Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Some more 'keystone cops' stuff!
A friend of a friend has just told me this wonderful story about further clowncil stuff ups!! Seems like there were two metal frames at the entry of a pathway to a park. For three months, this friend of a friend, rang clowncil to ask, then complain, about the fact that these 'obstacles' were placed too close together and thus her husband who is in a wheelchair couldn't get through. Well finally, after threatening them with non compliance to the Disability Act, clowncil finally sent its genuises down to 'fix the problem'. What did they achieve? Nothing less that drilling into a major water main, so that literally thousands and thousands litres of precious water went down the drain!! One would have thought that before any such work is carried out, someone would have the sense to check on the exact location of drains, pipes, etc. I'm sure that if this had been done by an ordinary resident, then they would have hell to pay - but of course, being clowncil - it's us the ratepayers who will compensate South East Water, for all losses, etc. Ah, another example of clowncil at its best!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Residents are always the last to know!!!!
Well, this clowncil's administration is at it again it seems! Having secured over $460,000 from the Commonwealth, we residents are still in the dark as to how this money will be spent. The fact that Bayside is able to inform its residents of where and how their $300,000+ allocation will be used says heaps about Bayside, and in contrast damns Glen Eira. But even more important is the fact that applications for the 50 million grants for major infrastructure projects closed yesterday - the 23rd of December. Did Glen Eira apply? If so, for which projects? Why wasn't anything said at the last council meeting in December? The fact that Esakoff could move an 'urgent business' item asking for council to 'lobby' the state government over rail/road separation only makes this omission to inform and discuss even more striking. If urgent matters can be raised about lobbying, then surely 'urgent matters' can be raised about applications which close in a week's time.
This is really a governance issue. If a funding application did go in then who was involved in the decision making, the prioritising of potential infrastructure projects, and finally, why wasn't this brought up at council meeting so that the community would know exactly what was going on? I'm also wondering if an application did go in, then was the 'aquatic centre" the designated project? My understanding was that any decision on the aquatic centre was to be made by this new council. If an application has been submitted, and funding approved, then it will be damn hard, or embarrassing to knock back the funding - so it again takes decisions away from councillors, in effect rendering them as superfluous. If no application was submitted, then it is again a damning criticism of glen eira for its failure to at least attempt to gain some benefit for its residents.
This is really a governance issue. If a funding application did go in then who was involved in the decision making, the prioritising of potential infrastructure projects, and finally, why wasn't this brought up at council meeting so that the community would know exactly what was going on? I'm also wondering if an application did go in, then was the 'aquatic centre" the designated project? My understanding was that any decision on the aquatic centre was to be made by this new council. If an application has been submitted, and funding approved, then it will be damn hard, or embarrassing to knock back the funding - so it again takes decisions away from councillors, in effect rendering them as superfluous. If no application was submitted, then it is again a damning criticism of glen eira for its failure to at least attempt to gain some benefit for its residents.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Red face, gold chains, it's all so embarrassing
Suzanne Carbone, Lawrence MoneyDecember 19, 2008
"GUESS who has donned the mayoral robes at Glen Eira? None other than the Florence Nightingale of municipal politics, Helen Mary Whiteside. Good old Hel has given an interview to the local rag in which Her Worship was asked her "most embarrassing moment". Replied Whiteside: "Too many to list."
Yeah, we can believe that. Remember when she was elected in 2005, swept to victory in Camden ward on the strength of her credentials in medicine? "As a registered nurse," she said in her Electoral Commission statement, "(I've) worked for the Department of Community Services … the time is now right … to contribute to the community."
But, although she had been a nurse once, she wasn't any longer. Whiteside was — this is embarrassing — a real estate sales chick for Marshall White. When Diary phoned her, she said: "I am not working as a nurse. There is no further comment." We asked if she was the same Helen Mary Whiteside who had her knuckles rapped by Consumer Affairs Victoria in 2003 for breaching the Estate Agents Act by "allowing material contained in a website to be displayed as she is not a licensed estate agent". Said Whiteside: "I'm not aware of that." Then she hung up. However, the Consumer Affairs website seemed aware and gave this assurance: "Ms Whiteside undertook to comply with the act requirements."
So many embarrassments, so little time".
"GUESS who has donned the mayoral robes at Glen Eira? None other than the Florence Nightingale of municipal politics, Helen Mary Whiteside. Good old Hel has given an interview to the local rag in which Her Worship was asked her "most embarrassing moment". Replied Whiteside: "Too many to list."
Yeah, we can believe that. Remember when she was elected in 2005, swept to victory in Camden ward on the strength of her credentials in medicine? "As a registered nurse," she said in her Electoral Commission statement, "(I've) worked for the Department of Community Services … the time is now right … to contribute to the community."
But, although she had been a nurse once, she wasn't any longer. Whiteside was — this is embarrassing — a real estate sales chick for Marshall White. When Diary phoned her, she said: "I am not working as a nurse. There is no further comment." We asked if she was the same Helen Mary Whiteside who had her knuckles rapped by Consumer Affairs Victoria in 2003 for breaching the Estate Agents Act by "allowing material contained in a website to be displayed as she is not a licensed estate agent". Said Whiteside: "I'm not aware of that." Then she hung up. However, the Consumer Affairs website seemed aware and gave this assurance: "Ms Whiteside undertook to comply with the act requirements."
So many embarrassments, so little time".
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Idiot of the year award goes to.......
I stood there, laughing uncontrollably at the sight of this latest engineering feat of Glen Eira Clowncil. How many brains does it take to properly install a doggy drinking fountain and a drain? Well at Glen Eira it must take many, many Einsteins if this is the result of their work! Yes, folks, our rates are literally down the drain. Who oversees this? Who takes responsibility?The photo is from Joyce Park.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Listening or being stone deaf?
This week's Leader newspaper features a large colour photo of newly elected Mayor Whiteside. Her stated manifesto is 'listening to the community'. Well, according to reliable sources, last night's council meeting was the first real opportunity for this statement to be put into practice. All failed dismally to provide credence to the claim that such statements are nothing more than rhetoric, without substance. It appears that an objector was denied permission to address council on a planning issue. Also, a petition was refused tabling. Now this is what I really call 'listening to the community'!! If rules and regulations are allowed to over-ride the community's right to express their views, then how on earth can councillors be said to be 'listening to the community'. Why do they repeatedly permit the letter of the law to over-ride the spirit of the law? This has been far from an auspicious start by our newly elected representatives. I sincerely hope that this represents nothing more than an aberration and will be immediately remedied. If not, then the community has every right to disbelieve in such manifestoes as uttered by Whiteside.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A conundrum - 'please explain'!!!!!
I am reliably told that the series of speed humps along McKinnon road, those passing the high school - have suddenly and mysteriously been ripped up and are now gone - vanished, disappeared, banished into the dustbin of history! Now after spending a fortune installing them, recent resurfacing of the road, not to mention protecting all the little kiddies who attend McKinnon High - why have they gone? Is this another example of the genius of Glen Eira clowncil's traffic management? Will they be replaced? If so, at what cost? and why were these perfectly good speed humps then removed after probably only about two years? Which Einstein makes such decisions? Can anyone provide the answers?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
What's in a word?
What does the substitution/addition of ONE SINGLE WORD in a clowncil media release headline indicate about the workings, and supposedly changed attitudes of this clowncil to pets? In a December 2007 media release the headline read = "Pets - not ideal Christmas gifts". In 2008, this same media headline is rehashed, to now read - "Pets — not necessarily ideal gifts this festive season". Come on clowncil!!! Surely with the salaries being paid, those who create such releases could be a little more inventive, creative, and desist from year after year trotting out the same spin? Finally, to show readers how little is actually changed I include the entire release from 2007 and 2008. Repetition is not only boring, but displays lack of imagination and creativity!!
From 2007 -
Owning a pet can be rewarding, but the level of commitment it requires is often higher thanexpected. As a result, thousands of pets are abandoned each year.
With Christmas only weeks away, a pet may seem like the ideal gift. However, pet ownership is a big responsibility and many factors should be considered before making the decision. Council urges potential owners to think about the expense involved in keeping a pet, how much space and exercise it will need and who else the pet’s arrival may affect.
Making an informed decision about the most appropriate pet for your circumstances will stop it from becoming one of the thousands dumped in the streets or left in pounds each year. Council is also urging residents to understand that not all stray pets have been abandoned and if you find a stray cat or dog, it is the law to report and surrender the animal to Council.
Manager Civic Compliance John Bordignon said some residents do not report a found pet and instead take it into their care.
“Residents may feel they are saving a pet’s life by not reporting it found, but in fact, they are causing more harm than good,” Mr Bordignon said.
“If a pet has been lost for some time, it may be unwell,” Mr Bordignon said, “Council provides the necessary care at the pound to ensure the pet returns to full health.”
Mr Bordignon said reporting a found pet can save the correct owners a great deal of heartache.
Decreasing the number of unwanted animals or lost pets is possible through responsible pet ownership. If you are confident you can give a pet a good home and be responsible, have the pet registered with Council.
For more information regarding responsible pet ownership or to report a found or missing dog or cat, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or visit www.gleneira.vic.gov.au
AND THE LATEST PIECE DE RESISTANCE -
With the festive season fast approaching, a pet may seem like the ideal gift, however, pet ownership is a big responsibility and many factors should be considered before making the decision.
Glen Eira City Council is encouraging all potential owners to think about the expense involved in keeping a pet, how much space and exercise it will need and who else the pet’s arrival may affect.
Council’s Manager Civic Compliance John Bordignon said owning a pet can be rewarding, but the level of commitment it requires is often higher than expected.
"Making an informed decision about the most appropriate pet for your circumstances will stop it from becoming one of the hundreds dumped in the streets or left in pounds each year," Mr Bordignon said.
Mr Bordignon said it is also important for residents to understand that not all stray pets have been abandoned and if they find a stray cat or dog, by law they have to report and surrender the animal to Council.
"Some residents do not report a found pet and instead take it into their care," Mr Bordignon said.
"Residents may feel they are saving a pet’s life by not reporting it found, but in fact, they are potentially causing more harm than good."
For further information regarding responsible pet ownership, or to report a found or missing dog or cat, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or visit www.gleneira.vic.gov.au
From 2007 -
Owning a pet can be rewarding, but the level of commitment it requires is often higher thanexpected. As a result, thousands of pets are abandoned each year.
With Christmas only weeks away, a pet may seem like the ideal gift. However, pet ownership is a big responsibility and many factors should be considered before making the decision. Council urges potential owners to think about the expense involved in keeping a pet, how much space and exercise it will need and who else the pet’s arrival may affect.
Making an informed decision about the most appropriate pet for your circumstances will stop it from becoming one of the thousands dumped in the streets or left in pounds each year. Council is also urging residents to understand that not all stray pets have been abandoned and if you find a stray cat or dog, it is the law to report and surrender the animal to Council.
