The Victorian Electoral Commission is due to publish the final report for the City of Melbourne Electoral review on Wednesday (March 21, 2012).
The preliminary report had recommended that the City Council representation be increased by 2, excluding the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor the number of Councilors would increase from 7 to 9. The initial recommendation proposed that the City continue to be elected as a whole.
Melbourne City Councilor, Jackie Watts, in a misguided direction opposed the increase in representation and proposed a reduction in democratic representation in order to establish Local Wards that she mistakenly thinks will increase her chances of election .
The criticism of the City Council is an indictment against the current Councillors and Council administration and the system of franchise and the direct election of the Lord Mayor and its external boundaries.
The problems highlighted by Cr Watts and some residents groups would not be addressed by the solutions advocated by Cr Watts. Cr Watts herself was elected not on merit but as a result of the flaw in the way the State Government counts the votes. Over 6000 votes were ignored in the count-back that followed Councillor Clarke's resignation . 6,000 votes that should have been counted but were not.
The Kensington Association submission is worthy of consideration. They have rightly supported the "City as a Whole" proposal with the fall back of a 3 x 3 ward option as being the most democratic. They also highlight the divisons within the Residential community. Residnets represent 40% of the City electorate and the City Wide model, like it or not relfects that breakdown although it is distorted by the system of direct election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor.
Sadly the real issues effecting the City Council will not be looked at as the terms of reference of the Commission was restrictive. It prevented the consideration of alternative solutions that would help address the many perceived problems surrounding the City Council. Those problems will still remain.
Hopefully the Commission will not compound the problems by supporting Cr Watts ill-conceived proposal.
Tomorrow we will know what the final recommendation is. We will not be holding our breath. The Commission has made many inconsistent recommendations in the past and we see no reason why they would break that model.
Showing posts with label Municipal Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Municipal Review. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Friday, May 20, 2011
VEC Stonewalls Stonnington Residents. Rejecting Option B
The Victorian Electoral Commission Municipal reviews once again has demonstrated its complete incompetence when it comes to Municipal Representation reviews.
The VEC in releasing it's final report on Stonington representational model ignored the most popular option "Option B" which would have seen Stonnington divided into three Municipal Wars with each ward returning three members of Council. The notable difference of Option B is that the boundaries would be redrawn on a north south axis opposed to the current ward boundary configuration.
The North South boundaries would have better represented the community of Interest and aligned the Municipality ward with those of the former Municipality boundaries. Most notably the City of Prahran.
Community of Interest is one of the main considerations required to be taken into consideration in any Municipal review. The current boundaries do not provide a consistent or satisfactory community of interest profile. In a rather lame justification the VEC tied to argue that the existing boundaries were known within the community. Obviously they are out of touch with reality. Stonnington has been a mismatch of community interests with the existing boundaries working against common interests. The former City of Prahran has more in common with the City of Melbourne then it has with Malvern/Chadstone.
Residents of Prahran.,South Yarra and Windsor should not hold their breath thinking that former deputy Lord Mayor , now State Member for Prahran, Clem Newton-Brown will lobby for the recommendation to be rejected and for Option B to be the preferred option. Clem is a do nothing, no change sort of man. Clem does not like rocking the boat let alone representing the best interests of his electorate.
Option B boundaries would have allowed for a better alignment with State and Federal electoral boundaries.
The low participation rate in the municipal review is an indication of the poor quality of public consultation undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission.
All other options (excluding A and B) where a miss-matched patch work of inconsistencies not worth considering.
In a not to surprising move, excluded from the option list was nine single member wards. No explanation given as to why the VEC did not canvas or consider such an option. A nine member single-ward model would have been preferable to the other options presented.
Thankfully they did not get any serious consideration.
The VEC in releasing it's final report on Stonington representational model ignored the most popular option "Option B" which would have seen Stonnington divided into three Municipal Wars with each ward returning three members of Council. The notable difference of Option B is that the boundaries would be redrawn on a north south axis opposed to the current ward boundary configuration.
