Junkets Away: Most Travelled 2008-2012

The Melbourne City Council - High Cost Travellers
(Above $10,000)
Dec-2008 to December 2012

Total amount spent:

$      1,200,714.00

Interstate and Overseas Travel

Name	Cost
Kathy Alexander	$83,671.25
Jane Sharwood	S66,423.46
Robert Doyle	$55,254.80
Peter Clarke	$50,736.55
Alister Paterson	$39,768.80
Susan Riley	$27,084.08
Brian Shanahan	$25,010.37
Scott Chapman	$24,836.87
Amelia Bitsis	$23,271.23
Kevin Louey	$22,715.35
David Campbell	$21,683.73
Geoff Robinson	$21,167.06
Martin Cutter	$20,903.21
Fran Kerlin	$20,872.83
Barry McGuren	$19,730.73
Simon Spain	$18,031.48
Rob Adams	$16,229.47
Cathy Oke	$15,917.67
Janey Chu	$15,540.04
Geoff Lawler	$14,641.91
Krista Milne	$12,891.08
Ken Ong	$12,829.19
Rob Moore	$12,820.80
Ralf Pfleiderer	$12,113.28
Janina Harding	$11,685.78
Alex Fearnside	$10,963.06
Ian Winter	$10,800.52
Shane McIllory	$10,300.73
Michelle Isles	$10,153.39

Individual Trips costing over $10,000

Name	Cost	From	To
Kathy Alexander	$32,199.83	07-Jun-12	19-Jun-12
Scott Chapman	$24,181.87	20-Mar-09	04-Apr-09
Peter Clarke	$20,566.58	10-Oct-09	17-Oct-09
Peter Clarke	$18,159.67	28-Sep-10	07-Oct-10
Fran Kerlin	$17,994.00	19-Jul-12	03-Aug-12
Robert Doyle	$17,264.62	12-Dec-09	22-Dec-09
Amelia Bitsis	$16,076.79	12-Dec-09	22-Dec-09
Janey Chu	$15,540.04	13-Oct-10	23-Oct-10
Alister Paterson	$14,167.41	12-Dec-09	22-Dec-09
Barry McGuren	$14,127.15	23-Jul-12	29-Jul-12
Geoff Robinson	$13,097.13	15-Mar-10	25-Mar-10
Brian Shanahan	$12,676.53	12-Dec-10	18-Dec-10
Rob Moore	$12,496.50	04-Apr-11	10-Apr-11
Jane Sharwood	$12,254.89	11-Dec-10	18-Dec-10
Peter Clarke	$11,431.66	05-Apr-11	09-Apr-11
Kevin Louey	$11,313.63	17-Oct-10	27-Oct-10
Kathy Alexander	$11,225.83	17-Oct-10	26-Oct-10
Susan Riley	$11,157.38	17-Oct-10	26-Oct-10
Martin Cutter	$11,134.51	13-Aug-11	20-Aug-11
Robert Doyle	$10,782.34	08-Oct-11	14-Oct-11
Jane Sharwood	$10,642.64	17-Oct-10	23-Oct-10
Jane Sharwood	$10,519.00	19-Feb-12	27-Feb-12
Geoff Lawler	$10,425.00	14-Nov-09	22-Nov-09
Alex Fearnside	$10,092.49	12-Jun-09	26-Jun-09
Ralf Pfleiderer	$10,000.00	07-May-12	29-May-12

 * Note: The City of Melbourne titles or departments as such we can not produce a High Cost Travelled Departments.  The Council goes out of its way to avoid disclosure and accountability 

Junkets Away: Councillors Overseas Travel

Five months late the City of Melbourne has finally published it's Overseas and Interstate Travel costs for the term of the previous Council (Dec-2008 to Nov-2012)

Topping the bill of the most travelled Councillors is the Lord Mayor Robert Doyle

Interstate and Overseas Travel - Total

Councillor	Cost
Robert Doyle	$55,254.80
Peter Clarke	$50,736.55
Susan Riley	$27,084.08
Brian Shanahan	$25,010.37
Kevin Louey	$22,715.35
Cathy Oke	$15,917.67
Ken Ong	$12,829.19
Carl Jetter	$3,956.08
Rob Adams	$2,670.60
Jennifer Kanis	$40.27

Strike while the iron is hot Peter Clarke pushes for electoral reform

Melbourne City Councillor, Peter Clarke, has moved a motion to kick start voter reform for the City of Melbourne in the wake of Melbourne's non-spectacular flop of an election last month.