Manager Civic Compliance John Bordignon said some residents do not report a found pet and instead take it into their care.
“Residents may feel they are saving a pet’s life by not reporting it found, but in fact, they are causing more harm than good,” Mr Bordignon said.
“If a pet has been lost for some time, it may be unwell,” Mr Bordignon said, “Council provides the necessary care at the pound to ensure the pet returns to full health.”
Mr Bordignon said reporting a found pet can save the correct owners a great deal of heartache.
Decreasing the number of unwanted animals or lost pets is possible through responsible pet ownership. If you are confident you can give a pet a good home and be responsible, have the pet registered with Council.
For more information regarding responsible pet ownership or to report a found or missing dog or cat, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or visit www.gleneira.vic.gov.au
AND THE LATEST PIECE DE RESISTANCE -
With the festive season fast approaching, a pet may seem like the ideal gift, however, pet ownership is a big responsibility and many factors should be considered before making the decision.
Glen Eira City Council is encouraging all potential owners to think about the expense involved in keeping a pet, how much space and exercise it will need and who else the pet’s arrival may affect.
Council’s Manager Civic Compliance John Bordignon said owning a pet can be rewarding, but the level of commitment it requires is often higher than expected.
"Making an informed decision about the most appropriate pet for your circumstances will stop it from becoming one of the hundreds dumped in the streets or left in pounds each year," Mr Bordignon said.
Mr Bordignon said it is also important for residents to understand that not all stray pets have been abandoned and if they find a stray cat or dog, by law they have to report and surrender the animal to Council.
"Some residents do not report a found pet and instead take it into their care," Mr Bordignon said.
"Residents may feel they are saving a pet’s life by not reporting it found, but in fact, they are potentially causing more harm than good."
For further information regarding responsible pet ownership, or to report a found or missing dog or cat, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or visit www.gleneira.vic.gov.au
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A 'mandate for change'
In this week's Leader, Nick Staikos is cited as stating: "The strong result in Tucker is a mandate for change'. One can only hope that this 'change' extends far beyond the boundaries of Tucker ward and includes Camden and Rosstown as well! If voting trends can be believed, then Nick certainly has the support from the community for 'change' - ie. improving child care services with the acquisition of the ABC centre and ensuring the longevity of the Bentleigh Pool. But this is only the start I would suggest.
If real 'change' is to come to Glen Eira, then it must be more than a mere tinkering at the edges, or the acquisition of a few childcare centres, and paying lip service to an environmental policy. Real change involves a revolution in thinking and in ethos. This means accepting the fact that what is important is direct community involvement in all facets of decision making. Advisory committees must be established that include representation by all stakeholder groups and furthermore, meetings of these committees must be open to the public. Community reps must also be given full voting rights. Currently all clowncil advisory committees are denied this basic right - we are therefore seen as nothing more than second class citizens!
Change is also desperately needed in the manner that council interacts with its constituency. Arrogance, refusal to directly answer public questions, and repeated stonewalling are not acceptable if the vision of transparency and accountability are to be realised. By repeatedly adopting the minimalist approach (ie the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit of the law') in its dealings with the community, this council has to a great extent forfeited the respect and trust of the public. It will take a concerted effort by all councillors to turn such perceptions around. I sincerely wish them the best of luck, and hope that their aspirations of overseeing a truly democratic institution come to fruition.
If real 'change' is to come to Glen Eira, then it must be more than a mere tinkering at the edges, or the acquisition of a few childcare centres, and paying lip service to an environmental policy. Real change involves a revolution in thinking and in ethos. This means accepting the fact that what is important is direct community involvement in all facets of decision making. Advisory committees must be established that include representation by all stakeholder groups and furthermore, meetings of these committees must be open to the public. Community reps must also be given full voting rights. Currently all clowncil advisory committees are denied this basic right - we are therefore seen as nothing more than second class citizens!
Change is also desperately needed in the manner that council interacts with its constituency. Arrogance, refusal to directly answer public questions, and repeated stonewalling are not acceptable if the vision of transparency and accountability are to be realised. By repeatedly adopting the minimalist approach (ie the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit of the law') in its dealings with the community, this council has to a great extent forfeited the respect and trust of the public. It will take a concerted effort by all councillors to turn such perceptions around. I sincerely wish them the best of luck, and hope that their aspirations of overseeing a truly democratic institution come to fruition.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Winds are still blowing!!
Well the votes are in and it looks like Whiteside has got in by the skin of her teeth - thanks to preferences from several other candidates. What should however be noted, is that in comparison to the other successful incumbents, Whiteside was the only candidate whose primary vote went DOWN compared to the previous election. So, what does this say? That she is not 'high profiled' enough? That some people have been disappointed with her performance? perhaps it would behove Cr. Whiteside to stop thumping council chamber tables and concentrate on real planning issues - ie reforming the Glen Eira MSS for starters! Also, if she is to declare herself as 'green', then perhaps her voting pattern should reflect this - ie. Caufield Park pavilion and solar/water saving devices? Finally, this election has brought four new faces to council chambers. I remain optimistic that the core issues of governance, transparency, and open debate will be progressed and taken seriously at last.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The winds of change
If current predictions (Monday 12.30pm) are accurate, then the glen eira community has to a large extent voted for a different style of council - one that will take note of its major concerns. Neil Pilling's election in Rosstown, reinforces the importance that environment has for the community. Jim Magee's probable election also shows what the community expects in terms of servicing local areas. The defeat of Whiteside, and the probably reduced primary vote of Lipshutz again indicates that when councillors opt to ignore community viewpoints, they do so at their own peril (ie Friends of Caulfield Park). Peter blight, Barbara gigson, etc. must be congratulated for their strong showing, and hopefully the election of Blight. Frank Penhalluriack's vote is again another strong vote for change and for concentration on local issues. Spaulding I'm afraid has been his own worst enemy through a lack lustre performance as councillor. Finally, Jamie Hyams probably election is also to be welcomed. Previously as a councillor, he was undoubtedly one of the most diligent and hardworking. I am sure this will continue. All in all, I am hopeful that with only 4 of the previous 9 councillors returning, that this will represent a total change in ethos, process, and governance. Perhaps then I can start claiming that we really do have a representative COUNCIL and not a CLOWNCIL!!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Bluff, bluster and bullies
Last night's clowncil meeting was typical of the tactics that are employed in order to try and silence any criticism. One individual was singled out by Lipshutz for potentially running the risk of being prosecuted for defamation. Why? Because she, like myself, has had the gall to raise questions about how much council officers get paid for doing their jobs in comparison to the pay scales of neighbouring councils. It appears that posting such information is 'defamatory' because it highlights the true facts.
But what I most resent is the public attempt to stifle discussion, to intimidate, and thus to silence!!! This is not something new for Lipshutz - he has done it time and time again (ie friends of caulfield park). May I suggest to this mouthpiece of the administration, that perhaps he should be careful in regard to his words - since this also amounts to 'defamation'!!!!!!
But what I most resent is the public attempt to stifle discussion, to intimidate, and thus to silence!!! This is not something new for Lipshutz - he has done it time and time again (ie friends of caulfield park). May I suggest to this mouthpiece of the administration, that perhaps he should be careful in regard to his words - since this also amounts to 'defamation'!!!!!!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Vote the bastards out!!!
The heading for this post is not made lightly! I truly believe that it is time for some radical changes in this clowncil. For far too long, this community has been satisfied with less that full representation by its elected councillors. They stand on their record and it is far from impressive. Community views have been ignored time and time again. If one bothers to read the variety of submissions made on 'consultation', 'community plans', 'budgets', 'domestic animal management policy', 'pavilions', 'swimming pools', etc. etc. etc. then it becomes plainly obvious that almost nothing that people have bothered to suggest, comment upon, and plan for, have ended up as official clowncil policy. The question is why. Why has this bunch of councillors steadfastly refused to listen to what the community wants? Why haven't they had the courage to vote against what the administration puts forward? Why haven't they done their jobs properly? The time for excuses and self promotion that we find on all their flyers is far from the reality and voters should be aware of this.
My conclusion is that we need new blood. Hence I strongly advocate that the following candidates receive careful consideration.
Camden - blight, Gisbson, Forge
Rosstown - Pilling, Dunstan
Tucker - Magee, Lobo, Hyams
My conclusion is that we need new blood. Hence I strongly advocate that the following candidates receive careful consideration.
Camden - blight, Gisbson, Forge
Rosstown - Pilling, Dunstan
Tucker - Magee, Lobo, Hyams
Friday, November 21, 2008
Clowncil's joke of a website!!!
I have often lamented the appalling state of this clowncil's website - it's sheer incompetence, deliberate 'hiding' of information, and its appalling design and search functionality. Over the past 3 years, council plans, environment plans, and all vision statements have included such promises as - 'update website/improve website', etc. etc. etc. Well here's another example of what kind of disaster this website actually is. I invite readers to log on to the following webpage - http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=540&h=0
This is 'current urban design projects' which includes Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie. At the bottom of the page we have the following 'promise' and commitment - "Information about this project has been posted in local newspapers, and will continue to be updated on Council’s website." Has anyone had any recent 'updates'??? What a joke! and the final 'proof of the pudding' is in the eating. This page was last updated 23rd January 2007!!!!! That's right folks - nearly two years ago!!!! So much for all the bullshit that the community is fed about professionalism, and the adequacy of information provision. I'd like to know how much this 'webmaster' is being paid!! It's literally money down the drain!!
This is 'current urban design projects' which includes Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie. At the bottom of the page we have the following 'promise' and commitment - "Information about this project has been posted in local newspapers, and will continue to be updated on Council’s website." Has anyone had any recent 'updates'??? What a joke! and the final 'proof of the pudding' is in the eating. This page was last updated 23rd January 2007!!!!! That's right folks - nearly two years ago!!!! So much for all the bullshit that the community is fed about professionalism, and the adequacy of information provision. I'd like to know how much this 'webmaster' is being paid!! It's literally money down the drain!!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Rudd's present
The burghers of Glen Eira clowncil must be all smiles tonight. They've just received over $460,000 without lifting a finger! There's also plenty more on offer once they apply for specific grants. This should be a fascinating exercise and will prove once and for all, how 'good', effective, and professional this mob really are in getting grants. Will they even apply for them is of course another question.
What will be done with the $460,000? Will this be thrown into another taj mahal or will it be used effectively, such as cleaning more than 9 km of drains per year - perhaps even replacing some? How well documented will this expenditure be? will the community ever get to have a say on how this money should be used? will they even be told - or will it simply disappear into the sleight of hand that are 'financial statements' so that the public can never really keep track of it?
