC?
  • And who has the final authority to allow the carrying of firearms by anyone?
  • Who grants permits for the carrying of firearms?
  • What are the implications for long term = does this mean that at every Ajax footy or cricket game residents can expect guards with firearms?
  • And what if Ajax is playing ‘away’ – since the clause specifies ‘council property’, or
  • Was this all designed only for Chanukah in the Park, or for the Shabbat Project and what of the future?

And of course, there is the perennial question of WHO LEAKED to the Leader? Only officers and councillors would have been present at this secret tete-a-tete. Will the Leader journalist now be hauled off to court in the attempt to reveal his source as happened years ago with Matthew Dunkley? Hasn’t this Council learnt anything? – that secrecy only breeds suspicion and distrust.

Yes, Glen Eira Council is definitely one happy bunch of campers where so much is done behind closed doors. Countless questions remain as to what really goes on behind these closed doors and how the ‘victim’ is always transparency and good governance.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »