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!!!
Today’s Glen Eira Leader (April 15th)
GLEN Eira ratepayers have forked out almost $4000 to pay a councillor who hasn’t been seen at any meetings since November.
Tucker ward councillor David Feldman has missed five consecutive public council meetings and failed to request a leave of absence for last week’s meeting.
Glen Eira Residents Action Group president Andrew Bunn said Cr Feldman should provide an explanation about his disappearing act to residents.
“Obviously, there are situations where they have family or business commitments,” he said.
“But (five meetings) seems excessive and we really are entitled to know the reasons.”
Cr Feldman chairs the pool steering, audit and finance advisory committees and is council delegate for the Municipal Association of Victoria.
Each councillors is paid a quarterly allowance and received an instalment of $3750 on April 4.
Mayor Steven Tang said: “Councillors Ashmor and Staikos have been working extremely hard for the Tucker Ward.”
“The community will judge all councillors at the next election.”
Tucker Ward councillor Nick Staikos said while there could be personal reasons for Cr Feldman’s absence, as an elected representative he should explain.
“I hope he is well, but the community and the council are owed some sort of an explanation,” Cr Staikos said. He estimated Cr Feldman had missed about 20 council, committee and community meetings.
Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke said the council had not received official notification of Cr Feldman’s absence.
Cr Feldman said he had been away longer than he anticipated because of “personal and family issues”.
The latest agenda items for Glen Eira Clowncil’s meeting tomorrow night includes a ‘report’ on ESDs (ie. planning and sustainability). We are told that only 3 councils are currently using what is known as the STEPS or ESD programs that were initiated by Moreland City Council. The implication is, that since so few councils are employing this strategy that is it not worthwhile for Glen Eira to pursue this. The issue here is that these figures are INCORRECT. According to the Municipal Association of Victoria (and I quote) “”The Advocacy group has 35% of councils from across Victoria interested and participating and 9 councils now using the STEPS/SDS”. Surely the community has every right to expect that council’s information is accurate? These ‘reports’ are often the basis for vital policy decisions. They are handed out to councillors for their consideration. But how can ‘informed decision making’ occur when the provided information is so skewed? As ratepayers we must demand a higher level of professionalism from those well paid employees/administration whose job it is to be on top of all the issues they are required to report on. Anything less is sheer incompetence and a waste of ratepayers money!
Once ‘anti-dog’, then always ‘anti-dog’. Clowncil simply cannot help itself as evidenced by its latest entry in the propaganda sheet ‘The Glen Eira News’. Reporting back on the ‘community consultations’ what do we find people want? – greater enforcement of dogs off leash. This is all well and proper, if it was an accurate reflection of ALL the comments made at these ‘community forums’. Less than a handful of comments in all 6 meetings even referred to this issue and given numerous individual’s notes from these meetings there would have been as many voices complaining about the unreasonable enforcement of clowncil’s regulations. When asked what they would like to see change in 5 years time, people yelled out ‘get rid of dog catchers’ and ‘get rid of the bureaucracy’.
Clowncil’s version of events, needless to say is highly selective and biased. All ‘negative’ comments have either been watered down, so that the passion, anger, and frustration of residents is lost, or such comments are simply omitted entirely. What has got into the report is clowncil’s own take on things – a rose coloured view of the world – where residents think that Clowncil is doing a great job, that there is little room for improvement, and that things are just hunky-dory.
If people want an accurate appraisal of what really went on at these meetings, then I suggest you look at Mary Walsh’s blog for a complete and comprehensive rundown. See: http://gleneiraopinions.blogspot.com
Well, well, well. It seems that even the experts have nothing but condemnation for Glen Eira Clowncil’s draft Animal Management Plan. Below is a letter by one of Victoria’s leading vets (Ann Nevill) which appeared in this week’s Moorabbin Leader:
“The Glen Eira Council has requested feedback from the community members on the initial draft concerning dog laws. As a local vet of 35 years experience I was asked to look over the document. While not being grossly anti-dog, there are concerns with the phrasing and intent of this draft.
There is no mention in this document of the rights of dog owners that I can see. Denying rights to a sector of society, and making laws discriminating against them is a proven way to engender hatred towards them by the rest of the population.
We all remember Germany in the 1930s; this is of course an extreme example, but we all have to remember the mistakes of the past in assessing our attitudes, and be mindful of legislating in a biased fashion.