What will be done with the $460,000? Will this be thrown into another taj mahal or will it be used effectively, such as cleaning more than 9 km of drains per year - perhaps even replacing some? How well documented will this expenditure be? will the community ever get to have a say on how this money should be used? will they even be told - or will it simply disappear into the sleight of hand that are 'financial statements' so that the public can never really keep track of it?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Silence is NOT consent!!!!
This clowncil operates on the assumption that silence on the part of residents is basically 'consent' as to their policies and their operations. This could not be further from the truth! Admittedly, many people are apathetic about local government; either they think they're all useless, or simply don't care until something impacts directly on them - for example: a development next door; crowded street parking; threatening letters to chop down trees or clean up a garden, etc. But, this silence does not in any way equate with 'approval'.
I have been a close clowncil watcher for the past 7 years. During this time I have talked with literally hundreds of people. Almost without exception there is a perception out there that people do not want to get involved in council issues because they FEAR for their future; they are concerned about repercussions. The comment I receive is - 'Oh I don't want any trouble with council'. This type of response suggests several things:
1. People feel intimidated
2. People see clowncil as vindictive
3. People aren't prepared to put their heads on the chopping block in openly criticising what they feel is incorrect and/or unfair.
There is never smoke without fire! If people feel this way, then there must be a reason. What is it about this clowncil, that should give people this impression? The answer's not hard to find. All one has to do is read the tone of numerous letters that are sent out to residents, and the actual 'bully boy' tactics that have become the modus operandi of an administration that will never admit fault and will never accord residents the respect they deserve. In a so called democratic society it is unconscionable that residents should feel that they cannot become involved in local politics because they are afraid of potential repercussions for themselves. There is no one else to blame for such a perception except an administration that has succeeded in instilling a corporate mentality into all its functions and officers that is not only 'undemocratic', but reprehensible.
I have been a close clowncil watcher for the past 7 years. During this time I have talked with literally hundreds of people. Almost without exception there is a perception out there that people do not want to get involved in council issues because they FEAR for their future; they are concerned about repercussions. The comment I receive is - 'Oh I don't want any trouble with council'. This type of response suggests several things:
1. People feel intimidated
2. People see clowncil as vindictive
3. People aren't prepared to put their heads on the chopping block in openly criticising what they feel is incorrect and/or unfair.
There is never smoke without fire! If people feel this way, then there must be a reason. What is it about this clowncil, that should give people this impression? The answer's not hard to find. All one has to do is read the tone of numerous letters that are sent out to residents, and the actual 'bully boy' tactics that have become the modus operandi of an administration that will never admit fault and will never accord residents the respect they deserve. In a so called democratic society it is unconscionable that residents should feel that they cannot become involved in local politics because they are afraid of potential repercussions for themselves. There is no one else to blame for such a perception except an administration that has succeeded in instilling a corporate mentality into all its functions and officers that is not only 'undemocratic', but reprehensible.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
McKinnon Road Selloff!!!
Today's Moorabbin/Glen Eira Leader features a story on the McKinnon Road residential sell off conducted by clowncil earlier this year. At the clowncil meetings residents were told that this sell off was necessary and would provide new, modern accommodation for its elderly and people with disabilities. The leader article now quantifies this - there will ONLY be 6 multiple sclerosis units available. But 6 out of how many?
When the community was led to believe that a major motivation in selling this land (apart from the 3.1 million dollar windfall and clowncil's ability to therefore wash its hands of all social obligations) was this this was going to be a major boon to the multiple sclerosis society, then a paltry 6 units, is far from a boon.
Further, the article specifies that the intended purpose is for the 'elderly'. Current residents will be rehoused, but what of the future? Will this still be earmarked for the 'elderly' or will it go to other sectors of society who are deemed to be in need? Several submissions to this sell off voiced concerns that in the future, this development would house reforming drug addicts, etc. I'm not disparaging or arguing against accommodation for 'drug addicts'. What I am concerned about is whether the community was given ALL THE FACTS. Were any conditions imposed in the contract of sale? Did clowncil really insist on 100% occupancy for the elderly and people with disabilities? Why did esakoff in her spruking for this sell off give the gallery the distinct impression that the major benefactors would be people with disabilities?
And which names will actually be on the title for the land? Will it include the Multiple Sclerosis Society, as intimated by the article? or will it be only the Port Phillip Housing Association whose activities in this area are not exclusively catering to the elderly and those with disabilities. These are legitimate and important questions - because the answers will reveal to what extent the community has been hoodwinked!
When the community was led to believe that a major motivation in selling this land (apart from the 3.1 million dollar windfall and clowncil's ability to therefore wash its hands of all social obligations) was this this was going to be a major boon to the multiple sclerosis society, then a paltry 6 units, is far from a boon.
Further, the article specifies that the intended purpose is for the 'elderly'. Current residents will be rehoused, but what of the future? Will this still be earmarked for the 'elderly' or will it go to other sectors of society who are deemed to be in need? Several submissions to this sell off voiced concerns that in the future, this development would house reforming drug addicts, etc. I'm not disparaging or arguing against accommodation for 'drug addicts'. What I am concerned about is whether the community was given ALL THE FACTS. Were any conditions imposed in the contract of sale? Did clowncil really insist on 100% occupancy for the elderly and people with disabilities? Why did esakoff in her spruking for this sell off give the gallery the distinct impression that the major benefactors would be people with disabilities?
And which names will actually be on the title for the land? Will it include the Multiple Sclerosis Society, as intimated by the article? or will it be only the Port Phillip Housing Association whose activities in this area are not exclusively catering to the elderly and those with disabilities. These are legitimate and important questions - because the answers will reveal to what extent the community has been hoodwinked!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Whistle while you work....?
I took a very interesting walk this morning in one of our local parks. Parked under a tree, in the shade, was a clowncil truck, with a branch shredder attached. Inside were two blokes - one was reading the paper. Not unusual of itself. I kept walking to the other end of the park. Here was another clowncil truck and three men squatting on the ground about 20 metres away from the truck. I kept walking and bumped into a couple of people I knew. We sat down and started chatting. After about 20 minutes, the three blokes got into their truck, drove about 50 yards and parked it in the shade under a big tree. They got out, sat on the ground, and one started to eat his sandwich. another was reading something. Great i thought - lunch time.
I continued chatting, and they continued sitting. After about 45 minutes I headed back home. The truck with the shredder was still there and the blokes were still sitting inside.
Half an hour later I passed again on my way to the shops. guess what? the truck was still there. This makes it nearly an hour and a quarter that NO WORK WAS BEING DONE!!! A very extravagant lunch hour indeed it would seem. So all in all 5 blokes at probably a cost of $120 (minimum) per day were being paid to basically 'sit around', read the paper, and loll in the grass!!!
So what I want to know is:
who supervises these men? who determines whether ratepayers are getting value for money? who double checks that work is actually being done? No wonder clowncil's community plan only allowed for the mulching of 500 park trees per year if the above is any indication of the work rate and ethic that is part of this clowncil!!
I have also been informed that people are employed on the WEEKENDS to simply weed but at DOUBLE PAY!! Again, one must ask - why is it necessary to weed on the weekend and at double cost to the ratepayer? Who is responsible for such decisions and overseeing?
From now on let's flood the wonderful 'help desk' with legitimate concerns about where our money is going and how well basic services are being provided by this clowncil!!
I continued chatting, and they continued sitting. After about 45 minutes I headed back home. The truck with the shredder was still there and the blokes were still sitting inside.
Half an hour later I passed again on my way to the shops. guess what? the truck was still there. This makes it nearly an hour and a quarter that NO WORK WAS BEING DONE!!! A very extravagant lunch hour indeed it would seem. So all in all 5 blokes at probably a cost of $120 (minimum) per day were being paid to basically 'sit around', read the paper, and loll in the grass!!!
So what I want to know is:
who supervises these men? who determines whether ratepayers are getting value for money? who double checks that work is actually being done? No wonder clowncil's community plan only allowed for the mulching of 500 park trees per year if the above is any indication of the work rate and ethic that is part of this clowncil!!
I have also been informed that people are employed on the WEEKENDS to simply weed but at DOUBLE PAY!! Again, one must ask - why is it necessary to weed on the weekend and at double cost to the ratepayer? Who is responsible for such decisions and overseeing?
From now on let's flood the wonderful 'help desk' with legitimate concerns about where our money is going and how well basic services are being provided by this clowncil!!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Pearls of wisdom?
This afternoon's 'meet the candidates' was an interesting affair for many reasons. First, it should be noted that Cr. Spaulding, and Lipshutz were no show and did not tender their apologies. Cr. Esakoff did, as well as Donna Elliott.
Some of the 'highlights' or 'lowlights' are as follows:
1. Norman Kennedy proclaimed that Glen Eira is basically a very good council because it runs at a cheaper per capita cost than other councils. Of course, it can be improved, he said - but the overall impression he gave was that Glen Eira is terrific and that it just requires some minor tinkering around the edges. (of course if glen eira provided the same services as others in areas of health, child care, etc. etc. - then it couldn't claim that it was so 'cost effective and efficient' could it Mr. Kennedy?)
2. Perhaps more disheartening, is that Tang also praised glen eira and basically repeated his little spiel that he presented at the recent 'forums' for the community plan - ie. what major strides this council has taken in terms of 'consultation', traffic management (which he equated with drains!!!!! and footpaths). Basically, Tang presented the audience with nothing more than hot air!!!
3. Questions were raised about the Bentleigh Pool, Caulfield Racetrack, planning, governance, etc. Very, very few of the candidates had anything definite to offer, or suggestions to make. Traffic management for Mr. Henry was reduced to bike lanes; questions of how can any organisation end up with nearly $6 million over budget, was not answered by Staikos, except to ask the audience to believe that sale of land had not gone through, so therefore it couldn't be noted in the budet. Hey, Cr. Staikos, shouldn't the same therefore apply to rates? Now that the money's there, why not reduce rates with this surplus? another example of deliberate misinterpration and hence nonanswering of a question! You've learnt well over the past 3 years Staikos!
There was plenty more and I'll give a breakdown in the next couple of posts. The above are rapidly written impressions. The very, very sad result, is that apart from a few, most candidates adopted a 'wait and see' approach with the usual rationalisation of 'we'll have to wait to see costs, budgets, infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.'. Not answers at all. When candidates are asked 'will you commit to ensuring that advisory and special committee meetings are advertised, open to the public, and that representatives have voting rights' and only Jim Magee and Theo Giantsis openly supported this - then my conclusion is that WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!!!
Unless candidates realise that governance is at the root of all that is wrong with this council then nothing will change. Tang and his ilk can spruke as much as they like about 'consultation' and 'transparency' - but unless the mechanisms are there to implement real change, then we will have the same 'newtonism' that we have had for the past decade. The real losers will be the community again and again.
