Secret No More!

The following provides residents with a glimpse into the behind the scenes machinations that have come to characterise this administration and councillors. First we present part of the in camera minutes of 20^th September 2011 which were not reproduced in any public minutes. However in the minutes of 22^nd November 2011 there is a new resolution which bears a striking resemblance to the unpublished one. The in camera minutes of 20^th September state –

Crs Tang/Hyams

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August right of reply Council:

1. 1.     Notes that On 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated:-

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2.     Considers that the above statement is likely to mislead or deceive.

3.     Requested Cr Penhalluriack to withdraw this statement and he has not done so.

4.     Considers that had Council rebutted the statement at that time, or were Council to do so in a public forum, it may constitute a breach of confidentiality. Council therefore notes that the comments were likely to mislead or deceive and accordingly, Council disassociates itself from those comments (our emphasis)

DIVISION

Cr Forge called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                                                             Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lobo                                                                 Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                                                            Cr Magee

Cr Tang

Cr Hayms

Cr Pilling

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED. 

Then wonder of wonders, the minutes of 22^nd November contain this resolution –

Crs Lipshutz/Tang 

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council: 

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.” 

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above. 

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. 

COMMENTS

Readers need to keep in mind that this second resolution happened to take place when Penhalluriack (and Lobo) were on leave. It also raises questions as to why two councillors changed their votes and what kind of pressures may have been applied to ensure that the resulting vote was unanimous? As to the logic of the argument, well, we’ve already commented on that in our November 2011 post, but it’s worth reiterating that there is a vast difference between potentially breaching confidentiality as stated in the first resolution and the conclusion that ‘the comments were likely to mislead or deceive’. Further, Council at this point in time had not revealed that O’Neill had been hired, so by including the ‘fresh’ resolution in the minutes of 22^nd November they were probably contravening their own confidentiality embargo!!!

Readers may well ask, what’s the point of two similar resolutions? Is this simple ‘damage control’? More muck raking? Or so that the word ‘unanimous’ can be put at the bottom and continue the pretence that this is a united council? Please note again who are the primary  ‘little helpers’. 

 

Do We Really Need All These ‘Fat Cats’?

Staff numbers at Glen Eira continue to rise and rise. We’ve reported several times already on the number of ‘fat cats’ sitting on well over $230,000 per annum in contrast to other councils. But the scenario is even worse when we include ‘contractor’ costs. The promise made years ago was that Council would try to minimise its reliance on contractors. So much for promises! Below is a table detailing employee and contractor costs for the last 7 budgets as well as staff increases from 2008 onwards. Contractors we believe ARE NOT included in these staff figures.

	2006/7	2007/8	2008/9	2009/10	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13
Salary	37,960	41,066	43,277	44,073	47,838	51,841	56,277
Contractors	16,339	16,063	16,803	17,646	20,532	22,471	25,183
Staff   (EFT)	?	?	623	630	654	715	736

 

 

Rates & Charges Up, Services Down!

Submissions for the Budget, Community Plan, and Strategic Resource Plan close in about a week. The continual spin is that Glen Eira is a low cost and well performing council. Our take on all this is that whilst rates and charges keep climbing, services have been downgraded, cut, and certainly have not kept up with demand or resident expectations. We maintain that the basics are being ignored in order to pay for such extravagances as GESAC, and now the Duncan Mckinnon pavilion/grandstand as well as another $700,000+ for Marlborough Reserve. Instead of ensuring that funding goes to the essentials, such as drains, roads, parking, footpaths, open space acquisitions and other themes highlighted by the community, we instead have profligacy and interest repayments that will continue to burden ratepayers for years to come. Residents have every right therefore to question the decision making capacity and priorities of this council.

Our ‘evidence’ as to the downgrading of essential services comes straight from the horse’s mouth – previous budgets and council plans. Residents should also note that instead of specific and quantifiable measures that appeared in previous plans, the ‘measures’ for the 2012/13 version are mere waffle. Nothing is quantifiable. It’s also questionable why, when budgets are set the target is to spend only 90% of the allocated funds! Either the money is available or it isn’t! If the latter then it would certainly be far more honest to state that instead of the claimed $3.8 million designated for roads, that council will really be spending only $3.42 million.