The North South boundaries would have better represented the community of Interest and aligned the Municipality ward with those of the former Municipality boundaries. Most notably the City of Prahran.Community of Interest is one of the main considerations required to be taken into consideration in any Municipal review. The current boundaries do not provide a consistent or satisfactory community of interest profile. In a rather lame justification the VEC tied to argue that the existing boundaries were known within the community. Obviously they are out of touch with reality. Stonnington has been a mismatch of community interests with the existing boundaries working against common interests. The former City of Prahran has more in common with the City of Melbourne then it has with Malvern/Chadstone.
Residents of Prahran.,South Yarra and Windsor should not hold their breath thinking that former deputy Lord Mayor , now State Member for Prahran, Clem Newton-Brown will lobby for the recommendation to be rejected and for Option B to be the preferred option. Clem is a do nothing, no change sort of man. Clem does not like rocking the boat let alone representing the best interests of his electorate.
Option B boundaries would have allowed for a better alignment with State and Federal electoral boundaries.
The low participation rate in the municipal review is an indication of the poor quality of public consultation undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission.
All other options (excluding A and B) where a miss-matched patch work of inconsistencies not worth considering.
In a not to surprising move, excluded from the option list was nine single member wards. No explanation given as to why the VEC did not canvas or consider such an option. A nine member single-ward model would have been preferable to the other options presented.
Thankfully they did not get any serious consideration.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Look to the future not the past Melbourne needs new bloodlines and fresh faces
As the race for the Lord Mayor begins to intensify the usual suspects put forward their names as contenders for Melbourne LM001 driver’s seat. Failed candidates and recycled politicians are being dusted off and put on show as the contenders approach the starting gate.
The old nag list includes past Councillor and rejected Deputy Lord Mayor Peter McMullin who sees an opening and a comeback opportunity.
McMullin's stint on the City Council was a lack luster and divisive term of office. He was originally appointed Deputy Lord Mayor in following the 1996 Council election. Soon after taking Office McMullin betrayed the electorate and supported the State Governments assault on City Planning and Melbourne's controversial Museum development. His appeasement and back flip was seen as his down fall and he soon lost the Deputy Lord Mayor's position as a result. The period that followed McMullen's election in 1996 saw the decline of governance and the rise of corruption take hold of the City Council under the administration of Michael Malouf former City of Geelong CEO). McMullin's policy of appeasement oversaw the blackest period of governance in the cities history. The rot had set in and remained for years following.
In 2001 the State government had to step-in and reform the City Council and part of its reform was the introduction of a direct election model for Lord Major. Brought in by Left Minister Bob Cameron the direct election model added to the rise of corruption in the City Council. The city Council was no longer managed by component staff and the council became a feather bed of corrupt practices. Professional governance was no longer a virtue or goal.
The council under John So, who was Melbourne's first directly elected Lord Mayor in 2001, went from bad to worst. Michael Malouf was dumped and replaced in 2003 with John So's against the recommendation of the Council's Finance Committee chairman, Kevin Chamberlain, appointing David Pitchford as Malouf's replacement. What followed were a continued decline in governance and a blow-put in council expenditure as staff were allowed to rule the roost unchecked and unfettered.
The City Council under the miss-guidance of then Legal and Governance Officer, Allison Lyon, came under review by the State Ombudsman. Alison Lyon tried desperately to hinder the Ombudsman review of the City Council. The Ombudsman later uncovered a host of corrupt practices and on going attempts at cover up in the way in which the Council was administered.
Council Staff were engaged in wholesale cover-up of abuse and misuse of Council's travel and expense allowances, with Staff trying to explain the reasons why Council expenses statements did not record accurately Council's expenses was due to the fact that expenses, which where over one year old, had not been acquitted in the council books. Missing and unaccounted was tens of thousands of dollars of ratepayers money with the City Auditors being compromised and dragged into the Staff's cover up and attempts of avoidance. There was no accountability and Councillors had been compromised by accepting offers of luxury overseas junkets and feather bedding opportunities.