Whilst electoral reform review is long overdue and should have been canvassed by the previous Council the proposal put forward by Clarke is half backed and falls short of community expectations.

The current system of representation has failed to deliver good governance and the newly elected council shows little sign of improvement more of a back slide into a council of ridicule and rip-off. Missing in Clarke's proposal is a review of the City of Melbourne's external boundaries and the need to consider a Greater Melbourne option.

The Clarke proposal failed to mention a review of the direct election of Lord Mayor and the leadership team structure.

The motion put forward by Clarke needs further review,consideration and direction.

For example: Who is going to conduct this review? Will it be the City Council itself or the morally corrupt and incompetent Victorian Electoral Commission? Neither body is capable of delivering the level of review and independence that the city requires.

Without a well spelt out, all encompassing ,terms of reference we can not expect any review to deliver on expectations.

You can not resolve the problems facing the City of Melbourne in isolation.

In the end it is the State Government that must take responsibility for any review. The Council needs to call on the State Government to show leadership and governance (something that has been remiss when it comes to the City of Melbourne).

The City Council needs to outline in more detail its proposed terms of reference and call on the State Government to commit to a wide review that involves all Melbourne's inner City municipalities. The Council needs seek a commitment for the State Government to a time frame and method of a review and in doing so needs to make sure that the review addresses all the real issues and is not just window dressing.

The other issue of concern is Clarke's proposed reintroduction of exhaustive preferential ballots. This must be rejected outright as it is undemocratic and a back slide into the past where 50%+1 elected three or more Councillors. If we are to re-embrace multi-member wards then it must be on the basis of proportional representation.

Clarke's motion , whilst a small step in the right direction, needs more work and serious consideration not just quick fix ideas, a slap them up, half baked proposal dreamt up between Christmas cocktails and celebratory drinks, designed to fill the blank pages of the council's agenda.


C O U N C I L M E E T I N G
Agenda Item 6.2 - 16 December 2008

NOTICE OF MOTION:
CR CLARKE, ELECTORAL REVIEW, CITY OF MELBOURNE

Motion
1. That the City of Melbourne request the Minister for Local Government to immediately
commence a review of the provisions of the City of Melbourne Electoral Act, including
but not limited to:
1.1. governance processes;
1.2. voting system (is exhaustive preferential and proportional);
1.3. the number of Councillors and possible re-introduction of wards; and
1.4. other matters the community may wish to consider.
Background
2. The previous Council agreed to a review post the 2008 election. During the 2008 election
campaign, all elected councillors agreed to support a review of the current system.
3. The community via CORBA – Coalition of Resident and Business Associations – has
pressed the urgency of the need for an electoral review. We must respond and act
decisively whilst the election is fresh in our consciousness.

Moved: Cr Clarke

New Clowns Selected for new season performance

Melbourne City Council has elected the best of the best - new Clowns and some of our favorite clowns returned to office

Starring:

Leadership Team
Lord Mayor Robert Doyle (2008-)
Deputy Lord Mayor Susan Riley (2001-2004, 2008-


Councillors:
Peter Clarke (2004-)
Carl Jetter (2004-)
Jennifer Kanis (2008-)
Kevin Louey (2008)
Cathy Oke (2008-)
Ken Ong (2008-)
Brian Shanahan (2004-)

Grand Prix promotion So spends ratepayers money in race for reelection next year

John So came under fire for what is seen as misuse of council funds to help promote John So in the lead to next years Lord Mayor Race.

Two weeks ago John So unilaterally authorised the expenditure of $100,000 of un-budgeted funding. It was only after complaints from fellow councillors that john So was forced to hold a special council meeting to seek approval of the extraordinary payment.