According to my discussions with Bayside Council, for most ratepayers the major issues are poo pick-up and barking lonely dogs, so let’s have more bags, more bins and more education.
The most serious problem is unsupervised kids and dogs, so let’s have education for both parties here, especially in the home where the majority of serious dog attacks occur.
Russell McMurray from the DPI, who has the job of reading all serious dog attack reports, claimed that the common factor in these ‘attacks’ is human ignorance or laziness and my experience backs up this observation.
A protocol that emphasises education, responsible dog ownership and mediation would make our municipality one of the best in Melbourne. Now is the time to act”.
When will this clowncil’s media releases actually start reflecting ‘reality’?? The latest example of fibbing concerns the posting out of animal registration tags and payment notices. The community is told that these were posted out in ‘early March’. I received mine yesterday, others received theirs today, and some are still waiting! This basically gives pet owners just over two weeks to pay their registration by the 10th April. Will we then be berated as ‘irresponsible’ owners if the money is not paid by the tenth? Will we again be called ‘guilty’ pet owners? Or will clowncil still insist that all renewals were sent out in early March and that Australia Post simply stuffed up? Wouldn’t it be nice, if just for once, media releases were an accurate ‘reality’ check?
One issue that stood out like a sore thumb at the recent ‘community forums’ was inappropriate development. Time and again residents bemoaned what was happening to their streets and suburbs - 3 storey/8 unit developments on single blocks; lack of adequate car parking provisions within these blocks, etc. etc. etc. In response, our kingdom of Glen Eira has consistently blamed VCAT and the state government. No, nothing is ever their fault according to the spin doctors. The blame for inappropriate development is inevitably laid at the feet of others - ie. Melbourne 2030, VCAT regulations, etc. etc.
In an attempt to discover how accurate this is I’ve looked at some planning decisions as reported on the VCAT website. I want to know how much ‘blame’ can be directed towards state government policies, and how much can be directly laid at the feet of this clowncil. Below is one such example: Domus Design v Glen Eira (27th March, 2006). [See VCAT website for full decision] I now quote verbatim from the finding -
Secondly, there is no suggestion anywhere from Council as to what the character of the McKinnon shopping centre is anyway. There is no relevant study; as noted already, there is no MSS position; there is no Design and Development Overlay to refer to, and there was no attempt in either the Council report or the Council submission to define what makes up the character of this area. On the Tribunal’s observations, the centre appears as an attractive local neighbourhood centre which hosts a variety of uses and building styles with interwar double storey shops being the dominant built form. There is already evidence of change taking place with newer buildings being constructed or permitted.
But the third and more important reason is that in many cases, it will be a futile exercise to demand respect of a “character” in an area that you are hoping will change. If, as is the case here, Council is contemplating the rejuvenation of a small activity centre with shop top housing and higher density development, then of course the “character” that is there today will be different to the character that will be there if Council’s strategy comes to fruition.
Council cannot have it both ways. If they want the development, investment, employment and accommodation in their older centres requiring renewal then it must follow that existing centres will change; and so the present “character” will probably change. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is clearly part of that strategy to breathe life into many of the older strip centres. But to deny redevelopment because it offends a character that is referenced only to a point in time prior to the strategy, means that redevelopment is unlikely to be as ambitious as Council seemingly want.”
So folks, how about making up your own mind as to the ‘not my fault’ approach of this clowncil! Questions that could be asked are: have they done their job properly? how well are actual cases prepared? Your views on this issue are most welcome.
A few months back I posted the story of how our good Samaritan, a gentleman in his 60’s was watering council trees and his little pomerian ventured out the three metres to accompany him. Our hero walked back to replace the watering can when lo and behold our wonderful glen eira dog catchers nabbed him and fined him $161 for having his 3 kilo dog ‘at large’ – note it was not more than 4 foot away from him at any point in time.
Well I’ve heard on the doggy grapevine the sad, sad run of events. They are: not having paid the fine within the month, our good Samaritan received another threatening letter saying that unless you pay within the next two weeks we’ll take you to court. Our hero ignored this. Then there came a phone call from the dog catcher herself. Are you going to pay she demanded to know. The answer was simply – no, take me to court. Nothing happened then for months. Suddenly, as if by magic, our hero received another phone call from ‘civic compliance’ suggesting that if he had problems in paying then clowncil would extend the time to another forty days. The response was the same – ‘take me to court’! Well, the end result was that our good Samaritan was told to send in a letter and the fine would be ‘reviewed’. Guess what folks – the fine was ultimately rescinded. The ‘excuse’ provided was that under the pretext of ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’, clowncil had decided to withdraw the penalty. Aren’t they kind, caring, wonderful people?? Of course the truth of the matter is:
- had they been ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ right from the start, our hero should never have been issued with this fine in the first place
- doesn’t this make a total mockery of 100% success rate in prosecutions – of course clowncil may have 100% success rate, because they only prosecute when they know they’ve got 90% chance of winning!