The City Council is in need of a major shakeup. The direct election model has failed to deliver good governance and accountability. The resurrection of failed local Councillors is not the solution.
The community, both business and residents alike, had called for a review of the Council's structure. The State Government instead of addressing the need for further reform buried its head in the sand and ignored the obvious and refused to subject the City Council to the normal review process that every other Municipal council was subjected to.
Recycling failed candidates who are part of the cause of the problems facing Melbourne is not the solution.
If Melbourne is to be revived and Council held accountable to ratepayers then it will be up to the voters of Melbourne to take control and send a clear message of concern and disapproval in November.
Melbourne needs some hard heads with serious business acumen and ability to regain control of a Council that is seriously out of control and lost from reality. They will need to be independent from the State Government and insist in a proper and full open public review, not one held behind closed doors as was the case back in 2001. The City Council should have undergone a review in 2007 and the outcome of the review should have been implemented prior to next month's election.
The old nag list includes past Councillor and rejected Deputy Lord Mayor Peter McMullin who sees an opening and a comeback opportunity.
McMullin's stint on the City Council was a lack luster and divisive term of office. He was originally appointed Deputy Lord Mayor in following the 1996 Council election. Soon after taking Office McMullin betrayed the electorate and supported the State Governments assault on City Planning and Melbourne's controversial Museum development. His appeasement and back flip was seen as his down fall and he soon lost the Deputy Lord Mayor's position as a result. The period that followed McMullen's election in 1996 saw the decline of governance and the rise of corruption take hold of the City Council under the administration of Michael Malouf former City of Geelong CEO). McMullin's policy of appeasement oversaw the blackest period of governance in the cities history. The rot had set in and remained for years following.
In 2001 the State government had to step-in and reform the City Council and part of its reform was the introduction of a direct election model for Lord Major. Brought in by Left Minister Bob Cameron the direct election model added to the rise of corruption in the City Council. The city Council was no longer managed by component staff and the council became a feather bed of corrupt practices. Professional governance was no longer a virtue or goal.
The council under John So, who was Melbourne's first directly elected Lord Mayor in 2001, went from bad to worst. Michael Malouf was dumped and replaced in 2003 with John So's against the recommendation of the Council's Finance Committee chairman, Kevin Chamberlain, appointing David Pitchford as Malouf's replacement. What followed were a continued decline in governance and a blow-put in council expenditure as staff were allowed to rule the roost unchecked and unfettered.
The City Council under the miss-guidance of then Legal and Governance Officer, Allison Lyon, came under review by the State Ombudsman. Alison Lyon tried desperately to hinder the Ombudsman review of the City Council. The Ombudsman later uncovered a host of corrupt practices and on going attempts at cover up in the way in which the Council was administered.
Council Staff were engaged in wholesale cover-up of abuse and misuse of Council's travel and expense allowances, with Staff trying to explain the reasons why Council expenses statements did not record accurately Council's expenses was due to the fact that expenses, which where over one year old, had not been acquitted in the council books. Missing and unaccounted was tens of thousands of dollars of ratepayers money with the City Auditors being compromised and dragged into the Staff's cover up and attempts of avoidance. There was no accountability and Councillors had been compromised by accepting offers of luxury overseas junkets and feather bedding opportunities.
The City Council is in need of a major shakeup. The direct election model has failed to deliver good governance and accountability. The resurrection of failed local Councillors is not the solution.
The community, both business and residents alike, had called for a review of the Council's structure. The State Government instead of addressing the need for further reform buried its head in the sand and ignored the obvious and refused to subject the City Council to the normal review process that every other Municipal council was subjected to.
Recycling failed candidates who are part of the cause of the problems facing Melbourne is not the solution.
If Melbourne is to be revived and Council held accountable to ratepayers then it will be up to the voters of Melbourne to take control and send a clear message of concern and disapproval in November.