Cr Clarke has come out criticizing the deal struck between the Lord Mayor and the Grand Prix corporation as a means of John So securing a prominent role in this years Grand prix event in return for the City Council agreeing to foot the $100,000 bill for the extravaganza promo.

Jon So reputation as "the man that can not say No" continues unabated.


Council funds used to promote So, say critics
Clay Lucas, The Age
February 27, 2007

LORD Mayor John So used council money to buy a prominent media role in this week's Grand Prix warm-up in Carlton, according to his Town Hall critics.

A draft contract between Melbourne City Council and the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, obtained yesterday by The Age, shows a condition of the council's $100,000 sponsorship of Saturday's Ferrari Festival was that the Lord Mayor be guaranteed a prominent role.

"Is sponsorship of an event like this meant to be about promoting the City of Melbourne or the Lord Mayor?" said Cr Fraser Brindley.

"The State Government sponsors plenty of events, but does Steve Bracks get a guarantee to speak?" he said.

On Saturday, 60 vintage Ferraris and a Formula One car will drive down Lygon Street, to promote the Grand Prix on March 18.

Leaked internal emails show that council officers demanded in December that Cr So be given a role in Saturday's event if it were to go ahead.

The council also requested that, as part of the sponsorship deal, the Lord Mayor and his chief executive, David Pitchford, get tickets to the Grand Prix's $2970-a-head Paddock Club — touted on the event's website as "the ultimate in corporate hospitality".

The deal was drafted in January — a month before councillors other than Cr So or his deputy, Gary Singer, were told about the event. The contract also guarantees Cr Singer "an official role at the launch".

Cr Peter Clarke said the sponsorship was proof council funds were being used to promote John So. "This smacks of buying media opportunities," Cr Clarke said.

Cr So and his embattled chief executive, whose contract is up for negotiation, earlier this month decreed that Melbourne City Council sponsor the event — despite internal advice that the council could not afford it.

No other councillors were told about the deal until February 6, despite Cr So and his chief executive having agreed to it in December.

The Lord Mayor last night said he had not "bought" media opportunities, arguing that officers must have negotiated media opportunities for him without consulting him.

"I am passionate about promoting Melbourne — I have no other motives," Cr So said.

The internal council emails also reveal that it was negotiating with VicRoads over a 100 km/h drive-through for the Formula One car in the event.

Grand Prix chief executive Tim Bamford and Cr Singer have repeatedly denied their organisations had discussed a speed limit of 100 km/h for the Formula One car.

John So $100,000.00 bankrupt fast ride Ron Walker extracts ratepayers' money from Lord Mayor without authority

Extraordinary revelations John So has on his own volition without approval from the City Council allocated $100,000 to fund Ron Walker's Grand Prix extravaganza.

Deal done behind closed doors without City Council approval


There is ongoing concern as to the legality of John So - "Who can not say No" deal. Issues such as permission to close off public streets, security and public liability are still unresolved.


City Council offers in December last year had rejected approaches made by the Grand Prix Organization for the City Council to fund the $100,000 John So extravaganza.

John So has overstepped his authority. The State Government, the State Ombudsman and State Auditor General must investigate to reassure ratepayers that the Lord Mayor's has acted within the terms of his authority. Calls by Cr Clarke and other City Councillors must not fall on death ears.

All ready the City Council's projected income is $4 Million Dollars below expected revenue.

The allocation of 100,000 for this event is not included in the City Council's budget. Other programs and events seeking public funding will have to be sacrificed to make ends meet.

If it turns out John So has acted improper then he should resign forthwith.

The City Council meets tomorrow to consider this issue. It is unclear if this matter will be discussed on open public session.





So $100,000 Grand Prix deal riles council
Sourek: The Age
Clay Lucas
February 12, 2007

JOHN So has reinforced his reputation as the Lord Mayor who cannot say no, especially when Grand Prix chairman Ron Walker pays a visit to Town Hall.

A report into Melbourne City Council's deal to sponsor next month's Grand Prix warm-up in Lygon Street has found that the Lord Mayor unilaterally decreed that $100,000 in funding be found for the event.