Below is a table comparing the published expenditure over the past 6 years. What needs to be kept in mind is that costs have risen so what $3 million could have ‘bought’ in 2007 is certainly not what $3 million will ‘buy’ today!

 

	2007	2009	2012
DRAINS	“Reduce   flooding in Glen Eira by improving the Council drainage network – incidence   of flooding reduced – 1000 tonnes of sediment diverted ($3.3 million)”	Renew and   upgrade Council’s drainage system to provide greater capacity – Implement   council’s drainage program – Expend $3   million on council’s drainage Effectively   monitor and maintain the City’s stormwater network to minimise the   contaminants entering our waterways – Keep drains clear of sediment and   debris – 30km of drains cleaned.	Maintain   renew and upgrade Council’s drainage system to reduce the risk of flood   damage – Implement council’s Drainage improvement and Flood Mitigation Sub   Programs – Expend $3.5 M on   Douncil’s Drainage improvemnt nd Flood Mitigation Sub-Programs
ROADS	Local road   reconstructions $4 million	Maintain a   program of road renewals and replacement at a standard that allows for long   term safety and sustainability – Implement   $4 million capital program for road reconstruction – Road program   implemented and approximately 5 km of road reconstructed.	Implement   Council Road reconstruction Sub-program – Expend 90% of the budgeted capital works program for  road reconstruction. ($3.8 MILLION)
FOOTPATHS	Improve   the quality of footpaths – 27km of   footpaths replaced	Replace at   least 25km of footpath each year –   Implement $2M footpath upgrade   capital program at various locations around the City – 25km of new footpath   installed.	Implement $1.7M footpath upgrade …at   various locations around the City – Expend   90% of the budgeted capital works program for footpath installation.
HOME CARE		4956 hours of property   maintenance  provided to eligible   residents	4,500   hours of Property Maintenance.
CUSTOMER   SERVICE		Customer   Service Centre to resolve 80% of calls at first point of contact and with an   average call waiting time of 10   seconds or less	80% of   calls resolved at first point of contact Average   call waiting time of 18 seconds or   less achieved for all calls
FOOD   INSPECTIONS		800 food   businesses inspected	Conduct 800 food safety assessments of   registered food business (and this after Lipshutz at last council   meeting tells us that food outlets have increased dramatically)

 

Newton v Penhalluriack: #2

The following is from the in camera Council minutes of 20^th September, 2011. We have two simple questions for residents to mull over:

• Is this nonsense worth $65,000 and rising?
• Who are the real bullies?

“At the Council meeting of 30 August Council resolved

That Council:

Following consideration of the responses provided by the CEO and Cr. Penhalluriack in relation to the O’Neill report

1.

(a)      Resolves that Cr Penhalluriack puts all questions to the CEO and/or Officers in writing and submits them to the Mayor except where questions arise during the course of a meeting.

(b)      Directs Cr Penhalluriack not to make any accusations to the CEO and/or Officers unless he has supporting evidence (which must be produced at the time of making the accusations)

(c)       Urges the Chair to strictly enforce point of order at Council meetings concerning accusations made by any Councillor without any supporting evidence

(d)      Encourages all Councillors to take responsibility for the occupational health and safety of the CEO and/or Officers by taking steps to prevent bullying by acting on any incidents that they may witness and making points of order when accusations without evidence are made.

(e)       Requires Cr Penhalluriack to undergo training on bullying and the appropriate way to phrase questions at meetings and authorises the Mayor to ppoint an appropriate expert to carry out such training to a maximum expenditure of $2,500 (our emphasis)

(f)       Offers the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack Employee Assistance Support

2. Notes Tracey O’Neill’s recommendation to refer Cr Penhalluriack to a Councillor conduct panel and reserves the right to implement this recommendation should the above recommendations not be effective.

3. Appoints an independent arbiter, nominated by the MAV, to rule on issues relating to workplace safety identified in the O’Neill report and to ensure that recommendations are implemented and maintained to ensure a safe effective and productive workplace.