Melbourne needs some hard heads with serious business acumen and ability to regain control of a Council that is seriously out of control and lost from reality. They will need to be independent from the State Government and insist in a proper and full open public review, not one held behind closed doors as was the case back in 2001. The City Council should have undergone a review in 2007 and the outcome of the review should have been implemented prior to next month's election.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Why John So is your bro The perils of a direct election
The Age has published an article proposing the question "Why is John So my Bro"?
IN it the writer makes some connection to London's new Lord Mayor and then goes on to expose some of the myths and weakness of Johns So's tenure.
This pop star image and brunt of a joke that John so well responds to is a by product of the Direct election system. A system that sees a populist politicians with no substance elected as Mayor of our capital city.
The question needs to be asked who supported the direct election model. The changes were brought in by Bob Cameron, the minister of Local government back in 2000. Bob Cameron did not last long as minister and was soon replaced by Candy Broad, a lack l;aster Minister. The review undertaken in 2000- was held in secret, submissions, unlike Municipal reviews undertaken today, where never published and the public had no opportunity to scrutinies or respond to the proposal for direct elections. Instead of being independent from the municipal process the review was made by the Department/Ministers office.
Last Year a number of Councillors recommend that the State Government City of Melbourne initiate a review of Melbourne representative model and that the City of Melbourne should be subjected to the same review process as all other Municipal Council in Victoria. Under the Local Government Act every municipality (except the City of Melbourne) is required to undertake a representation review every technical term of office. If these requirements applied to the City of Melbourne then a review should have been undertaken last year.
The proposal for a review was put forward and voted down by John So and his team 5-4 as John took the do nothing approach. The City Councillors whop initiate the idea of the review did nothing to further the issue and the State Government failed to take up the initiative.
Some Councillors are now trying to make a bit of noise about the need for a review before the next Municipal election due in November, but unless there is the political will there is a snow flake chance in hell that any meaningful review will take place.
Dick Wynne, former Council elected Lord Mayor and now Minister for Local Government has shied away from reviewing the monster that his predecessors created and allowed to exists. Dick more then any other Minister knows the short comings of the direct election model.
The So genie is out of its bottle and it may be hard if not impossible to put it back. The direct election model has failed to deliver good governance and more importantly the person elected Mayor is not held accountable as he/she is not elected and as such not accountable to the Council itself. Under the Council appointed system the City Councillors provided a day to day accountability. Under the direct election system the only accountability comes from the media and once every four years when the public focuses its attention on the would be star Lord Mayor and votes for who is the most likable.
The fact that the City finances are in worst shape then ever and that the design me a job city continues to milk the ratepayers for every cent and dollar possible has little to no bearing on the voters choice. many who live outside the city itself, the overseas property investor.
Melbourne Council most certainly needs review and the direct election model should cancelled. Council must be given more power and say to hold the Lord Mayor accountable.
In the end the failure of the City Council is a failure of the State Government to act.
One of the problems that inhibit the City Council is the restriction that the Load Mayor is also the Chairman of the Council, an oversight and left over from the days of a Council appointed Mayor.
The fact that John So has little skill and more often then not does not chair Council meetings is of concern.
If Dick Wynne and the State Governments are unwilling to subject the City of Melbourne to a proper and comprohensive open public review then the lest they should do is to separate the position of Lord Mayor and Chairman so that the Chairman can be appointed from and by the City Council. Such a move would provide the necessary day to day checks and balance required to restore good governance and financial management to the City.
IN it the writer makes some connection to London's new Lord Mayor and then goes on to expose some of the myths and weakness of Johns So's tenure.
This pop star image and brunt of a joke that John so well responds to is a by product of the Direct election system. A system that sees a populist politicians with no substance elected as Mayor of our capital city.
The question needs to be asked who supported the direct election model. The changes were brought in by Bob Cameron, the minister of Local government back in 2000. Bob Cameron did not last long as minister and was soon replaced by Candy Broad, a lack l;aster Minister. The review undertaken in 2000- was held in secret, submissions, unlike Municipal reviews undertaken today, where never published and the public had no opportunity to scrutinies or respond to the proposal for direct elections. Instead of being independent from the municipal process the review was made by the Department/Ministers office.