Cr So's decision to use public funds to pay for the Ferrari promotion came despite council officers having already rejected the Grand Prix Corporation's overtures for funding.

The Lord Mayor pledged the sponsorship after a meeting with Mr Walker and Grand Prix boss Tim Bamford on January 23.

But council officers told the Grand Prix Corporation in December that the council could not afford to fund the Lygon Street Ferrari Festival.

No other councillors were consulted before Cr So told chief executive David Pitchford — whose $300,000 contract is up for renewal next month — to find $100,000 in funding for the event.

"This is a deal done behind closed doors," said Cr Peter Clarke, who yesterday called for an Ombudsman investigation into the sponsorship.

"There is only one place to allocate public money like this: in a public forum. How many other times has public money has been allocated in this way?"

Finance chairman Brian Shanahan was also dismayed that council money was being spent on an event for the Grand Prix Corporation. "We are around $4 million down on our expected parking revenue. We should be avoiding expenditures like this, especially when the Grand Prix can pay for it," he said.

Cr So, who is overseas, did not comment yesterday. But Mr Pitchford issued a statement saying there had been "no abuse of power".

Mr Walker yesterday said it had been "right and proper" for him to pay a visit to the Lord Mayor. "When there are issues to be sorted out, the chairman of the (Grand Prix) corporation and the Lord Mayor sit down and try to work it out," Mr Walker, said heaping praise on Cr So. "He is one of the best lord mayors we have ever had."

The Ferrari Festival will feature a parade of vintage Ferrari cars and a formula one racing car.

At a special meeting of council tomorrow to decide whether the event will go ahead, the father of Damian Cooper — who died last month after being struck down by a car on Lygon Street — will attend to plead with councillors to lower the Ferrari parade's 60 km/h speed limit.

Silence of the lambs Do nothing John So casts vote to prevent debate and discussion

Melbourne City Council on Tuesday night under the "leadership of John So" voted down a motion to consider options for a possible expansion of Melbourne City Council's boundaries.

Cr Peter Clark had proposed that the City Council enter into dialog with its neighbouring municipalities about the possibility of a merger and creation of a Greater City of Melbourne. A move that would have seen the Kensington, Carlton and Prahran,South Yarra communities united under one Council.

So much for cummmunity particpation and debate.

The motion (which received 4 votes in favor and 4 votes against) was voted down by John So using his casting vote to silence debate.

John So continues to display a real lack of vision and wiliness to consider the hard issues. Instead he continues to spend-up big in an effort of self promotion. John So was recently voted Number one World Lord Mayor. The talk around the City Council by senior officers is that John went all out, a bit like being a beauty contestant, to try and win the acclaimed recognition.

"If only he had a real view or vision instead of wanting to be a mascot"

Full brownie points for Cr Shanahan who second the motion supported by Councillors Brindely and Snedden.

Melbourne Green's vision of indecisiveness Cr Fraser Brindley offers broad support but is unsure as to the process

Melbourne City Councillor Fraser Brindley indicates his support of a Greater Melbourne City Council but questions the process.

Please.. In all civility.. You have been in office for two years and you do not know where you stand on this issue. The idea of a Greater Melbourne should appeal to the Greens and in fact is already a part of the Greens electoral platform. The benefits to the environment are considerable, Fraser Brindley has done nothing to date to further the issue and when Cr Clarke seeks to put the issue on the agenda the only response we get is "Broadly supportive, but I'm not sure he's got the process exactly right"

Every idea of reform has to start somewhere it is not going to come out of thin air. The proposal by Cr Clarke is just the beginning, an effort to get the ball rolling and people talking. The motion should be supported and then put in place a process to further that goal. Any attempt at delay or any deferment would be seen as avoiding the question, silencing the debate in order to try and remove it from the political agenda in the lead-up to next months State election.


Full support for the creation of a Greater Melbourne and Cr Clarke's efforts.