4. Strongly urges Cr Penhalluriack to exclude himself from all discussion in relation to the CEO contract and should he fail to do so, consider the formation of a special committee for CEO contract matters.

5. Notifies Cr Penhalluriack and the CEO of this resolution.

Issues

1.  Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour subsequent to Council resolution 30 August 

Subsequent to the Council meeting of 30 August a number of OH&S incidents have occurred these include

• 7 September 2011 – Cr Penhalluriack requested Council Officer (CEO) to supply him with Council Minutes and architectural drawings for Duncan Mackinnon pavilion contrary to the above resolution and also while having a certificate declaring himn unfit for any duties.
• 7 September 2011 – Incident report 00553 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted to direct officers to supply him with a Victoria Police report, an arborist report and photographs regarding a tree vandalism incident.
• 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03554 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack emailed a Council Officer again requesting Council minutes
• 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03555 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack approached a Council Officer requesting information making the Officer feel under pressure to comply
• 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03556 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack directed a Council Officer to copy the minutes from the 30 August Council meeting after being refused he then went through the Officer’s desk and read the minutes, which had yet to be distributed, taking hand written notes.
• 8 September 2011 – (CEO statement) Cr Penhalluriack attended the Citizenship Ceremony from 8.00pm until 8.50pm where he engaged other Councillors in conversation regarding the Caulfield Park Pavilion and amendment C60. Cr Penhalluraick (sic) then went to the City Management area and read the confidential minutes from the last Council meeting at an Officer’s desk. He was seen to still be there at 9.30pm reading through the confidential minutes. (our emphasis)
• 12 September 2011 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted conversation with Council Officers (CEO) (our emphasis)
• 12 September 2011 – Incident report 03557 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack questioned a Council Officer about Council documents leaving the Officer shaken and distressed

Also in discussion with an Officer from OccCorp in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack’s potential WorkCover claim OccCorp advised that Cr Penhalluriack stated that “The CEO term finishes in April so that it will all be over by then.”

 

Prudent Financial Management? – Duncan McKinnon

The saga of the Duncan McKinnon grandstand and pavilion ‘redevelopment’ continues. Council minutes now reveal that the tender has finally been awarded and that the contract price is $9,744,651.52.  

We’re astounded at the apparent inflation rate. All along residents have been sold different versions of what this will cost. The 2011/12 budget stated –“$5.5m for Duncan Mackinnon in 2011-2012 and $1.8m in 2012- 2013”. This year’s budget tells us : “Duncan Mackinnon – $1.09m for Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion construction in 2012-2013 (plus carry forward from 2011-12)”. As for total costs, these are anybody’s guess – something that is surely reminiscent of the increasing costs associated with GESAC. Public pronouncements started off at about $7 million. Then in June last year, the price was announced as being $8.8 million. Now it’s just under ten million and this doesn’t include ‘design’, road restructuring, car park extensions, and so on.

Questions:

• How can there be a million dollar jump in the space of less than one year?
• How can there be a several million dollar jump in cost in the space of 2 years?
• Have residents and councillors been told furphies as to cost all the way along?
• Where’s the extra money coming from since council can’t borrow anymore?
• How much has already been spent on ‘design’?
• Has the delay and subsequent price increase been the direct result of financial blowouts over GESAC? Are we heading down the same path with Duncan McKinnon?
• Are other services being cut in order to fund Duncan McKinnon?

 

Sloppy, Shoddy & Unforgiveable

Budget papers are supposed to be an accurate representation of a council’s financial status, its assets, and forward planning. Budgets are also submitted to Ministers, the public, and Auditor Generals. We imagine that they would go through countless hands before they are made public; that they would be checked and double checked for accuracy and consistency. How the following then occurs is simply incomprehensible. This is only one example of what we consider to be totally unprofessional and sloppy performance.

We have followed through on 3 separate budgets at basically two year intervals – 2007, 2009 and the current 2012 budget. The focus is on the stated number of DRAINAGE PITS.