Some of the 'highlights' or 'lowlights' are as follows:
1. Norman Kennedy proclaimed that Glen Eira is basically a very good council because it runs at a cheaper per capita cost than other councils. Of course, it can be improved, he said - but the overall impression he gave was that Glen Eira is terrific and that it just requires some minor tinkering around the edges. (of course if glen eira provided the same services as others in areas of health, child care, etc. etc. - then it couldn't claim that it was so 'cost effective and efficient' could it Mr. Kennedy?)
2. Perhaps more disheartening, is that Tang also praised glen eira and basically repeated his little spiel that he presented at the recent 'forums' for the community plan - ie. what major strides this council has taken in terms of 'consultation', traffic management (which he equated with drains!!!!! and footpaths). Basically, Tang presented the audience with nothing more than hot air!!!
3. Questions were raised about the Bentleigh Pool, Caulfield Racetrack, planning, governance, etc. Very, very few of the candidates had anything definite to offer, or suggestions to make. Traffic management for Mr. Henry was reduced to bike lanes; questions of how can any organisation end up with nearly $6 million over budget, was not answered by Staikos, except to ask the audience to believe that sale of land had not gone through, so therefore it couldn't be noted in the budet. Hey, Cr. Staikos, shouldn't the same therefore apply to rates? Now that the money's there, why not reduce rates with this surplus? another example of deliberate misinterpration and hence nonanswering of a question! You've learnt well over the past 3 years Staikos!
There was plenty more and I'll give a breakdown in the next couple of posts. The above are rapidly written impressions. The very, very sad result, is that apart from a few, most candidates adopted a 'wait and see' approach with the usual rationalisation of 'we'll have to wait to see costs, budgets, infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.'. Not answers at all. When candidates are asked 'will you commit to ensuring that advisory and special committee meetings are advertised, open to the public, and that representatives have voting rights' and only Jim Magee and Theo Giantsis openly supported this - then my conclusion is that WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!!!
Unless candidates realise that governance is at the root of all that is wrong with this council then nothing will change. Tang and his ilk can spruke as much as they like about 'consultation' and 'transparency' - but unless the mechanisms are there to implement real change, then we will have the same 'newtonism' that we have had for the past decade. The real losers will be the community again and again.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Hubris, humility and Staikos!!!
I've just been perusing the various election flyers which have landed in my letter box over the past couple of days. One in particular stands out a mile - not for its 'informative' nature, its glossy production, nor its persuasiveness. What this one flyer announces, clearly, unequivocally, and in bold, is the sheer arrogance and lack of humility that comes in the guise of Cr. Staikos.
I now quote directly from this pamphlet.
"Over the last term of Council Nick has:
Secured a multimillion dollar upgrade of East Bentleigh Pool, including hyrdortherapy, gym and basketball stadium.
Secured a much needed upgrade of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Council has committed to rebuild the Pavilion in the next Council term.
Strongly supported the retention of the McKinnon Maternal and Child Health Centre, as well as the expansion of services at Bentleigh Maternal and Child Health Centre.
Reduced local crime through School Neighbourhood Watch, Anti Graffiti Education in schools and local law to restrict the sale of spray paint cans to people younger than 18 years.
Strongly supported by installation of free energy saving light globes in 6000 Bentleigh and Each Bentleigh homes.
Opposed inappropriate development."
Isn't Staikos really a 'one man band' if we were naive enough to believe all of the above garbage? What particularly irks me is the deliberate implication that it is Staikos and Staikos alone who has been responsible for, no less, than a reduction in local graffiti,; that it is he and he alone who managed to 'secure' funding for all of these wonderful projects that are yet to be voted upon in this next council (and unlikely to continue given the precarious financial state of the world!!). I wonder what Cr. Ashmor has to say about HER involvement in keeping open the maternal health centre? Is it really all due to this single superman?!!!!
Let's cut the bullshit and call a spade a spade. Staikos is only ONE of NINE councillors. When something is decided it needs at least 5 votes. Hence if the pool is to remain, then Staikos overall contribution would be 1 out of 5, or 20%. but this is minor. Personally, I just resent the arrogance and the self aggrandisement. May I suggest, that if you didn't write this junk Nick, that you get yourself another spin doctor!
I now quote directly from this pamphlet.
"Over the last term of Council Nick has:
Secured a multimillion dollar upgrade of East Bentleigh Pool, including hyrdortherapy, gym and basketball stadium.
Secured a much needed upgrade of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Council has committed to rebuild the Pavilion in the next Council term.
Strongly supported the retention of the McKinnon Maternal and Child Health Centre, as well as the expansion of services at Bentleigh Maternal and Child Health Centre.
Reduced local crime through School Neighbourhood Watch, Anti Graffiti Education in schools and local law to restrict the sale of spray paint cans to people younger than 18 years.
Strongly supported by installation of free energy saving light globes in 6000 Bentleigh and Each Bentleigh homes.
Opposed inappropriate development."
Isn't Staikos really a 'one man band' if we were naive enough to believe all of the above garbage? What particularly irks me is the deliberate implication that it is Staikos and Staikos alone who has been responsible for, no less, than a reduction in local graffiti,; that it is he and he alone who managed to 'secure' funding for all of these wonderful projects that are yet to be voted upon in this next council (and unlikely to continue given the precarious financial state of the world!!). I wonder what Cr. Ashmor has to say about HER involvement in keeping open the maternal health centre? Is it really all due to this single superman?!!!!
Let's cut the bullshit and call a spade a spade. Staikos is only ONE of NINE councillors. When something is decided it needs at least 5 votes. Hence if the pool is to remain, then Staikos overall contribution would be 1 out of 5, or 20%. but this is minor. Personally, I just resent the arrogance and the self aggrandisement. May I suggest, that if you didn't write this junk Nick, that you get yourself another spin doctor!
Monday, November 3, 2008
New bottles, old wine?
This week’s Caulfield Leader announces that there are 26 candidates for the upcoming elections. Of these 26, seven are current councillors – the ‘old wine’ – willing to have another shot, and two others are former councillors, also wishing to re-enter the fray. What we as a community therefore have to decide is:
do we want more of the same?
do we want change?
if we want change, then what kind of change?
The past three years have witnessed numerous controversies and dissatisfaction regarding the workings of this clowncil. Various new lobby groups have been formed – i.e. Friends of Caulfield Park, the Booran road people, Glen Eira Community Associations – in conjunction with already existing groups – Dogs of Glen Eira, environmental group, and ratepayers’ association. We have also witnessed the fiascos of the aquatic centre, the pavilion debacle, and the continued farce of ‘community consultation’. For over a decade now, ratepayers have been given short shrift. But will any of the new candidates succeed in changing a culture that is so undemocratic and so arrogant? There is a chance to find out!
Come along to the forums being held on the 9th (Town Hall) and the 10th November (Elsternwick Club – 8pm) and ask your candidates some tough questions. See how they respond and then vote accordingly.
do we want more of the same?
do we want change?
if we want change, then what kind of change?
The past three years have witnessed numerous controversies and dissatisfaction regarding the workings of this clowncil. Various new lobby groups have been formed – i.e. Friends of Caulfield Park, the Booran road people, Glen Eira Community Associations – in conjunction with already existing groups – Dogs of Glen Eira, environmental group, and ratepayers’ association. We have also witnessed the fiascos of the aquatic centre, the pavilion debacle, and the continued farce of ‘community consultation’. For over a decade now, ratepayers have been given short shrift. But will any of the new candidates succeed in changing a culture that is so undemocratic and so arrogant? There is a chance to find out!
Come along to the forums being held on the 9th (Town Hall) and the 10th November (Elsternwick Club – 8pm) and ask your candidates some tough questions. See how they respond and then vote accordingly.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Question the new candidates!
On Monday November 10th, 2008 there will be a ‘Candidates Question and Answer Session’ at:
The Elsternwick Club
19 Sandham St.
Elsterwick
Time: 8pm.
The reason for this is simple. How many of us can actually put a face to a new candidate? How many of us actually know what each candidate stands for? What his/her vision is and what they hope to achieve in their four year term if elected.
This is the opportunity to ask these new candidates all your questions and to get a direct answer. Speaking directly to residents is not the same as a carefully worded and innocuous flyer that promises the world and delivers nothing. It will also display their ability to communicate, to think on their feet, and to enable us, the ratepayers to at least have a clearer picture of how candidate x measures up against candidate y.
Current councillors ARE NOT INVITED!! We already know what they have achieved, or failed to achieve. They stand on their record. What we need to learn is what this prospective ‘new blood’ has to offer the community so that we can go some way towards making really informed decisions.
So start thinking about the questions you would like answered and put November the 10th into your diary. Also, tell your friends and neighbours about this evening – it is an opportunity that should not be wasted.
The Elsternwick Club
19 Sandham St.
Elsterwick
Time: 8pm.
The reason for this is simple. How many of us can actually put a face to a new candidate? How many of us actually know what each candidate stands for? What his/her vision is and what they hope to achieve in their four year term if elected.
This is the opportunity to ask these new candidates all your questions and to get a direct answer. Speaking directly to residents is not the same as a carefully worded and innocuous flyer that promises the world and delivers nothing. It will also display their ability to communicate, to think on their feet, and to enable us, the ratepayers to at least have a clearer picture of how candidate x measures up against candidate y.
Current councillors ARE NOT INVITED!! We already know what they have achieved, or failed to achieve. They stand on their record. What we need to learn is what this prospective ‘new blood’ has to offer the community so that we can go some way towards making really informed decisions.
So start thinking about the questions you would like answered and put November the 10th into your diary. Also, tell your friends and neighbours about this evening – it is an opportunity that should not be wasted.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Clowncil's annual report
I just love it!! In the agenda items for next week's clowncil meeting to table and pass the Annual Report, there are the following observations (and I quote verbatim)!!
"We reduced consumption of mains water from 310 million litres in 2002–03 to 130.3 million litres in 2007–08 — a decrease of 193 million litres or 61 per cent."
Reading the above one would really think that this 'reduction' is the result of our wonderful environmentally conscious clowncil. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more designed to disguise the truth. Were there any water restrictions in 2002? Isn't clowncil and the community simply abiding by legal requirements - ie these water restrictions? So how dare they claim credit for something that has never been the result of their initiatives or their thoughtful and far sighted planning. The 'we' in this paragraph is an insult!
Another quote: "A major agreement with Melbourne Racing Club will see a better balance between horse racing, community sport and passive recreation at Caulfield Racecourse." Yes, an 'agreement' that is so full of holes, that sells the glen eira community so short, that it is nothing but disgraceful. Also, who first started agitating about the racecourse? It sure as hell wasn't the administration. and if people can be bothered to read the minutes from the last council meeting, they will see how 'successful' our councillors have been in 'donating' a good parcel of land to the racecourse trustees.
