Issues
GERA raises with Council and with the community various issues of community interest from time to time. This page provides information about the most recent ones, as well as links to earlier ones.
CURRENT ISSUES
Submission on Draft Community Plan 2006-2010
We recognize that the Community Plan is an important document that sets the context for all Council activity. We accept most aspects of the Plan. Some aspects, however, concern us greatly and we elaborate on these below.
Consultation –Principles and Practice
Our most important concern is the necessity for effective advertising of Council activities
and consultation between Council and the community it serves. Council’s public
statements on this are encouraging but its actions do not back up its public statements
An example is from Glen Eira News in March 2006
“Community consultation is a vital part of Council’s planning and decision making processes. It helps Council understand community priorities and issues, and ensures community involvement”.
We have seen in the past how inadequate and segmented consultation along with scanty information has delayed some projects by years. E.g. Princes Park
On some issues Council consults reasonably but on others its performance is extremely poor: advertising is inadequate or late; obviously concerned organizations are not directly informed, restricting the volume and quality of feedback. Why not email all community organizations on Council Directories?
Another example is the advertising of this Community Plan. It was advertised in The Age on 3 May, (but who reads it), then in Caulfield Leader 10 May (who gets it) giving seven more days to make submission. It was not advertised at all in Glen Eira News which came out in the previous week . We recognize that two councillors when the advertising of this Plan was agreed by Council on 1 May, commented on the need in future to allow more time for consultation.
In 2003, our Association rated the need for better consultation by Council as the single highest priority for improvement of Council performance. It was buoyed by Council’s adoption of Objective 3 in 2004 to “communicate openly with residents, adopt consultation procedures to apply to all matters on which Council approaches issues or changes which affect the community- the policy itself to be developed through public consultation”. We now find this objective apparently abandoned.
Would it not be reasonable to expect or even require some explanation or statement of the reasons for this abandonment and why there would be superior benefit to the community by the new Objective 3: “Developing a strong community through community building and consultation”?
Although Glen Eira News states that “community consultation is a vital part of Council’s planning and decision-making processes”, such consultation appears too often to come last in the processes. “Community consultation” is treated as a mechanism to inform the public of what has already been agreed - to collect comment and to explain away why there is no need for amendment. Council does not appear to appreciate, except in rare cases, that consultation is a two way process of exchanging views and explaining the reasons for them. Consultation needs to come first for effective investigation and good outcomes.
This attitude to consultation is apparent also in the Community Plan about the development of an Indoor Sports facility. The coming year’s plan is to develop a strategy for the sports facility, and the measure at year end is to have “Feasibility study finalized and community consultation commenced”.
Putting consultation last is a waste of resources, time and community patience.
We make a strong plea to Council to reconsider the importance of this “vital part of Council’s planning and decision making processes”, to recognize this in Council statements, and to recognize that consultation is fundamental to effectiveness. We make a strong plea for Council to put consultation in its proper place and to adopt principles that can apply to all its planning decisions. This will strengthen both the Council and the community.
Objective 2: Improved Sporting Facilities
We support the outlined improvements and in particular we advocate the inclusion of a
second skating bowl facility as agreed following the exclusion of such a facility from
Princes Park and the trouble-free experience of the bowl in East Boundary road.
Objective 4 Enhancing safety within the community.
Bike paths and safety
Completion of bike path networks to improve safety is commendable but we raise again
the hazard to cyclists and pedestrians when both use shared paths in parks and elsewhere.
Cycling is illegal (except for children) on street footpaths. Shared paths are especially
hazardous for cyclists and pedestrians where the view ahead is restricted and there are no
speed limits for cyclists.
Graffiti
We support the effort to reduce the incidence of graffiti on Council property. We also
believe there should be more Council initiatives to assist transport organizations and
commercial and private groups to counter graffiti..
Objective 5: Responsible Governance
Among the planned actions for responsible governance we would like to see continued
advocacy by Council to State Government to limit the number of gaming facilities and
poker machines in them. We also support other measures such as a clearly visible clock
in every gaming room, absence of an ATM, and the need for users to have to get up and
leave the machine to gain more coins.
A J Campbell
President
GERA Inc.
May, 2006
Bentleigh Secondary College Basketball Stadium
This application to Council sought use of the college basketball stadium by the community outside normal school hours. After consideration of submissions at a delegated planning Committee (DPC) meeting on 22 December, a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning permit was recommended in the Council Agenda paper to its meeting on the 6 February. At that meeting, however, Cr. Ashmor, seconded Cr. Spaulding (before a colourfull and overcrowded gallery of basket ball players, parents and teachers) moved that the proposed use be approved, albeit with amended and altered conditions. Cr. Ashmor revealed that this had been made possible after she and Cr. Spaulding held discussions with Mr. Akehurst over concerns about vehicle access and egresss which it had been possible to overcome with closely amended conditions’
All Councillors paid tribute to the effort to overcome the difficulties envisaged and unanimously agreed to the proposed use and amended conditions.
Naturally this decision was applauded by the audience and augurs well for further co-operation among councillors.
Public Questions to Council – Procedures
Not so encouraging was a decision at the same Council meeting by 6 votes to three to adopt revised guidelines for Public Questions , under Council’s Local Law (clause 230).
GERA submitted objections to each Councillor before the meeting to the proposal that::
* A deadline for the submission of public questions of noon on the day of the Council meeting.
This decision seems to have been introduced to discourage the volume of questions from the gallery at Council meetings which we believe can be controlled if Council puts into practice rules against questions of a personal or objectionable nature. Our objection rests mainly on the fact that the procedure gags questions arising out of the debate, procedure or information or lack of it during the actual Council meeting.That is why questions have always been taken at the close of the Council meeting.
The decision does nothing allay fears that this Council may be even less open than the last which did not introduce this form of stricture.
We encourage members and friends to send questions direct to all councillors, by Email or snail mail.
Photograph © 2005 Alexander Scutt