In 2007 it is stated that Council has 16,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 15^th 2007, page 5 of the budget)

In 2009 we’re told that Council has 17,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 12^th, 2009 – page 17 of the budget)

Perhaps there has been a magical increase of 1,000 in 2 years. However, the piece de resistance comes in this year’s budget.

On Page 32 of the Community Plan Glen Eira suddenly possesses 22,000 drainage pits! Amazing! Then on page 32 of the budget we suddenly are back to 16,000 drainage pits!!!!!!!! Which is it? Does this administration even know? Or are figures simply plucked from the air and any number will do? Who checked these papers? Who is responsible for the inconsistencies and spin?

PS: Some more very questionable figures -

2007 – 5,953 registered business providing 32,750 jobs

2009 -13,521 registered businesses providing 29,000 jobs

2012 -13,521 registered businesses providing  29,000 jobs

2007 – 57,7007 rateable properties

2009 – 58,609 rateable properties

 

 

Debate: Does It Really Exist?

We beg readers indulgence since we’re about to repeat ourselves. We have continually stated that residents have made it absolutely clear that their prime concern is inappropriate and/or over development. We have also stated that part of the problem is that far too much power is granted to officers via the delegations process and councillors rarely get a look in.

We’ve also remarked on how Tuesday night’s council meeting had a warm and fluffy feeling where everybody was congratulating everybody else for GESAC, for parks and gardens, and so forth. Yet, hidden away in the agenda there was another draft of delegations.

Residents should expect that what happens in chamber is more than back slapping and mutual admiration societies. That when important agenda items crop up (ie delegations, environmental sustainability) that there at least be ‘robust’ discussion and that these recommendations are not simply rubber stamped by a bunch of either disinterested or compliant councillors.

What we’ve done below is feature the time taken to decide on some of these agenda items as well as the discussion on the GESAC report. Readers should note that delegations warranted a bare 90 seconds of council time. Compare this to the amount of time expended on the back slapping!

9.1 GESAC

Moved Lipshutz; seconded Lobo

LIPSHUTZ: started off with explaining that GESAC opened on 7^th May with a ‘soft opening’ and the official opening will be on 22^nd June. The facility is an ‘unmitigated success…..beyond our wildest dreams….quickly taken up by members…..almost 5000 members….because 95%…is indoors (it can be used all year round)….(so the delay) ‘whilst unfortunate is not significant’…clubs haven’t used it fully (as yet because of) ‘mid season’….we expect that the next round of seasons’ (facilities will be taken up fully)….83 schools within (area)….’of course teething problems’…(such a success that contacted by Australian Properties & other councils and invited to) ‘nominate for an award for innovation’…’at the present moment this is the benchmark’…’feather in the cap’ (for this and previous councils and public for their vision)…’wonderful facility’

LOBO: GESAC is ‘a jewel in the crown of Glen Eira’….’privileged to be one of the foundation members’…’great place offering all year round health’…..’I visit GESAC twice a day’….4914 (members)….numbers skyrocketing….’was budgeted to cost $41.2 million and to the great financial management of this Council ….has paid $37 million’….(staff members live locally and work part time. Rest of speech was basically a regurgitation of the Newton provided Officers Report apart from the aside – ‘Glen Eira Debates and Glen Eira Residents’ Association need to take a positive look of this worthwhile project……(instead of negative)….’it takes courage to say a spade is a spade’….(Thanked the Steering committee – ie Lipshutz, Esakoff & Magee for their ‘fantastic’ job and Newton and his directors).

ESAKOFF: began by saying how as a child learning to swim at the Bentleigh pool the transition is ‘quite amazing’….seed that was planted back in 2005….consultation period….to watch it grow …through that process of design…..watching it grow and now seeing it in its full glory (an amazing experience)….(thanked government for subsidies).