More still: "Only 2.7 per cent of town planning decisions were appealed against by residents." What of developers? what's the percentage of their appeals and how much is this the fault of clowncil's inadequate planning structures and mechanisms? Of course resident appeals are small - how many of us have the time, money, and expertise to front VCAT and argue a case?
Again, I urge all residents to read an earlier blog about annual reports and their shortcomings. Glen Eira remains a prime example of what the auditor's review discovered - lack of real information, and lack of relevance to ordinary ratepayers.
"We reduced consumption of mains water from 310 million litres in 2002–03 to 130.3 million litres in 2007–08 — a decrease of 193 million litres or 61 per cent."
Reading the above one would really think that this 'reduction' is the result of our wonderful environmentally conscious clowncil. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more designed to disguise the truth. Were there any water restrictions in 2002? Isn't clowncil and the community simply abiding by legal requirements - ie these water restrictions? So how dare they claim credit for something that has never been the result of their initiatives or their thoughtful and far sighted planning. The 'we' in this paragraph is an insult!
Another quote: "A major agreement with Melbourne Racing Club will see a better balance between horse racing, community sport and passive recreation at Caulfield Racecourse." Yes, an 'agreement' that is so full of holes, that sells the glen eira community so short, that it is nothing but disgraceful. Also, who first started agitating about the racecourse? It sure as hell wasn't the administration. and if people can be bothered to read the minutes from the last council meeting, they will see how 'successful' our councillors have been in 'donating' a good parcel of land to the racecourse trustees.
More still: "Only 2.7 per cent of town planning decisions were appealed against by residents." What of developers? what's the percentage of their appeals and how much is this the fault of clowncil's inadequate planning structures and mechanisms? Of course resident appeals are small - how many of us have the time, money, and expertise to front VCAT and argue a case?
Again, I urge all residents to read an earlier blog about annual reports and their shortcomings. Glen Eira remains a prime example of what the auditor's review discovered - lack of real information, and lack of relevance to ordinary ratepayers.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Clowncil's website abomination!
Glen Eira Clowncil runs a multimillion dollar operation each year! It relies on accurate information, accurate audits, and providing accurate information to its residents. So how come its website is so abysmal? How much does its webmaster earn? Or being a suspicious bastard, I believe in conspiracy theories and that the lack of real information on its website is deliberate and calculated to keep its citizenry ignorant.
However, there are certain components of which are fundamental and cannot be put into this realm of deliberate obfuscation. I invite people to go to clowncil's home page and then click on the 'A-Z Index' on the left hand bottom part of the page. There you will find the following amazing scenes -
1. 'E' comes before 'A'. (Clowncil is now reshaping our alphabet!!)
2. 'Enrolling to vote' comes before numbers
3. obviously the webmaster has no numeracy skills since the run of 'annual reports' is not consecutive, but split by numerous other items - ie. so the 2003-4 report is not followed by 2004-2005 report.
4. there are several links to the same report.
I could go on and on - but this is simply unforgiveable and atrocious. We're paying good money for a professional outfit. What this website represents is a total waste of money!!
Oh and if you're looking for uptodate and relevant policy documents you simply won't find them! What you will find are 'quarterly reports' from 2004 and nothing since.
Information is really given short shrift - but of course that's what they want!! Keep the bastards ignorant!
However, there are certain components of which are fundamental and cannot be put into this realm of deliberate obfuscation. I invite people to go to clowncil's home page and then click on the 'A-Z Index' on the left hand bottom part of the page. There you will find the following amazing scenes -
1. 'E' comes before 'A'. (Clowncil is now reshaping our alphabet!!)
2. 'Enrolling to vote' comes before numbers
3. obviously the webmaster has no numeracy skills since the run of 'annual reports' is not consecutive, but split by numerous other items - ie. so the 2003-4 report is not followed by 2004-2005 report.
4. there are several links to the same report.
I could go on and on - but this is simply unforgiveable and atrocious. We're paying good money for a professional outfit. What this website represents is a total waste of money!!
Oh and if you're looking for uptodate and relevant policy documents you simply won't find them! What you will find are 'quarterly reports' from 2004 and nothing since.
Information is really given short shrift - but of course that's what they want!! Keep the bastards ignorant!
Councils versus clowncils!
I must admit that I did a double take when I read a Monash City Council advertisement in this week's Leader. After checking their website, my amazement was confirmed. The ad was calling for a public meeting on October 29th (refreshments provided) for all those citizenry interested in discussing a proposed 'Clayton Community Strengthening Project'. This in itself isn't extraordinary. Glen Eira Clowncil calls this 'forums'! But what was fascinating is the following taken directly from the advertisement -
"Solicit feedback as to the worthiness of the proposed project
Solicit feedback about what sort of outcomes a community strengthening project could achieve
Get expressions of interest from members of the community regarding their interest in attending leadership training sessions and participating in the oversight of the project
Have a conversation about the way forward
To answer any questions people attending the public meeting might have."
WOW AND DOUBLE WOW. A 'conversation' where we poor residents actually get to 'oversee' a project and even get to have a say in its 'worthiness'. All of this stands in stark contrast to the way Glen Eira clowncil operates. There never is a 'conversation' and god forbid that residents actually be asked for an opinion, much less have a role in the overseeing or management of anything. Yes, as I've entitled this - there are actually some councils out there, but then again, there are also some clowncils!!
"Solicit feedback as to the worthiness of the proposed project
Solicit feedback about what sort of outcomes a community strengthening project could achieve
Get expressions of interest from members of the community regarding their interest in attending leadership training sessions and participating in the oversight of the project
Have a conversation about the way forward
To answer any questions people attending the public meeting might have."
WOW AND DOUBLE WOW. A 'conversation' where we poor residents actually get to 'oversee' a project and even get to have a say in its 'worthiness'. All of this stands in stark contrast to the way Glen Eira clowncil operates. There never is a 'conversation' and god forbid that residents actually be asked for an opinion, much less have a role in the overseeing or management of anything. Yes, as I've entitled this - there are actually some councils out there, but then again, there are also some clowncils!!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Clowncil's annual report - more of the same???
On the 28th October, Clowncil, will release its latest 'annual report'. It will of course be full of self-congratulations, glossy pics, astounding 'performance' results, with the message continually thrust down our throat about how wonderfully well everyone has done!
In the light of this spin doctoring, and examinations of clowncil's previous annual reports, it is sobering to reflect on these questions:
1. how comprehensible, relevant, and useful are annual reports?
2. how much is 'hidden' as to actually revealed about the true state of affairs - ie. the minutiae of day to day operations?
Below is the findings of the auditor general, taken directly from his website. It says a lot about how councils, and our glorious local one, operates.
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Performance reporting by councils changed in 2004–05 with the passage of the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003.A new approach to annual performance reporting was introduced by the Act, based on the concept of ‘key strategic activities’ (KSAs), as set out in each council’s annual budget. The Act also introduced the requirement to prepare a four–year council plan, containing strategic objectives and indicators to measure achievements.
As it has been three years since these reforms were introduced, it is timely to review their impact on local government performance reporting.
1.2 Audit objective
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of councils’ performance reporting, with particular emphasis on the audited performance statements included in council annual reports.
In addressing this objective the audit considered whether the performance information was useful and whether key elements of the framework established in each council support performance reporting.
1.3 Key findings
Relevance
Most councils’ non-financial performance data is of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents, the principal users of that data.
Performance information is generally not being provided on the timeliness, cost, quantity or quality of council services, on achieved outcomes, or on achieving strategic objectives.
The performance indicators being reported are activity-based and generally only measure one metric—time. In many cases the nexus between the indicator and the activity is very indirect and of questionable relevance.
Appropriateness
Most councils are not providing enough appropriate information to users about the performance measures they have adopted. This means that users are not able to meaningfully assess councils’ performance.
The lack of clarity around measures and targets; the paucity of explanation of variances; and the failure to include trend and benchmark data can indicate that councils have adopted a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to reporting performance information. They rarely go beyond the legislative imperative and, where there are no specific requirements, adopt a practice of minimalist disclosure.
Presentation
The performance measures reported can be reliably measured. However, this must be considered in the context that many performance measures are neither relevant nor appropriate.
One inference that can be made is that councils select indicators because they can be easily measured, not because they are the right things to measure.
Policies and standards
In contrast to financial reporting, there are no independent, authoritative standards for performance reporting. There is also no generally accepted conceptual framework that identifies essential characteristics of performance reporting.
This situation is mirrored at council level, where the development of appropriate policies is either very limited or non-existent.
Organisational capabilities
In most cases councillors and council staff are not equipped with the knowledge and skills required to fully understand and develop appropriate performance reports.
1.4 Overall conclusions
The performance statements prepared by councils generally fail key tests of usefulness. They contain information that is largely irrelevant and inappropriate to users needs. The failure to include critical performance information and explanations makes it difficult for ratepayers and residents to hold their elected representatives fully accountable.
Through their reporting approaches councils have taken a very narrow view of their performance reporting obligations—treating the minimum mandatory legal requirements as the maximum disclosure standard.
Councils have not established key elements of the frameworks necessary to support the development of useful performance information.
1.5 Recommendations
Regulations be issued establishing minimum standards for the form and content of performance statements. (Recommendation 4.1)
All councils document and approve performance reporting policies and standards. (Recommendation 4.2)
Councillors and council staff involved in performance reporting are given appropriate training on performance measurement and management. (Recommendation 4.3)
In the light of this spin doctoring, and examinations of clowncil's previous annual reports, it is sobering to reflect on these questions:
1. how comprehensible, relevant, and useful are annual reports?
2. how much is 'hidden' as to actually revealed about the true state of affairs - ie. the minutiae of day to day operations?
Below is the findings of the auditor general, taken directly from his website. It says a lot about how councils, and our glorious local one, operates.
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Performance reporting by councils changed in 2004–05 with the passage of the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003.A new approach to annual performance reporting was introduced by the Act, based on the concept of ‘key strategic activities’ (KSAs), as set out in each council’s annual budget. The Act also introduced the requirement to prepare a four–year council plan, containing strategic objectives and indicators to measure achievements.
As it has been three years since these reforms were introduced, it is timely to review their impact on local government performance reporting.
1.2 Audit objective
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of councils’ performance reporting, with particular emphasis on the audited performance statements included in council annual reports.
In addressing this objective the audit considered whether the performance information was useful and whether key elements of the framework established in each council support performance reporting.
1.3 Key findings
Relevance
Most councils’ non-financial performance data is of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents, the principal users of that data.
Performance information is generally not being provided on the timeliness, cost, quantity or quality of council services, on achieved outcomes, or on achieving strategic objectives.