Last Year a number of Councillors recommend that the State Government City of Melbourne initiate a review of Melbourne representative model and that the City of Melbourne should be subjected to the same review process as all other Municipal Council in Victoria. Under the Local Government Act every municipality (except the City of Melbourne) is required to undertake a representation review every technical term of office. If these requirements applied to the City of Melbourne then a review should have been undertaken last year.
The proposal for a review was put forward and voted down by John So and his team 5-4 as John took the do nothing approach. The City Councillors whop initiate the idea of the review did nothing to further the issue and the State Government failed to take up the initiative.
Some Councillors are now trying to make a bit of noise about the need for a review before the next Municipal election due in November, but unless there is the political will there is a snow flake chance in hell that any meaningful review will take place.
Dick Wynne, former Council elected Lord Mayor and now Minister for Local Government has shied away from reviewing the monster that his predecessors created and allowed to exists. Dick more then any other Minister knows the short comings of the direct election model.
The So genie is out of its bottle and it may be hard if not impossible to put it back. The direct election model has failed to deliver good governance and more importantly the person elected Mayor is not held accountable as he/she is not elected and as such not accountable to the Council itself. Under the Council appointed system the City Councillors provided a day to day accountability. Under the direct election system the only accountability comes from the media and once every four years when the public focuses its attention on the would be star Lord Mayor and votes for who is the most likable.
The fact that the City finances are in worst shape then ever and that the design me a job city continues to milk the ratepayers for every cent and dollar possible has little to no bearing on the voters choice. many who live outside the city itself, the overseas property investor.
Melbourne Council most certainly needs review and the direct election model should cancelled. Council must be given more power and say to hold the Lord Mayor accountable.
In the end the failure of the City Council is a failure of the State Government to act.
One of the problems that inhibit the City Council is the restriction that the Load Mayor is also the Chairman of the Council, an oversight and left over from the days of a Council appointed Mayor.
The fact that John So has little skill and more often then not does not chair Council meetings is of concern.
If Dick Wynne and the State Governments are unwilling to subject the City of Melbourne to a proper and comprohensive open public review then the lest they should do is to separate the position of Lord Mayor and Chairman so that the Chairman can be appointed from and by the City Council. Such a move would provide the necessary day to day checks and balance required to restore good governance and financial management to the City.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
John So head in the sand and hand in the public pocket
John So continues to spend spend spend whilst burying his head in the sand.
The State Government has also wiped it's hands clean and failed undertake a review of the City of Melbourne's representative model. Whilst every other Municipality is subjected to comprehensive review Melbourne has been excluded.
Its been just seven years since Melbourne narrowed its focus and adopted a direct election of its Lord Mayor.
Last year there was a half hearted proposal for the City of Melbourne to initiate it won representative review, A proposal that met with opposition from John So and was rejected on the casting vote of the Lord Mayor.
Why the city councillors that were supporting a review did not appeal directly to the State Government is anyones guess. After all it is the responsibility and determination of the State Government to undertake any serious independent review.
David Dunstan in today's Age has reflect on the issues that face Melbourne faces and the need to ensure that the City's governance meets the challenges it faces.
The proposal to create a greater City of Melbourne is not new but for various reasons has never been taken seriously. Jeff Kennett in fact went the other way and reduced the size of the Council to that of a small island.
There is an urgent need to review and expand the Cities boundaries.
The direct election model has failed to provide good governance and accountability.
John So has spent the Cities inheritance and family jewels. Come November he will also loose the support of a number of his collection or rubber stamps. It is expected that John will dump his Deputy Lord Mayor, Gary Singer, as team up with the third rate councillor David Wilson. Catherine NG, one of So's best performers. is expected to stand down leaving a serious gap in Johns ability to undertake even the most basic of tasks required by the City Council.
