Once more glen eira clowncil runs true to form with its so-called ‘environmental policy’ - See agenda items for July 1st meeting. I won’t bother going through this point by point, but will just make some general observations.
1. Words such as ‘investigate’, ‘encourage’ etc. dominate this poor excuse for policy. Target figures are practically non-existent - ie. it is simply not good enough to say ‘reduce’ carbon emissions. Why can Port Phillip and numerous other councils put a definite target figure on such strategies and this clowncil refuses to?
2. Once again we have the same old catchcry - ‘a low cost council’. Wonderful stuff, but is this what the community wants? Survey after survey has shown that the environment is a major consideration for people - they want action now, not to be told that this clowncil will do what it considers to be economically feasible, especially when they decide to spend up to $45 million on sporting grounds and to hell with the environment. People are getting sick and tired of having their priorities ignored.
3. The so-called policy is again not a policy but an exercise in obfuscation and self aggrandisement with ‘facts’ that are highly questionable - but more about this in the next post.
It appears the Cr. Lipshutz just can’t help himself. First there was the ‘no we didn’t receive the Friends of Caulfield Park submission’ even though it appeared in clowncil minutes and there was a signed receipt issued, and now we have the following howler as reported this week by the Glen Eira Leader. I quote: “He (ie Lipsshutz) said while Glen Eira had the highest numer of attacks among neighbouring council areas, few had been in parks. There have been no attacks reported at playgrounds or barbecues”. (Page 3, Leader). What Lipshutz fails to tell the community is that this is bunkum - and he, or those who provide him with this information should know better - or perhaps they already do????? The facts are there for everyone to check out - ie Bayside City Council in its Animal Management Policy recorded 90 attacks; Kingston in its policy stated there were 108 attacks, Monash has also claimed over 100. Glen Eira states that there have been SEVENTY.
Isn’t it about time that clowncil’s spokespeople are forced to accurately report on matters rather than present slanted and false statistics which only support the case they want to make.
Now whether the above is deliberate, or simply a matter of ‘I didn’t know any better’, or “i was misinformed’, is irrelevant. They are paid to know; they are paid to accurately present evidence and hence allow the public to make up its own mind as to the validity of any clowncil decision. This basic principle is severely undermined once more by clowncil’s own ‘big mouth’.
Ever wondered what these ‘grey ghosts’ get paid as they leap out from behind trees and accost little old ladies walking their dogs on retractable leads that are ‘illegal’ in this clowncil simply because they are more than 1.5m in length? Well a recent job advertisement on clowncil’s website, offered the king’s ransom of $57,000 per annum! And that’s without holiday loading, super, etc. etc. etc. It is of course debatable whether a simple dog catcher is worth this salary - especially when compared to a first year out teacher who is 4 years university trained and their princely first up pay is only $45,000. And at this clowncil, rangers have a year’s grace before they even have to get any formal qualifications. Real money for jam - or should I say, my rates paying for such nonsense!
Election time is definitely looming – what else could explain the amazing ‘pet friendly’ turn around of councillors at tonight’s clowncil meeting. It was positively nauseating to listen to this new found zeal for pets, and seven out of the nine councillors owning up to the fact that they were doggy owners. There were ‘mea culpas’ galore – yes, we have been concentrating too much on the punitive! Yes, we have ignored the benefits that doggies bring to the community, blah, blah, blah. But the question remains – why this sudden ‘conversion’ and why have these councillors only seen the light now? Where was their intelligence, courage, and integrity when they were first presented with the draft domestic animal management policy? Didn’t they realise a couple of months ago how discriminatory and appalling it really was? Why did no-one speak up against it then? Why did no-one move an amendment? Why did no-one have the guts to state the obvious – that the draft was not only anti-dog, but incompetent and potentially legally discriminatory? So now, we’re supposed to believe that these same councillors have suddenly become pet lobbyists. No my friends – the answer is that given the universal condemnation of this draft and the looming elections, councillors have seen the writing on the wall and their sudden fervour for pets is nothing but another example of spin doctoring. The proof lies in the simple fact that the original ‘action plan’ is still the same ‘action plan’ – practically nothing has changed. So please, no more nauseating, over effusive endorsements about pets. Councillors will be judged by their actions, not their pathetic putlic grandstanding. And they should remember – dog owners do vote!!!
I’ve just finished reading version two of clowncil’s Domestic Animal Strategy. Looks like the woeful first effort has hit the dust and clowncil has actually been shamed into toning down its language and adopting a more conciliatory tone. They have also corrected some basic errors that were in the original version such as including staffies as ‘declared breeds’. The problem with such corrections is that they should never have happened in the first place! All these amendments reveal is total incompetency to begin with and an anti-dog stance that is not only discriminatory but without logic, rationale, and commonsense.
So now we have version two! Sadly, the same errors and incompetence still exist. Performance indicators are not matched with action plans; vets, doggy groups and other ‘expert’ groups have been excluded from having any input. The ‘new’ action plan is basically a repeat of the ineptitude of the original version. All that has happened is that pet owners are now made to feel all fluffy and warm with the sickening gush of platitudes and cliches that is meant to constitute substance and real vision.
If a leopard does not change its spots, or is even prepared to really listen to what a community wants, then it simply must go. It must be eradicated. Roll on November - and to the election of councillors who have courage and integrity.