The performance indicators being reported are activity-based and generally only measure one metric—time. In many cases the nexus between the indicator and the activity is very indirect and of questionable relevance.
Appropriateness
Most councils are not providing enough appropriate information to users about the performance measures they have adopted. This means that users are not able to meaningfully assess councils’ performance.
The lack of clarity around measures and targets; the paucity of explanation of variances; and the failure to include trend and benchmark data can indicate that councils have adopted a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to reporting performance information. They rarely go beyond the legislative imperative and, where there are no specific requirements, adopt a practice of minimalist disclosure.
Presentation
The performance measures reported can be reliably measured. However, this must be considered in the context that many performance measures are neither relevant nor appropriate.
One inference that can be made is that councils select indicators because they can be easily measured, not because they are the right things to measure.
Policies and standards
In contrast to financial reporting, there are no independent, authoritative standards for performance reporting. There is also no generally accepted conceptual framework that identifies essential characteristics of performance reporting.
This situation is mirrored at council level, where the development of appropriate policies is either very limited or non-existent.
Organisational capabilities
In most cases councillors and council staff are not equipped with the knowledge and skills required to fully understand and develop appropriate performance reports.
1.4 Overall conclusions
The performance statements prepared by councils generally fail key tests of usefulness. They contain information that is largely irrelevant and inappropriate to users needs. The failure to include critical performance information and explanations makes it difficult for ratepayers and residents to hold their elected representatives fully accountable.
Through their reporting approaches councils have taken a very narrow view of their performance reporting obligations—treating the minimum mandatory legal requirements as the maximum disclosure standard.
Councils have not established key elements of the frameworks necessary to support the development of useful performance information.
1.5 Recommendations
Regulations be issued establishing minimum standards for the form and content of performance statements. (Recommendation 4.1)
All councils document and approve performance reporting policies and standards. (Recommendation 4.2)
Councillors and council staff involved in performance reporting are given appropriate training on performance measurement and management. (Recommendation 4.3)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Shame on you!
The following letter in this week's Moorabbin-Glen Eira Leader, is short and sweet, but says it all.
SHAME ON YOU
I am again most disappointed that the Glen Eira Council cannot take climate change and environmental issues serisouly and has voted down a motion for the council to become carbon neutral by 2020.
Shame on councillors Lipshutz, Esakoff, Whiteside, Robilliard and Spaulding, who voted against the motion. When is the council going to wake up and see that its demographics are changing with more young famlies increasingly concerned about the environment and other issues for the future?
Mikala Hehir, Elsternwick.
COMMENTARY: this mob will never wake up whilst the current administration is in place. As for the environment, residents need to have a look at clowncil's website to see that they are about to lop down another 6 aged trees in Caulfield Park. Friends of Caulfield Park claim that many of these could be saved with proper actions and resourcing. But of course we're talking about this particular clowncil which never, ever, wants to spend any money on the environment if it can avoid it.
SHAME ON YOU
I am again most disappointed that the Glen Eira Council cannot take climate change and environmental issues serisouly and has voted down a motion for the council to become carbon neutral by 2020.
Shame on councillors Lipshutz, Esakoff, Whiteside, Robilliard and Spaulding, who voted against the motion. When is the council going to wake up and see that its demographics are changing with more young famlies increasingly concerned about the environment and other issues for the future?
Mikala Hehir, Elsternwick.
COMMENTARY: this mob will never wake up whilst the current administration is in place. As for the environment, residents need to have a look at clowncil's website to see that they are about to lop down another 6 aged trees in Caulfield Park. Friends of Caulfield Park claim that many of these could be saved with proper actions and resourcing. But of course we're talking about this particular clowncil which never, ever, wants to spend any money on the environment if it can avoid it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Cave in by the Leader?????
Well it appears that all you have to do is open your mouth, let fly a few charges against newspapers, or journalists, and you achieve what you want. At the last clowncil meeting, several councillors made it absolutely clear that they did not appreciate the 'negative' publicity which the Leader was giving clowncil in regards to its environmental policies. Well, lo and behold, look what pipes up in this week's Glen Eira Leader - a snow job detailing all the money that council is spending on 'green energy'. What a change in tune!!!! Cr Lipshutz will be pleased won't he? What the Leader neglects to tell its readers of course is how this 'expenditure' compares to other councils. It also refrains from mentioning that the $5 million Caulfield pavilion will still be without water tanks and solar energy. The article is printed below{
GREENIES take heart Glen Eira Council has introduced some environmentally friendly projects of late.
In a bid to do its part for the planet and take on the increasingly hot topic of climate change, councillors have voted to buy green energy to power some of their buildings.
Mayor Steven Tang said the move was part of the council’s environmental sustainability strategy. Its four children’s centres and seven maternal and child health centres were now powered with 100 per cent green energy, he said.
“We have implemented a range of power-saving initiatives,” Cr Tang said.
“These include the use of sensor lights in the town hall for some meeting rooms and public toilets, and the installation of more energy-efficient light fittings.
The Caulfield Park pavilion will also be powered with green energy, once construction is completed next May.
At the council meeting last Tuesday, a report revealed the council spent just over $3 million on environmentally friendly products and services for the 2007/08 financial year under its Eco-Buy program.
That’s up from just over $2 million the previous year an increase of 32 per cent.
The program, which has been going since the 2002/03 financial year, includes purchases such as copy paper, garbage bins, organic fertilisers, recycled crushed concrete and tree pruning mulch.
GREENIES take heart Glen Eira Council has introduced some environmentally friendly projects of late.
In a bid to do its part for the planet and take on the increasingly hot topic of climate change, councillors have voted to buy green energy to power some of their buildings.
Mayor Steven Tang said the move was part of the council’s environmental sustainability strategy. Its four children’s centres and seven maternal and child health centres were now powered with 100 per cent green energy, he said.
“We have implemented a range of power-saving initiatives,” Cr Tang said.
“These include the use of sensor lights in the town hall for some meeting rooms and public toilets, and the installation of more energy-efficient light fittings.
The Caulfield Park pavilion will also be powered with green energy, once construction is completed next May.
At the council meeting last Tuesday, a report revealed the council spent just over $3 million on environmentally friendly products and services for the 2007/08 financial year under its Eco-Buy program.
That’s up from just over $2 million the previous year an increase of 32 per cent.
The program, which has been going since the 2002/03 financial year, includes purchases such as copy paper, garbage bins, organic fertilisers, recycled crushed concrete and tree pruning mulch.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Money for jam - clowncil way!
What would you think is a reasonable salary for someone with the following qualifications -
1. 4 years secondary education and
2.· Substantial work experience in the Service Industry, preferably in a variety of services (Hospitality, retailing etc)
This person's duties would include the following -
· Liaise with the public, event organisers, users and Council staff on an as needed basis, in order to ensure that equipment and facilities are properly used and maintained
· Ensure a highly visible presence at all times when on duty so that an environment of secure confidence exists for visitors and staff of the facility
· Liaise with the Facility Hire Officer and Facilities Services Team Leader to ensure the satisfaction of the facility user
· Ensure audiovisual equipment is maintained and operational at all times
· Organise the facility layout and equipment in compliance with the agreed needs of the organisation and the facility users
· Ensure that a customer focus is maintained at all times by ensuring that the client’s needs are met, coupled with the provision of a high quality service
· Provide the services of Fire Warden in accordance with the organisation’s Fire and Evacuation policy and procedures manual. This service is to be provided whenever the facility is in use by staff and or the public
· Provide an ambassadorial role by acting in a professional manner for the City of Glen Eira when attending events and functions within the facilities
· Maintain and respond to the needs of customers as recorded on the Customer Tracking System using this program as a regular source of reference
· Adopt a sound and helpful telephone manner to customer enquiries and respond as required in a timely manner
· Distribute consumables on as required basis throughout the Town Hall facility
· Identify security/ maintenance and cleaning issues that need attention and follow them up with the relevant department/ personnel as required
In other words a general 'dog's body' to move chairs and equipment around, speak nicely to people who book barbecues, and show up at some events!!!
Well folks, our 'low cost council' figures that this job which is a 38 hour per week thing, plus generous super, and with a seven day roster, is worth $41,000 per year!! As I said - 'money for jam'. Couple this with dog catchers who earn $57,000 per annum, and don't even have to be 'qualified' when employed, then we can really see where our hard earned money is going!
Think I might apply for some of these cushy jobs - but then again, I'm over-qualified!!!
1. 4 years secondary education and
2.· Substantial work experience in the Service Industry, preferably in a variety of services (Hospitality, retailing etc)
This person's duties would include the following -
· Liaise with the public, event organisers, users and Council staff on an as needed basis, in order to ensure that equipment and facilities are properly used and maintained
· Ensure a highly visible presence at all times when on duty so that an environment of secure confidence exists for visitors and staff of the facility
· Liaise with the Facility Hire Officer and Facilities Services Team Leader to ensure the satisfaction of the facility user
· Ensure audiovisual equipment is maintained and operational at all times
· Organise the facility layout and equipment in compliance with the agreed needs of the organisation and the facility users
· Ensure that a customer focus is maintained at all times by ensuring that the client’s needs are met, coupled with the provision of a high quality service
· Provide the services of Fire Warden in accordance with the organisation’s Fire and Evacuation policy and procedures manual. This service is to be provided whenever the facility is in use by staff and or the public
· Provide an ambassadorial role by acting in a professional manner for the City of Glen Eira when attending events and functions within the facilities
· Maintain and respond to the needs of customers as recorded on the Customer Tracking System using this program as a regular source of reference
· Adopt a sound and helpful telephone manner to customer enquiries and respond as required in a timely manner
· Distribute consumables on as required basis throughout the Town Hall facility
· Identify security/ maintenance and cleaning issues that need attention and follow them up with the relevant department/ personnel as required
In other words a general 'dog's body' to move chairs and equipment around, speak nicely to people who book barbecues, and show up at some events!!!
Well folks, our 'low cost council' figures that this job which is a 38 hour per week thing, plus generous super, and with a seven day roster, is worth $41,000 per year!! As I said - 'money for jam'. Couple this with dog catchers who earn $57,000 per annum, and don't even have to be 'qualified' when employed, then we can really see where our hard earned money is going!
Think I might apply for some of these cushy jobs - but then again, I'm over-qualified!!!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Semantics, ego, and Lipshutz
The Leader online has just posted this comment by Lipshutz following the defeat of his motion to amend the councillor code of conduct. He took the Leader to task and wrote -
"I refer to the report inrelation to Council rejecting amendment to the Code of Conduct. Your report is erroneous. Unlike State and Federal governments, there is no Government or Opposition at Council but rather 9 Councillors working together. Accordingly there was no “crossing the floor” as reported. With the exceptionof Cr Staikos who is aligned with the ALP all other Councillors are wholly independent. The motion was not defeated and never came to a vote. Inasmuch as the Code of Conduct seeks to regulate the behaviour of all Councillors it will not work unless all Councillors accept it. Given that not all Councillors supported the amendment I accordingly withdrew it."