John So leadership is also under question.
John has failed to provide financial management or corporate governance. His ability to chair a meeting is left seriously lacking.
Whilst there is ongoing support and talk around the town hall for an urgent review of the City Council, reality is that both the Councillors and the State Government have left it too late to initiate a serious review.
At best we could hope that the State Government undertakes a ministerial review restore balance and strengthen the Council's accoutability and governance in the City Structure.
Lord Mayor, by default, is also the Council's chairman.
One proposal that should be considered and adopted is the need to separate the role of Lord Mayor and that of the Chairman of the Council.
When the State Government implemented a direct election model it did not pay sufficient attention to the functioning of the Council and did not consider to the role of chairman.
The chairman of any council should always maintain the support and confidence of the elected Council, the Chairman must be elected from and by the Council itself and not part and parcel of Lord Mayor's position.
The separation of the two roles and allowing the City Council to appoint the Council's chairperson of their own chopping would go a long way to strengthening the Council's governance and ability to hold the executive to account.
This one change is simple and logical and should be adopted without delay in the first week of the spring parliamentary session prior to the November Municipal election.
The State Government has also wiped it's hands clean and failed undertake a review of the City of Melbourne's representative model. Whilst every other Municipality is subjected to comprehensive review Melbourne has been excluded.
Its been just seven years since Melbourne narrowed its focus and adopted a direct election of its Lord Mayor.
Last year there was a half hearted proposal for the City of Melbourne to initiate it won representative review, A proposal that met with opposition from John So and was rejected on the casting vote of the Lord Mayor.
Why the city councillors that were supporting a review did not appeal directly to the State Government is anyones guess. After all it is the responsibility and determination of the State Government to undertake any serious independent review.
David Dunstan in today's Age has reflect on the issues that face Melbourne faces and the need to ensure that the City's governance meets the challenges it faces.
The largest and most central of them all, Melbourne City Council, instead of being made larger to give a lead, was made smaller and more ineffectual to prevent inner-city residents having any say over Melbourne's lucrative golden mile and inner region. Labor has been careful not to undo the pro-growth, pro-big-property stance of its predecessors. But for nine years it has taken the city for granted, simply assuming that it can absorb the growth to 4.5 million people. Now problems of housing affordability, traffic congestion and the inadequate contribution of the public transport system are upon us.
The proposal to create a greater City of Melbourne is not new but for various reasons has never been taken seriously. Jeff Kennett in fact went the other way and reduced the size of the Council to that of a small island.
There is an urgent need to review and expand the Cities boundaries.
The direct election model has failed to provide good governance and accountability.
John So has spent the Cities inheritance and family jewels. Come November he will also loose the support of a number of his collection or rubber stamps. It is expected that John will dump his Deputy Lord Mayor, Gary Singer, as team up with the third rate councillor David Wilson. Catherine NG, one of So's best performers. is expected to stand down leaving a serious gap in Johns ability to undertake even the most basic of tasks required by the City Council.
John So leadership is also under question.
John has failed to provide financial management or corporate governance. His ability to chair a meeting is left seriously lacking.
Whilst there is ongoing support and talk around the town hall for an urgent review of the City Council, reality is that both the Councillors and the State Government have left it too late to initiate a serious review.
At best we could hope that the State Government undertakes a ministerial review restore balance and strengthen the Council's accoutability and governance in the City Structure.
Lord Mayor, by default, is also the Council's chairman.
One proposal that should be considered and adopted is the need to separate the role of Lord Mayor and that of the Chairman of the Council.
When the State Government implemented a direct election model it did not pay sufficient attention to the functioning of the Council and did not consider to the role of chairman.
The chairman of any council should always maintain the support and confidence of the elected Council, the Chairman must be elected from and by the Council itself and not part and parcel of Lord Mayor's position.
The separation of the two roles and allowing the City Council to appoint the Council's chairperson of their own chopping would go a long way to strengthening the Council's governance and ability to hold the executive to account.