Oh my! How righteous we can be. We’ve had the fun police, now we’ve got the ‘moral police’ attempting to close down the Kittens car wash. What is important is that VCAT’s judgement is not about the MORALITY of scantly dressed buxom beauties titillating their customers - this was clearly stated. The judgement was based on whether a permit is required for ‘advertising’, and a couple of minor things like fences, etc. So we have had this major case going on and on, and councillors leading the charge all in the name of ‘morality’!! Oh please!! Was this case really worth all the time and money that us ratepayers had to fork out? For example council had the following officers attending the VCAT hearing - a lawyer (perhaps a barrister?); John Kiriakidis; John Bordignon, Manager Civic Compliance;Douglas Taylor, Planning Enforcement Officer;Greg Avdoulos, Animal Management Officer; Bruce Graham, Statutory Building Inspector;
• Nicholas Atkinson, Civic Compliance Officer; Frank Magaldi, Assistant Technical Officer; Emma Donnelly, Traffic Engineer. That makes it NINE council employees possibly sitting in a hearing all day - and for what?? The judgement wasn’t that the car wash be closed. It can only be closed if they don’t adhere to the conditions of fixing a fence and removing the advertising!! So how much has this cost us as ratepayers. Morality is expensive isn’t it. Pity it is directed to this petty stuff, rather than ensuring that ‘morality’ also extends to clowncil and its practices.
Late last night a friend dropped off a fat wad of notes - submissions to clowncil’s ‘community plan’. I was also informed that at least 9 or 10 people got up and spoke to their submission.Another 2 or 3 declined to speak, although they had put in their views. I’ve now read all the submissions and I think they are wonderful - thoughtful, detailed, many offering constructive suggestions. However, what comes through strongly is the total rejection of not only the proposed plan, but the seering criticism of a clowncil that is perceived as totally ‘undemocratic’ - one that holds its community in total disrespect. Again and again the submissions make the point that what the community declared as their ‘priorities’ never got to see the light of day in the resultant draft. Issues such as environment, planning and governance are totally ignored, or watered down to nothing.
What is really encouraging however is that so many people actually bothered to take the time to put down their thoughts and ideas. Never before has there been such a response to a council plan in this kingdom. What this really shows is that the natives are finally getting restless and fedup. They have basically had enough of continually being fobbed off, of not being listened to, of a culture that insists on treating its residents as mindless morons. This is now over. There is a major community groundswell that by election time will resemble a tidal wave of opposition. Yes, the natives are growing restless and demanding change. Roll on November!
With typical indecent haste the good citizens of Glen Eira are once again shown how much their opinions really count. Hot on the heels of the so called ‘community plan’ (version two) we now have the draft annual budget. The latter sets in concrete the predetermined ’strategic objectives’ that were released less than a month ago in the second version of the ‘community plan’. Now, I realise that there are legislative requirements and dates to be met which everyone must meet. That is precisely my point. The puppet masters (ie. administration) at clowncil knows exactly when the deadlines are. So, why are such vital policies/documents released with so little time for real analyses, revision, and amendment? Why, when other councils go through months and months of intensive community consultation does this clowncil give its residents such short shrift? The answer is simple - legislative requirements of ’submissions’ have to be adhered to. All that happens is that the letter of the law is adhered to. There is no real intent to listen to what the community wants, or adjust anything according to community priorities. Ratepayers are simply handed a fait accompli which is then rammed through by compliant councillors in indecent haste. I just can’t wait til November!
With much fanfare, Glen Eira Clowncil announced that it was finally becoming ‘green’. That it, that it finally was establishing a Environmental Advisory Committee that would include 4 community representatives. Of course, these community reps have no voting rights - they are allowed one assumes to merely voice an ‘opinion’. So much for the democratic spirit in Glen Eira.
Now it appears that the long awaited community forum on environment has been put on the back burner. Interesting developments I would argue. Why the delay after so many months? Surely the ‘masters’ can simply bring in whatever policy they like when our reps have no voting rights? So what’s the problem guys? Or is this merely another example of super duper efficiency?
The above title from the Barry Jones’ old classic has frequently been called to mind in recent times. His argument was primarily that given our new technological, postmodern age, we are all in the thrall of ‘experts’ – those individuals who are the gatekeepers to vital information, who are charged with the responsibility of collating, analysing, and devising policy recommendations based on this information. In other words, bureaucrats! Let’s face it, no politician or councillor has the time to read every relevant document on every issue. They rely on these paid underlings to provide them with the ‘nuts and bolts’ of issues, to make recommendations and to clearly enunciate all benefits and potential drawbacks.
In theory, this works fine. But in reality, it literally means ‘rule by nobody’ – they are not accountable to the public, nor are they accountable to anyone except others of their ilk! In theory we expect these gatekeepers to be honest, to provide information that is reliable, trustworthy, and beyond doubt. But do they? In our wonderful kingdom of Glen Eira, time and time again clowncil officers produce reports that are tainted, distorted, and as far removed from actuality as they can possibly make it (i.e. ‘consultation paper’; domestic animal management policy, etc. etc. etc.). None of these ‘reports’ are balanced or fair. The end result is that unless councillors are prepared to do the hard yakka and read everything pertaining to an issue themselves, they often have no idea as to the real ‘facts’ of a case.
Demanding honesty from our politicians and councillors is one thing. The most important is to demand honesty from the bureaucrats. It is really time for us ‘sleepers’ to awake!!!
