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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)