This one change is simple and logical and should be adopted without delay in the first week of the spring parliamentary session prior to the November Municipal election.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Secret Reviewfor Council's Eyes only
Melbourne City Council, true to form, held its own internal review of its representative model, conveniently forgetting that it is the State Government that really makes all the decisions and that the only real issue under Council's control is whether or not to have postal or attendance voting.
The City Council called for submission and looked like it was doing the right thing, but was it. The City of Melbourne did not published copies of the submissions it had received, in fact most of the discussion was once again held behind closed doors at the all illegal Councillor briefing sessions. The meeting they have when they are not having a meeting.
In reading the minutes of last nights Finance and Governance Committee meetings the City Committee has recommended that the City of Melbourne formally request the State Government to include the City of Melbourne in its Local Government representation review and that the review also consider issues related to external boundaries.
The motion was passed four to three with John So's (Do nothing) team voting against the motion.
It would appear that John does not want a representation review (You never know what it might come up with) The best way to silence your critics is to not give them a voice or opportunity to be heard.
The State Government is the proper authority to undertake the review, independent form the Council itself. The Councill's review was nothing but a joke and the administration's failure to published the submissions it received is another example of the Council trying to keep issues under wraps. The City has wasted time and money in the process.
The referral motion to the State Government will now go to the full City Council meeting scheduled in two weeks time. Odds are that John So will veto the motion and deny ratepayers and residents the review that the State Government should have had in the first place.
It is understood that the responsible Minister, Dick Wynn, would like to see a review but will only do so on the initiative and invitation of the City Council.
Will So do the right thing and support the review motion so that a review can be undertaken before next years Municipal elections or will John So once again avoid the tough questions and deny Melbourne the right of an independent public review, representaion and boundaries included? And more imprortant why is teh council limiting teh review of External boundaroes to Kensigton? Does not carlton also deserve the right to be re-united as does South Yarra and other neighbouring inner-metropolitan neighbourhoods.
Below copy of Motion passed by the City Council's Finance and Governance Committee.
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/opm/bc/CTEE/meetings/FGC_minutes_200709110630.pdf
The motion was put and carried with the Chair Cr Shanahan and Councillors Brindley, Clarke and Seddon voting
in favour of the motion and the Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer and Councillors Jeter and Wilson voting against
the motion.
The motion in its entirety reads:
1. That the Finance and Governance Committee recommend Council:
1.1. determine to undertake attendance voting for the 2008 Council Elections consistent
with state and commonwealth government practices (postal voting entitlements);
1.2. approach the State Government in relation to:
1.2.1. its published timetable for independent reviews of electoral structures of
Councils in Victoria currently excludes the City of Melbourne;
1.2.2. since the implementation of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, no review of the
structure of Council has been undertaken to ensure it meets the needs and
expectations of constituents of a dynamic and changing capital city;
1.2.3. the outcome community consultative processes instigated by Council on the
issues of electoral processes and local area representation;
1.3. write to the Minister for Local Government, in light of 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above, to:
1.3.1. request that the City of Melbourne be included in the State Government’s
current review of all municipalities and provide advice in relation to
timeframe;
1.3.2. request that the State Government conduct an external review in line with the
Local Government Act 1989 and publicly declare results by March 2008;
1.3.3. request that the reassessment also include a review of the representative
model, inclusion of Docklands and external boundaries; and
1.3.4. inform on community feedback of City of Melbourne consultative processes.
The City Council called for submission and looked like it was doing the right thing, but was it. The City of Melbourne did not published copies of the submissions it had received, in fact most of the discussion was once again held behind closed doors at the all illegal Councillor briefing sessions. The meeting they have when they are not having a meeting.
In reading the minutes of last nights Finance and Governance Committee meetings the City Committee has recommended that the City of Melbourne formally request the State Government to include the City of Melbourne in its Local Government representation review and that the review also consider issues related to external boundaries.
The motion was passed four to three with John So's (Do nothing) team voting against the motion.
