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!!

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'!!!!!!

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

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!!

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?

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.

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!

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!!

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.

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!

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.