MAGEE: GESAC ‘has no equal’…’gratifying to be a councillor at this time’….’this council is the major stakeholder’….’we are the ones that built it…..we couldn’t have done it without our community…..community through their rates will fund this…(community has endorsed GESAC and) ‘waited patiently’….(5000 members shows that community) ‘weren’t put off by GESAC opening that few months late’…..(took so long because of quality work) ‘the fittings, workmanship’….GESAC will be there for the next 50, 60 hopefully the next 100 years’….(thanked Waite and his department, but ultimately has to thank) ‘our CEO…without….(him the project wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality it is)….’nowhere near as successful …..’thank…from the bottom of my heart’….

TANG: ‘thrilled’ it’s open….’great disappointment that construction project that went behind time’….(visited on Sunday and compared to the pools of his youth. Place was packed with all range of ages)….(Numbers are ) ‘far beyond council’s expectations’ (and thus this isn’t just) ‘a white elephant, a monument to how big a building can we build’….’community facility’….(needs people and there are people there)….’budgetary aspect is certainly something that we have to report on’ (42 million and spent 37 million) ‘and hopefully not too much more’….we need to monitor carefully’….(courts were something community crying out for) ‘starting in the middle of the season….hasn’t been great….that’s the area for improvement’…..’have to get the people who are driving to Nunawading, driving to Albert Park (who don’t have these facilities to take up the ones at GESAC)

Asked CEO question about press reports on membership and compensation for members

NEWTON:  ‘members have not been charged anything up til now….(that will start this week and first debits in June as recognition that project was delayed and some of these people) ‘would have had to pay memberships at other places’….’that’s been very well received’

PILLING: agreed with other councillors and that he and his friends have been down and it is a ‘great facility’…..(said that) ‘there are some gaps’ (in the courts)…’that’s understandable given’ (missed start to season)….’aquatic features are full’ (whenever he’s visited. Hoped that over the next 6 months all the courts would be) ‘well utilised’…..’down the track we will have to consider Carnegie Pool…..I don’t think the success of GESAC should (influence Carnegie)…I’m looking forward to having an argument down the track….

HYAMS: ‘great work that many people have done’ (steering committee, ceo, staff members)….’there will be gaps in the high ball courts….because they can’t transfer over in time…(but expected to see them all busy in a couple of months)…’little parking left (when he’s gone done which is an indication of) ‘how well it’s going’…..’if anyone wants any indication of (what people think of it just look on Facebook site). …’most significant capital project for years and years to come’….(agreed that Carnegie Pool was a facility that should be retained)

LIPSHUTZ: Esakoff had spoken about ‘seeds’ and coming to fruition. Lipshutz then said that ‘someone has to plant that seed’ (Newton)…..(in 2005 when new council came in Newton told them) ‘what a mess our two pools were’…..’losing money hand over fist and he certainly planted a seed……(went on to say how hard the Pool steering committee had worked and Waite and his team)….’builder certainly tried to cut corners…because of the way our project team worked (corners) were not cut’…’previous pools were losing money….this pool is built to make money…it will also be a financial success….’.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY – took approximately 18 minutes.

ITEM 9.2 quarterly report – 3 speakers – Pilling, Lipshutz, Tang. Approximately 7 minutes

Item 9.3 VCAT watch – 2 speakers – Lipshutz & Tang – approximately 5 minutes

Item 9.7 Park user surveys – 7 speakers Esakoff, Lipshutz, Tang, Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Hyams – approximately 13 minutes

Item 9.8 – environmental report – 3 speakers – Tang, Pilling, Lipshutz – approximately 8 minutes

ITEM 9.9 DELEGATIONS – 1 speaker – Lipshutz

APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS AND THIS INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT/CHANGES PUT BY LIPSHUTZ.

 

Sugar’N'Spice & All Things Nice

Tonight’s council meeting was largely a series of self-congratulations on everything from GESAC, to quarterly reports, to VCAT decisions. We will report in detail in the days to come, but these are the ‘highlights’.