- why did they withdraw this penalty – my guess is that they didn’t want the poor publicity; didn’t think they’d stand a chance given the way the legislation is currently written
- So what does this mean? How much have all these letters, officers’ time cost us, the ratepayers, for something that should never have happened and more to the point – why have they unnecessarily inflicted all this anxiety and stress on an elderly man who was simply doing council’s own bidding – ie watering their trees? But of course, common sense, does not apply here. And the lure of reaping $161 for ‘dog at large’ compared to $107 for ‘dog off leash’ may have also been an additional temptation?
- But the real question is: how many other residents would have stuck to their guns? How many have coughed up their hard earned money for something they should never have been accused of? How many have allowed themselves to be intimidated? The ‘moral’ of the story is that it takes courage to stand up for principle.
A little while back I predicted that clowncil’s new approach to ‘consultation’ was really another form of Clayton’s consultation. Well folks, I should go into the clairvoyant business. The so called ‘results’ of the recent 6 ‘community forums’ are now public, as is the so-called ‘Community Plan’. Please note that this is a total misnomer. It is NOT a community plan, but a CLOWNCIL PLAN. Nothing, but absolutely nothing, that over 200 people commented upon has really been included in clowncil’s ‘action plan’. Environment issues remain restricted to the planting of trees and grass on sporting ovals, there is miniscule attention to silt buildup, parking, etc. Planning issues and their impact on the environment are totally ignored, etc. etc. etc.
Once I’ve had time to fully digest this atrocity, I’ll report more fully. But, for the time being, what is absolutely clear is that this clowncil is simply pushing ahead with what it always intended. Residents’ concerns have not been addressed, nor have they in fact even been recognised in this action plan. ‘Consultation’ remains nothing but a sham.
Isn’t it wonderful – Glen Eira Clowncil has finally carried out a ‘major consultation’ on its community plan. We were told time and time again how ‘extensive’ this ‘consultation’ is; how concerned clowncil is and how dearly it wants to listen to the views of the community. Well the ‘consultations’ have come and gone. Yes, there were 6 and probably somewhere between 250 and 300 people showed up in total. Repeatedly the virtues of this ‘consultation’ were rammed down our throats – how important it was for councillors to hear what the community wanted; how much preparation had gone into this ‘consultation’ – after all hadn’t 500 people been phoned and ‘in-depth’ interviews conducted?
Sounds great doesn’t it? But when you consider that all the questions at the forums were set by clowncil, and the 500 ‘interviews’ generally focussed on issues that did not directly involve the workings of council (ie what do you like about living in glen eira?) then there is great cause for skepticism.
Even greater skepticism is warranted when we once again compare this clowncil with the consultation processes undertaken for the Port Phillip community plan. Port Phillip, according to their published account included the following: a Steering committee which included 5 local residents out of a committee of 10; a community survey of 2,200 people, businesses; interviews with 700 residents; a community summit of 750 people which included focus groups and; finally neighbourhood community meetings. Compare this with the paltry effort of Glen Eira.
This lack of ‘consultation’ is again evident in the release of clowncil’s Animal Management Policy. The only say that residents have is to put in a ‘written submission’. Given the fact that not too many residents bother to check council website, or even receive the leader newspaper on a regular basis, or the Glen Eira news, I wonder how many people even knew about this new ‘consultation’. But more to the point, people lead busy lives. They often don’t have the time, energy, or confidence to put things in writing. Since glen eira has a large ethnic component this factor also mitigates against individuals submitting their ideas in writing. Why couldn’t there be open public forums? Why couldn’t there be a questionnaire on clowncil’s website? Why couldn’t there be a panel of interested residents, professionals, organisations that sat down together and actually produced a worthwhile document? The answer I’m afraid is simple. Because this is not what clowncil wants!! They don’t want to know what we think! They fulfil the minimum requirements of legislation, but never its spirit. God forbid that we, the people, should be given the respect and opportunity to actually influence decisions that are made in the ceo’s office. That would signal the death of autocracy.