It should be looked at sooner rather then later and ideally be in place before the 2008 Municipal elections. It should also be done in stages. I would most certainly support the merging together of the area covered by the state seats of Albert park, Melbourne, Prahran and Richmond. All these areas have a common community of interest. The City of Prahran is more suited to the City of Melbourne then Stonington. Likewise there is a need to re-unite the Carlton and Kensington communities that have been divided since the Kennett Government hived them off from the City boundaries.

In relation to perceived concerns about local representation this depends on the commitment of the elected council and new amalgamated administration to facilitate community representation and local input via local expert advisory committees.

You do not need to be an elected Councillor to have a say in local affairs.

In fact under an expanded model local communities could be better represented then they are today, Our elected councillors act like judges in a talent quest competition, they sit in judgement of everything under the sun irrespective of their expertise or understanding of the complexity of the issues involved. An expanded, more professional administration and representation would seek advice from expert advisory panels covering in greater detail issues such as the environment, planning, public transport, social services and the like. it would be the role of the elected Council to oversee the consultative process and governance of the new City.

This proposal is long overdue and I welcome further debate and consideration of the merits of the idea of creating a Greater City of Melbourne. If you did a vox pop amongst the residents of Prahran you will soon find that they would prefer to united under the City of Melbourne then to remain divided under Stonington. No doubts there will be a lot of ill-informed scare mongering. If you take time to work though the issues and act in good faith the basis of any objection to the proposal is unfounded and perceived problems and obstacles can and should be able to be resolved. It is right for Melbourne, it is right for Victoria and it is right for our future.

Push for a Greater Melbourne Melbourne's Heraldsun reports

The Melbourne Hearldsun has reported on Cr Clarke's option.

I am not sure if Melbourne should span as far away as Chadstone but most certainly should take in the area covered by the state seats of Prahran, Richmond, Melbourne and Albert Park.

The idea of creating a Greater City of Melbourne should be on the political agenda and all parties should back the proposal and help strengthen it by ensuring that any model put forward provides for effective governance and representation.

We are surprised that this motion has been put forward by Cr Clarke but it is the right move and one that deserves support and most certainly community debate. how much of it is times for the State election one can not be sure.

So what will it be.. yes or no?

It will be interesting to see who comes out and supports consideration of the idea and who is prepared to play political football and try and torpedo it before it is even discussed.

Push for a Greater Melbourne

Heraldsun

October 23, 2006 12:00am

PLANS for a new super-council stretching from Chadstone to Maribyrnong will go to Melbourne City Council this week.

The City of Greater Melbourne would house more than 350,000 residents and collect about $500 million a year in rates.
Melbourne councillor Peter Clarke, who is leading the amalgamation push, yesterday said better public transport was a major reason to unite Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra councils.

"In a co-ordinated way (we could) properly deal with the inner metropolitan transport and road network," Cr Clarke said.

"The main one has been public transport. When an entity has got larger, it's been able to organise public transport in a far more ordered and organised way.

"It's even the simple things like parking. You've got four different machines along St Kilda Rd (and) different rates."

Cr Clarke said Newcastle and Wollongong already had councils about the same size as that proposed for Melbourne.

He said an amalgamation would also lead to better aged care, child care and libraries.

"There is, understandably, a concern that you could possibly lose a more localised representation," Cr Clarke said.

But he pointed out that 41 councillors were on the five councils -- half the number of Victorian MPs.

Other councils could join the amalgamation push if they wanted to, Cr Clarke said.

Councillors in a Greater Melbourne council should be paid more to allow them to be more available to ratepayers, he said.

"I think you could be looking at models like Queensland where councillors become better rewarded and as a consequence become available more often during the day," Cr Clarke said.

Brisbane councillors worked full-time as councillors, he said.

Cr Clarke's motion will go before the City of Melbourne tomorrow.

If passed, the City of Melbourne will write to the heads of the other councils seeking formal support.

Residents would decide on the merger in a referendum held during the 2008 council elections.

But the amalgamations would need State Parliament approval.

Greater Melbourne on the move Councillor Peter Clarke demonstrates vision and committement to a proposed Greater Melbourne City Council

Melbourne City Councillor, Peter Clarke, has proposed a motion that the City of Melbourne enter into talks with its Neighbouring Municipalities to create a Greater City of Melbourne.