• Burke referred to a ‘joint letter’ signed by 243 residents complaining about the Kooyong Rd/Alma Rd intersection ‘trial’. Strangely enough, every councillor who spoke referred to this as a ‘petition’ – not a ‘joint letter’. Confusion reigns supreme we guess!
• Several councillors finally admitted that the GESAC basketball courts were currently under-utilised. This was attributed to the fact that the season hadn’t started properly as yet. The question still remains – does this mean that the Warriors are not meeting their end of the bargain and that ratepayers are subsidising this tender? It also begs the question of how long will this subsidy continue and how much revenue is being lost?
• Since no councillor reads the blog we’re told, it must also be sheer coincidence that Tang picked up on our citing of the VCAT member’s decision regarding Etna St and the fact that State policy over-rides Council policy which refuses to classify Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre
• Esakoff reported on the MAV conference where she focused on motions that impacted on Glen Eira. Pity that residents were kept in the dark as to council’s position on any of the motions. Surely the decision(s) on Council’s position on each motion weren’t taken in Assembly meetings since that would be illegal, wouldn’t it? Or did Esakoff simply vote on her own accord without consulting other councillors first?

 

Newton’s ‘Little Helpers’!

The following is taken from #5 of the O’Neill compiled set of allegations. This claimed: “That Councillor Penhalluriack is determined to terminate the employment of the CEO through non-renewal of his contract of employment based on his own personal feelings towards the CEO as opposed to the fulfilment of any KPIs or other objective criteria. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO in his employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.”

Part of the ‘evidence’ includes –

8 Oct 2010	Councillor Lobo approaches the CEO and   informs him that he and his wife had lunch with Councillor Penhalluriack and   two guests of Councillor Penhalluriack. At that meeting the two guests had   said that Council’s problems were caused by the CEO. Councillor Lobo said   that he had disagreed with this.
9 Oct 2010	Councillor Lobo later telephone (sic) the CEO on his mobile and   informed he (sic)  that he had forgotten to tell him that   Councillor Penhalluriack in response to a request from Lobo to vote for him   be (sic) Mayor had said: “No” and then ”I will if you get rid of Andrew Newton”.

 

GESAC: How Open & Transparent?

We’re not accountants. We’re just ordinary citizens looking for answers and wondering why so much secrecy surrounds the financial dealings and details of GESAC. The latest items to raise eyebrows stem from the budget and the lack of detail as to rates and charges.

The Regulations (2004) define the mandatory ‘standard statement of cash flows’ as ‘a statement which shows all cash inflows and cash outflows from all activities of a Council during a financial year’. GESAC is now open. Charges for everything should certainly be known, and known in advance, if an adequate Business Plan exists. Yet GESAC does not feature in the ‘rates and charges’ section of the draft budget. Carnegie Swim Centre does, as does every other ‘service’ – even to the extent of booking rotundas and open space. GESAC, the largest financial unit,  is certainly conspicuous by its absence.

The ‘get out of jail card’ appears to be this vague and repeated paragraph:

“The 2012-2013 budget reflects user fees for GESAC of $6.9m. GESAC will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council”

This is surely an astounding statement for several reasons:

• It flies in the face of accountability and transparency. With no itemised figures as to income how can anyone determine the veracity of anything? Is $6.9 million simply plucked from the air?
• It provides carte blanche to officers – again without councillor knowledge as to precise details. Delegating such authority to officers as happened with the basketball allocations is simply another example of why full transparency is required
• What does this reveal about Business Plans – do they in fact exist?

Our argument is that throughout the entire GESAC saga the public and probably most councillors have been kept in the dark. All we have ever had are vague statements of totals – without detail, without explanation and without real justification. Below are several more statements taken directly from the budget. We ask readers to consider them carefully and to ask themselves, several fundamental questions:

• Do the figures really add up?
• How are they derived?
• Are you be satisfied that this explains fully what is going on with GESAC?

“The Centre is expected to generate income of $7.07m and incur costs of $6.77m. The financial impact of the Centre in 2012-13 is an estimated operating surplus of $297k”.

“The largest additional cost increases (over and above the 2011-12 forecast figures) are as follows:  Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.7m”.

When this Council has basically ensured that the next generation of residents will have a financial millstone around their necks, then it is even more incumbent on them to provide full and transparent financial details. Otherwise residents are fully entitled to believe that secrecy is the means for covering up a gaping black financial hole and that the reported figures belong to the land of fairy tales.