When will this bloke call a spade a spade? Lipshutz wishes to haggle over the phrase 'crossing the floor'. Technically he may be right, but in reality this is precisely what happened! One has only to check the voting record in this council to be aware of the fact that in 9 cases out of ten, there is in operation the 'gang of six' - votes are invariably recorded as six to 3. Regardless of the fact that Lipshutz would like to camouflage his defeat with sleight of hand semantics, the 'reality' clearly indicates that his cohorts did 'cross the floor'. It boiled down to simple arithmetic. Lipshutz withdrew the motion because he did NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS. Instead of 'facing the music', this 'hero of the community', whimped it and withdrew. Wordplay cannot disguise this fact.
"I refer to the report inrelation to Council rejecting amendment to the Code of Conduct. Your report is erroneous. Unlike State and Federal governments, there is no Government or Opposition at Council but rather 9 Councillors working together. Accordingly there was no “crossing the floor” as reported. With the exceptionof Cr Staikos who is aligned with the ALP all other Councillors are wholly independent. The motion was not defeated and never came to a vote. Inasmuch as the Code of Conduct seeks to regulate the behaviour of all Councillors it will not work unless all Councillors accept it. Given that not all Councillors supported the amendment I accordingly withdrew it."
When will this bloke call a spade a spade? Lipshutz wishes to haggle over the phrase 'crossing the floor'. Technically he may be right, but in reality this is precisely what happened! One has only to check the voting record in this council to be aware of the fact that in 9 cases out of ten, there is in operation the 'gang of six' - votes are invariably recorded as six to 3. Regardless of the fact that Lipshutz would like to camouflage his defeat with sleight of hand semantics, the 'reality' clearly indicates that his cohorts did 'cross the floor'. It boiled down to simple arithmetic. Lipshutz withdrew the motion because he did NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS. Instead of 'facing the music', this 'hero of the community', whimped it and withdrew. Wordplay cannot disguise this fact.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A drop in the ocean!!
Today's Leader!
Melbourne’s councillors put under the microscope
12 Sep 08 @ 11:07am by Staff writers
COUNCILLORS will be more accountable to the public under a raft of new changes to legislation, the State Government said today.
In a statement released this morning, the government says the changes clarify councillor codes of conduct and conflict of interest.
Local Government Minister Richard Wynne said the changes strengthened governance for councils elected last November and improved transparency if behaviour was questioned.
``We will establish Principles of Councillor Conduct, which councils must include in their Codes of Conduct, so that Councillors will know exactly what is expected of them,’’ Mr Wynne said.
Councillor Conduct Panels - with power to discipline councillors - will be set up.
Councillors can be reprimanded, plus forced to make public apologies and take up to two months leave of absence.
“Panels may also require remedial action, such as training, counselling or mediation, or they may refer the matter to VCAT if a councillor’s behaviour appears to be serious misconductm,’’ Mr Wynne said.
VCAT will be given further powers, including:
* Disqualifying a councillor for up to four years;
* Suspending a councillor for up to six months;
* Declaring a councillor ineligible to be Mayor for up to four years.
``Definitions of conflict of interest have been revised to apply to gifts and election donations received from a person with a direct interest, as well as situations where a member of a councillor’s family has an interest,” Mr Wynne added.
``Conflict of interest will also be extended to council staff, who will be prohibited from exercising any delegated power or function of the council, if they have a conflict of interest.’’
According to the government statement, the Bill will amend the Local Government Act 1989 and the City of Melbourne Act 2001.
Key provisions include:
* The establishment of Principles of Councillor Conduct that will form the basis of each individual council’s Councillor Code of Conduct;
* The power to establish a Councillor Conduct Panel, on application from a council, councillor or councillors, to hear cases of alleged misconduct. Panels will consist of two people from a list maintained by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV);
* Extensive changes to the conflict of interest requirements of the Act, including completely revised definitions and a wider application of the provisions;
* Councillors will be required to submit their ordinary return of interests twice yearly – they are currently only required to do so once each year;
* The gift disclosure threshold will be reduced from $500 to $200, bringing it in-line with the threshold for disclosure of campaign donations;
* Implementation of the amended remuneration package for councillors following the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Local Government (Councillor Remuneration Review) Panel in April 2008;
* Councils may choose to elect the mayor for a period of two years; and,
* Measures to improve the transparency of councils; including the requirement to give at least seven days’ public notice of meetings, the requirement to publish local laws and public notices online and an increase in the time allowed for public submissions under the Act from 14 to 28 days.
COMMENTARY:
This bill is an improvement, but it certainly does not go far enough! Underlying everything is the simple and erroneous assumption that in most councils the 'problem' lies with councillors. It is they who often breach vague and nebulous 'codes of conduct'; it is they who have undeclared conflicts of interest, etc. Whilst undoubtedly true, this doesn't tell us the whole story. Councillors are only part of the problem. The major PROBLEM as experienced by glen eira residents is the bureaucracy - those untouchable mandarins, who pull the strings behind the scenes. The bill does introduce a 'code of conduct' for staff - but this is to be designed by the CEO. There is no mandate for this to be made public, nor is there any requirement to make public any findings of breaches of this supposed 'code of conduct'. Basically, the real troublemakers get off scot free!
My questions are simple. Why shouldn't bureaucrats be subject to the same public scrutiny as councillors? Why shouldn't their performance or failure also see the light of day? Why cede such power, to the most manipulative of CEO's?
Melbourne’s councillors put under the microscope
12 Sep 08 @ 11:07am by Staff writers
COUNCILLORS will be more accountable to the public under a raft of new changes to legislation, the State Government said today.
In a statement released this morning, the government says the changes clarify councillor codes of conduct and conflict of interest.
Local Government Minister Richard Wynne said the changes strengthened governance for councils elected last November and improved transparency if behaviour was questioned.
``We will establish Principles of Councillor Conduct, which councils must include in their Codes of Conduct, so that Councillors will know exactly what is expected of them,’’ Mr Wynne said.
Councillor Conduct Panels - with power to discipline councillors - will be set up.
Councillors can be reprimanded, plus forced to make public apologies and take up to two months leave of absence.
“Panels may also require remedial action, such as training, counselling or mediation, or they may refer the matter to VCAT if a councillor’s behaviour appears to be serious misconductm,’’ Mr Wynne said.
VCAT will be given further powers, including:
* Disqualifying a councillor for up to four years;
* Suspending a councillor for up to six months;
* Declaring a councillor ineligible to be Mayor for up to four years.
``Definitions of conflict of interest have been revised to apply to gifts and election donations received from a person with a direct interest, as well as situations where a member of a councillor’s family has an interest,” Mr Wynne added.
``Conflict of interest will also be extended to council staff, who will be prohibited from exercising any delegated power or function of the council, if they have a conflict of interest.’’
According to the government statement, the Bill will amend the Local Government Act 1989 and the City of Melbourne Act 2001.
Key provisions include:
* The establishment of Principles of Councillor Conduct that will form the basis of each individual council’s Councillor Code of Conduct;
* The power to establish a Councillor Conduct Panel, on application from a council, councillor or councillors, to hear cases of alleged misconduct. Panels will consist of two people from a list maintained by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV);
* Extensive changes to the conflict of interest requirements of the Act, including completely revised definitions and a wider application of the provisions;
* Councillors will be required to submit their ordinary return of interests twice yearly – they are currently only required to do so once each year;
* The gift disclosure threshold will be reduced from $500 to $200, bringing it in-line with the threshold for disclosure of campaign donations;
* Implementation of the amended remuneration package for councillors following the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Local Government (Councillor Remuneration Review) Panel in April 2008;
* Councils may choose to elect the mayor for a period of two years; and,
* Measures to improve the transparency of councils; including the requirement to give at least seven days’ public notice of meetings, the requirement to publish local laws and public notices online and an increase in the time allowed for public submissions under the Act from 14 to 28 days.
COMMENTARY:
This bill is an improvement, but it certainly does not go far enough! Underlying everything is the simple and erroneous assumption that in most councils the 'problem' lies with councillors. It is they who often breach vague and nebulous 'codes of conduct'; it is they who have undeclared conflicts of interest, etc. Whilst undoubtedly true, this doesn't tell us the whole story. Councillors are only part of the problem. The major PROBLEM as experienced by glen eira residents is the bureaucracy - those untouchable mandarins, who pull the strings behind the scenes. The bill does introduce a 'code of conduct' for staff - but this is to be designed by the CEO. There is no mandate for this to be made public, nor is there any requirement to make public any findings of breaches of this supposed 'code of conduct'. Basically, the real troublemakers get off scot free!
My questions are simple. Why shouldn't bureaucrats be subject to the same public scrutiny as councillors? Why shouldn't their performance or failure also see the light of day? Why cede such power, to the most manipulative of CEO's?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
'Secrecy snubbed' or 'Bigmouth backdown'
Today's Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader - Page 3.
"In a victory for free speech Glen Eira Mayor Steven Tang and independent councillor Henry Buch, crossed the floor to vote with councillors Nick Staikos, Jacquie Robilliard and Robert Spaulding against Cr Michael Lipshutz's motion to amend the Councillor's Code of Conduct.
At the September 2 council meeting, Cr. Michael Lipshutz's motion intended to prevent other councillors from disclosing discussions in briefing meetings.
The original motion was moved by Cr Lipshutz and seconded by Cr Helen Whiteside.
The motion was debated by councillors but, moments before it was to be put, Cr Lipshutz signalled he would withdraw it.
Cr Staikos said it was a win 'for accountability and demcoracy'.
Cr Lipshutz's proposal attracted five formal submissions from the public, with four opposed to his idea.
Cr. Staikos said because council was not a parliament, there was no need for cabinet secrecy and solidarity.
"Councillors should be prepared to be held responsible for what they say', he said.
Cr. Lipshutz argued that he pushed the mnotion because he wanted private opinions to remain private.
'The only opinions that matter are those expressed at formal council meetings,' he said. (Sally Spaulding journalist)
"In a victory for free speech Glen Eira Mayor Steven Tang and independent councillor Henry Buch, crossed the floor to vote with councillors Nick Staikos, Jacquie Robilliard and Robert Spaulding against Cr Michael Lipshutz's motion to amend the Councillor's Code of Conduct.
At the September 2 council meeting, Cr. Michael Lipshutz's motion intended to prevent other councillors from disclosing discussions in briefing meetings.
The original motion was moved by Cr Lipshutz and seconded by Cr Helen Whiteside.
The motion was debated by councillors but, moments before it was to be put, Cr Lipshutz signalled he would withdraw it.