This is a policy that we have supported for some time and believe that the City of Melbourne along with the State Government should seriously consider supporting.

This will be a true test of the willingness of John So and the Melbourne City Council to investigate further the merits of a Greater Melbourne City Council. Question is John up to the Challenge? Does he have a real vision and commitment to Melbourne or is he just about his own backyard?

We also believe that the policy of direct election of the Lord Mayor should also be reviewed in particular issues related to the filling of casual vacancies. (We currently have a situation where if the Deputy Lord Mayor resigns Melbourne ratepayers will face a cost of up to one million dollars to hold a by-election. A burden on democracy that does not need to exist as there is an acceptable alternative but the State Government has not acted to make it available. more on this later)

Overall a Greater Melbourne is in Melbourne's best interest.

We congratulate Peter Clarke in taking this initiative and putting Melbourne's long term interest ahead of short-term limited thinking. We trust the elected `City Council will support this motion (Copy below) We will report on the voting within the Council chamber and hopefully provide some inside, behind the scene, politics.

It should be acknowledged and expected that a number of the Council administration will oppose the expansion and creation of a Greater City of Melbourne. (It will be interesting to see who within the administration gets behind the proposal and who will try and undermine it)

Those members of staff opposed to the creation of a Greater City of Melbourne are only interested in protecting their own personal interests and not that of Melbourne as a whole, They are concerned that if there was an amalgamation they may very well find themselves out of a job or that their job would be become more demanding as their responsibility and accountability would increase. They are the sort of staff Members that Melbourne is better off without.

Melbourne needs effective professional administrators, not those that are only interested in self serving cushy overpaid jobs with overseas travel and other perks and lurks. An expanded City of Melbourne would provide significant benefits and savings to all stake-holders through economies of scale and co-ordinated policy development and implementation.

The proposed creation of a Greater City of Melbourne will not only require support from other Municipalities but a genuine committment by State Government to deliver on the proposal.

Issues of local representation would be enhanced through an expanded expert/local advisory committee structure, professional representation and administration.

The fact that Peter Clarke, a senior member of the Liberal party, is proposing such a move hopefully will result in a bipartisan support.

The proposed Greater City of Melbourne should be fast tracked with all efforts made to put in place the new City boundaries and representative model by the 2008 Municipal elections.

Initial analysis shows that political control of an expanded City Council would not be dominated by any existing political party. The proposed expansion should not be seen as a party political power play but one that is in the best interest of Melbourne overall and something that is long overdue. The proposed new Greater City of Melbourne should take in the state seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Prahran and Albert Park.

We look forward to the review and future public debate on the merits and proposed structure of a new expanded Melbourne Municipal boundaries that will serve Melbourne in the 21st century and beyond.

See also previous posts on the Greater City of Melbourne

http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/search/label/Greater%20Melbourne

C O U N C I L Agenda Item 7.3

24 October 2006

NOTICE OF MOTION: CR CLARKE,

GREATER MELBOURNE COUNCIL

Motion

1. That:

1.1. the Chief Executive Officer writes to the cities of Maribyrnong, Port Phillip,

Stonnington and Yarra, seeking their support for:

1.1.1. agreement of their councils that a poll be taken of voters in their

municipalities in conjunction with the 2008 Council elections, to support

an amalgamation of these cities with the City of Melbourne to create a

City of Greater Melbourne; and

1.1.2. a committee be formed to discuss an appropriate electoral model to be put

to the individual municipalities at this poll;

1.2. the City of Melbourne agrees to seek support for the concept of a City of Greater

Melbourne by a merger with the abutting cities, to be determined by a poll at the

2008 elections.

Background

2. Some of the advantages of such a merger would reflect the capacity to implement with

greater effectiveness the eleven strategies in the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (see below)

as well as the more effective utilisation of the financial and management resources.