Cr Staikos said it was a win 'for accountability and demcoracy'.
Cr Lipshutz's proposal attracted five formal submissions from the public, with four opposed to his idea.
Cr. Staikos said because council was not a parliament, there was no need for cabinet secrecy and solidarity.
"Councillors should be prepared to be held responsible for what they say', he said.
Cr. Lipshutz argued that he pushed the mnotion because he wanted private opinions to remain private.
'The only opinions that matter are those expressed at formal council meetings,' he said. (Sally Spaulding journalist)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
A Rates Revolution
The following comes from this week's Oakleigh-Monash Leader newspaper -
FURIOUS ratepayers hurled abuse at Monash councillors last Tuesday night, forcing Mayor Paul Klisaris to suspend the ordinary council meeting for 10 minutes.
More than 100 residents stood and yelled at the councillors at the Mulgrave Community Centre after Cr Klisaris refused to defer all Monash ratepayers’ bills until ratepayers and council reached a solution on the cost of the bills a request from Monash Ratepayers Association president Jack Davis.
Fuming residents jumped from their seats, walking towards the councillors calling them “an absolute disgrace” and “bloodsuckers”.
Cr Klisaris called for the meeting, which was the second of Monash’s “taking the council to the people” sessions, to be suspended for 10 minutes so residents could vent their anger.
As the Leader reported on August 19, about half of Monash residents had been hit hard with 2008/09 rate increases some exceeding 30 per cent.
The dramatic shift in rate bills was due to the 2008 State Government-commissioned revaluation of all Monash land.
The rates for each property this year were then calculated on the new land prices, which have skyrocketed in some suburbs.
The August 26 council meeting recommenced after many residents left the chamber shouting, “it’s all over, it’s no use”.
Cr Klisaris moved on with the meeting, inviting the remaining 30-odd residents in the gallery to ask questions after the meeting had ended.
Those in the gallery continued to taunt the councillors as they moved through each item on the agenda, including a report on the recent letter the council sent to the State Government detailing their concern with the way rates are calculated on land values.
After the council completed its agenda the floor was again open to residents in the gallery, causing another outcry as each person yelled out their opinion.
Councillors Klisaris and Lake attempted to answer the questions fired at them, explaining how the rates system worked.
“We can’t do what you want us to do,” Cr Klisaris said.
The next council meeting will be held on September 16."
Does any of this sound familiar? Rates going through the roof; no real justification for them - except of course to fund monuments to stupidity such as a $5 million pavilion in Caulfield Park, and up to probably $50 million on an aquatic centre when it is 2 km from Kingston's 'Waves' and no-one asked for this, much less really wants it if our rates are to increase 6.5% EVERY YEAR for the next 4 or 5 years. All I know is that last year my rates went up nearly $200. This year it is the same. So $400 in two years means that this is a 47% increase in the space of two years. My property certainly hasn't increased by this amount. Reading through the real estate listings, this area has increased by only 30 odd percent in the last 18 months. So how does this council justify such increases?
Perhaps we should take up the Monash mob tactics and really let these people who live in ivory towers know what we think. Your views are welcomed.
FURIOUS ratepayers hurled abuse at Monash councillors last Tuesday night, forcing Mayor Paul Klisaris to suspend the ordinary council meeting for 10 minutes.
More than 100 residents stood and yelled at the councillors at the Mulgrave Community Centre after Cr Klisaris refused to defer all Monash ratepayers’ bills until ratepayers and council reached a solution on the cost of the bills a request from Monash Ratepayers Association president Jack Davis.
Fuming residents jumped from their seats, walking towards the councillors calling them “an absolute disgrace” and “bloodsuckers”.
Cr Klisaris called for the meeting, which was the second of Monash’s “taking the council to the people” sessions, to be suspended for 10 minutes so residents could vent their anger.
As the Leader reported on August 19, about half of Monash residents had been hit hard with 2008/09 rate increases some exceeding 30 per cent.
The dramatic shift in rate bills was due to the 2008 State Government-commissioned revaluation of all Monash land.
The rates for each property this year were then calculated on the new land prices, which have skyrocketed in some suburbs.
The August 26 council meeting recommenced after many residents left the chamber shouting, “it’s all over, it’s no use”.
Cr Klisaris moved on with the meeting, inviting the remaining 30-odd residents in the gallery to ask questions after the meeting had ended.
Those in the gallery continued to taunt the councillors as they moved through each item on the agenda, including a report on the recent letter the council sent to the State Government detailing their concern with the way rates are calculated on land values.
After the council completed its agenda the floor was again open to residents in the gallery, causing another outcry as each person yelled out their opinion.
Councillors Klisaris and Lake attempted to answer the questions fired at them, explaining how the rates system worked.
“We can’t do what you want us to do,” Cr Klisaris said.
The next council meeting will be held on September 16."
Does any of this sound familiar? Rates going through the roof; no real justification for them - except of course to fund monuments to stupidity such as a $5 million pavilion in Caulfield Park, and up to probably $50 million on an aquatic centre when it is 2 km from Kingston's 'Waves' and no-one asked for this, much less really wants it if our rates are to increase 6.5% EVERY YEAR for the next 4 or 5 years. All I know is that last year my rates went up nearly $200. This year it is the same. So $400 in two years means that this is a 47% increase in the space of two years. My property certainly hasn't increased by this amount. Reading through the real estate listings, this area has increased by only 30 odd percent in the last 18 months. So how does this council justify such increases?
Perhaps we should take up the Monash mob tactics and really let these people who live in ivory towers know what we think. Your views are welcomed.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Gagging all the geese
Here's what some people think of Lipshutz's attempt to gag free speech at Glen Eira Clowncil. The following citations are taken directly from submissions published by clowncil -
1. "As a community member of Glen Eira I disagree completely with the proposed amendment to not allow comments made in the briefings to be brought up in the meetings. As community members we're entitled to know what is being discussed and transparency should be encouraged". (R. Flaherty).
2. " I submit that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, not in the interests of the community, contrary to the principle of free speech, and ambigious in its wording.
...it is not in the interests of the community to inhibit public reporting and discussion of matters which may come before council. I am not aware that there have been any requests from the community for such a clause." (A. Bunn)
3. Glen Eira Council's community plan calls for governance that is democratic, open, and responsible and benefits everybody equally.
A code of conduct for the community's elected representatives that is formulated by the councillors, for the benefit of councillors, is undemocratic in the extreme.' (S. Nolle).
The above are mere 'highlights' of the submissions and readers are directed to read them all in full by accessing clowncil's website. Also of note is that there was only ONE submission which favoured the amendment and this came from an ex-councillor!
Once this 'gag' is voted in (as I am sure it will be given this clowncil's past record of listening and adopting the views presented in submissions) the geese (ie councillors) will really be squeaking with identical 'honks'. Their 'geesehood' will be complete. The ugle ducklings will have been transformed into obedient and pliable gooses by their lords and masters. But, never mind, since this merely represents one more plank of policy which must be dismantled by an increasingly aware and fed-up community! It's time folks for a total clean-out!
1. "As a community member of Glen Eira I disagree completely with the proposed amendment to not allow comments made in the briefings to be brought up in the meetings. As community members we're entitled to know what is being discussed and transparency should be encouraged". (R. Flaherty).
2. " I submit that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, not in the interests of the community, contrary to the principle of free speech, and ambigious in its wording.
...it is not in the interests of the community to inhibit public reporting and discussion of matters which may come before council. I am not aware that there have been any requests from the community for such a clause." (A. Bunn)
3. Glen Eira Council's community plan calls for governance that is democratic, open, and responsible and benefits everybody equally.
A code of conduct for the community's elected representatives that is formulated by the councillors, for the benefit of councillors, is undemocratic in the extreme.' (S. Nolle).
The above are mere 'highlights' of the submissions and readers are directed to read them all in full by accessing clowncil's website. Also of note is that there was only ONE submission which favoured the amendment and this came from an ex-councillor!
Once this 'gag' is voted in (as I am sure it will be given this clowncil's past record of listening and adopting the views presented in submissions) the geese (ie councillors) will really be squeaking with identical 'honks'. Their 'geesehood' will be complete. The ugle ducklings will have been transformed into obedient and pliable gooses by their lords and masters. But, never mind, since this merely represents one more plank of policy which must be dismantled by an increasingly aware and fed-up community! It's time folks for a total clean-out!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Clowncil and censorship
We've just received the following which has also been sent as a 'letter to the editor'. This is quoted in full -
"I have previously wrriten about the overt practice of censorship by Glen Eira Council. This week's council meeting (Sept. 2nd) provides further evidence of this. Submissions to the domestic animal management plan were denied publication and I was told I could not address council on this issue since this would infringe 'privacy'. Instead the community was provided with a bastardised summary of individuals' submissions which often neglected to highlight the major criticisms, or worse, many of the comments were taken out of context. Now we have the following scenario: submissions on the sale of land in Station St. Mckinnon are published and submitters allowed to speak. Also published in full are submissions on the proposed amendment to the councillor code of conduct as well as the environmental policy. The question remains: why were submissions and speakers denied their rights when it came to animal management and yet the above are 'permitted' by council? The only conclusion that any reasonable person could draw from these events is that censorship is alive and well in the city of Glen Eira!"
"I have previously wrriten about the overt practice of censorship by Glen Eira Council. This week's council meeting (Sept. 2nd) provides further evidence of this. Submissions to the domestic animal management plan were denied publication and I was told I could not address council on this issue since this would infringe 'privacy'. Instead the community was provided with a bastardised summary of individuals' submissions which often neglected to highlight the major criticisms, or worse, many of the comments were taken out of context. Now we have the following scenario: submissions on the sale of land in Station St. Mckinnon are published and submitters allowed to speak. Also published in full are submissions on the proposed amendment to the councillor code of conduct as well as the environmental policy. The question remains: why were submissions and speakers denied their rights when it came to animal management and yet the above are 'permitted' by council? The only conclusion that any reasonable person could draw from these events is that censorship is alive and well in the city of Glen Eira!"
Moving from nook!
Yes folks, we're back. Bigger, brighter, and brasher. After weeks and weeks of inactivity on good old Nook, we've had enough and decided to move. No more waiting for moderators to okay our content; no more waiting for posts and comments to go up; no more hassles. We can write what we think, and you can post what you think. So unimpeded, we will continue to fight for 'truth, justice and the Australian way'. We will continue to highlight the issues which concern our doggy members, as well as the issues which affect all glen eira residents. This clowncil will continue to be 'audited' and assessed by watchdog and others.
Elections are looming and as we've stated before, the time is ripe for change.
Stay tuned for more news and please comment whenever you like.
Elections are looming and as we've stated before, the time is ripe for change.
Stay tuned for more news and please comment whenever you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)