Strategy 1: Celebrate the unique and concentrated 19th Century heritage of Inner

Melbourne;

Strategy 2: Effectively link transport routes so the region is accessible throughout

by walking;

Strategy 3: Minimise the growing impact of traffic congestion;

Strategy 4: Increase public transport usage;

Strategy 5: Plan to accommodate 90,000 more dwellings by 2030;

Strategy 6: Support the distinct and diverse character of activity centres;

Strategy 7: Promote Inner Melbourne as an investment location;

Strategy 8: Facilitate the growing importance of Inner Melbourne as South-East

Australia's freight hub;

Strategy 9: Substantially improve the environmental performance of Inner

Melbourne;

Strategy 10: Complete the regional open space network;

2

Strategy 11: Promote Inner Melbourne as a tourism destination.

3. Such a concept should reflect continuation of a popularly elected Mayor and creation or

retention of Ward representation of the unique precincts throughout the merged cities.

Moved: Cr Clarke

One Vote Melbourne City Councillor Peter Clarke misses chance to sit in Spring Street by one Vote

Melbourne City Councillor peter Clarke has missed by one vote his chance of seeking preselection for Warrandyte. Peter Clarke who lives in Eltham and is also a Melbourne City Councillor lost after the Liberal Party split 50/50 on two sucessive ballots. It was only after the thidd ballot than one vote changed camps and broke the deadlock. Regretfully Peter Clarke was on teh loosiong end and so was Ted Bailue.

Analysis of the Melbourne City Council 2004 Municipal election indicate that had Peter Clarke resigned form the City Council to take up the fight for Spring Street, yours truely would have been elected to the City Council on a countback. This would have had the administration in a hot sweat. The Council administration has previously gone to extra-ordinary efforts to avoid the election os those critical of Council administration and the extent of corruption never ceases to amaze or surrprise. (They are corrupt in this respect make no doubt about that). I wonder if this could have been a factor in Peters down fall and if teh City Council acted against Peter's interests.

Had the fall of preferences been somewhat different Peter would have missed out on being elected in 2004, but the fact remains he is one of the more better perfomers on the City Council. Maybe he should consider running for the seat of Eltham, a harder seat but one that is close to Peter's home.

Council beat-up over parking dispute Did the administration misuse and abuse their authority?

The article published on the front page of the Age implies some wrong doing over Cr Peter Clarke's intervention on a parking fine dispute attribute.

Liberal councillor tried to quash parking fine for MP's wife - National

There is nothing wrong with a Councillor seeking to have redressed an injustice in the application of a parking fine. The explanation provided by Angela Kotsiras is reasonable and understandable.

I am sure many commuters are caught out from time to time on pressing the wrong button or selecting the wrong parking bay. I know I have on a number of occasions.

Depending on the design of the meter and the circumstances it should be possible for the City of Melbourne to verify any claim.

In respect to Cr Clarke's involvement there is nothing wrong in him seeking to provide representation when requested to do so by an aggrieved person.

Councillor Clarke does not decide on the outcome of any review. It could be claimed that Councillor Clarke may have asserted undue influence but such a claim would be false as Council staff have to deal with this sort of complaint every working day.

What is of concern is how and under what circumstances this information was made available to the Age.

We need to ask was there any bias or political motive behind the leaking of confidential information and was the Council's Governance Department responsible for targeting Cr Clarke.

It is more then likely that this information was deliberately leaked by the Council Governance Department or an aggrieved Council employee as some form of retribution and payback.

Councillor Clark is the only Councillor challenging the City Council administration on a range of issues, asking some of the questions that need to be asked but go unanswered. (There are also some questions that he does not ask but should)

The City Council has a culture of self protection and are sensitive to criticism of public disclosure. Councillor Clarke certainly has ruffled some feathers in Clown Hall and in doing so has made some enemies as a result.

This is not the first time the Council administration have taken such action. I have witnessed members of Council staff lie in a court of law, be it intentionally or unintentionally, to the point where a magistrate came close to having the member of staff charged with giving false evidence.
Their motive to band together and protect their fellow members of staff, ignoring any professional duty or principles of natural justice. It is incumbent on the CEO, David Pitchford, to make sure it is the last time.

The City of Melbourne administration is renowned for this sort of abuse and misuse of Council resources and their authority.