It would appear that John does not want a representation review (You never know what it might come up with) The best way to silence your critics is to not give them a voice or opportunity to be heard.
The State Government is the proper authority to undertake the review, independent form the Council itself. The Councill's review was nothing but a joke and the administration's failure to published the submissions it received is another example of the Council trying to keep issues under wraps. The City has wasted time and money in the process.
The referral motion to the State Government will now go to the full City Council meeting scheduled in two weeks time. Odds are that John So will veto the motion and deny ratepayers and residents the review that the State Government should have had in the first place.
It is understood that the responsible Minister, Dick Wynn, would like to see a review but will only do so on the initiative and invitation of the City Council.
Will So do the right thing and support the review motion so that a review can be undertaken before next years Municipal elections or will John So once again avoid the tough questions and deny Melbourne the right of an independent public review, representaion and boundaries included? And more imprortant why is teh council limiting teh review of External boundaroes to Kensigton? Does not carlton also deserve the right to be re-united as does South Yarra and other neighbouring inner-metropolitan neighbourhoods.
Below copy of Motion passed by the City Council's Finance and Governance Committee.
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/opm/bc/CTEE/meetings/FGC_minutes_200709110630.pdf
The motion was put and carried with the Chair Cr Shanahan and Councillors Brindley, Clarke and Seddon voting
in favour of the motion and the Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer and Councillors Jeter and Wilson voting against
the motion.
The motion in its entirety reads:
1. That the Finance and Governance Committee recommend Council:
1.1. determine to undertake attendance voting for the 2008 Council Elections consistent
with state and commonwealth government practices (postal voting entitlements);
1.2. approach the State Government in relation to:
1.2.1. its published timetable for independent reviews of electoral structures of
Councils in Victoria currently excludes the City of Melbourne;
1.2.2. since the implementation of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, no review of the
structure of Council has been undertaken to ensure it meets the needs and
expectations of constituents of a dynamic and changing capital city;
1.2.3. the outcome community consultative processes instigated by Council on the
issues of electoral processes and local area representation;
1.3. write to the Minister for Local Government, in light of 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above, to:
1.3.1. request that the City of Melbourne be included in the State Government’s
current review of all municipalities and provide advice in relation to
timeframe;
1.3.2. request that the State Government conduct an external review in line with the
Local Government Act 1989 and publicly declare results by March 2008;
1.3.3. request that the reassessment also include a review of the representative
model, inclusion of Docklands and external boundaries; and
1.3.4. inform on community feedback of City of Melbourne consultative processes.
Friday, July 13, 2007
State Government MUST act to restore good governance and accountability in the City Council
Herald-Sun Newspaper Article on John So's Expenses - Public Comment
The directly elected model has failed to deliver accountability or good corporate governance.
Only last week former Lord Mayor, City Councillor and chairman of the the Council's Finances Committee, Kevin Chamberlain, called on the sate government to sack the City Council following revelations of a blow out in the cost of governance.
Under the provisions of the Local Government Act every municipality is subject to a representation review every second term of office. (That is except the City of Melbourne)
Dick Wynne, Minister for Local Government and former Lord Mayor of Melbourne, MUST subject the City Council to an open and public review in line with the municipal reviews undertaken by every other City Council.
Any review of the City Council must include a review of the representative model including the directly elected Lord Mayor and should also consider changes to Melbourne's external boundaries.
Melbourne City Council is due for such a review its last review (Which was not made public) was over two terms ago. Why is it The City Council exempt from this process?
The directly elected model has failed to deliver accountability or good corporate governance.
Only last week former Lord Mayor, City Councillor and chairman of the the Council's Finances Committee, Kevin Chamberlain, called on the sate government to sack the City Council following revelations of a blow out in the cost of governance.
Under the provisions of the Local Government Act every municipality is subject to a representation review every second term of office. (That is except the City of Melbourne)
Dick Wynne, Minister for Local Government and former Lord Mayor of Melbourne, MUST subject the City Council to an open and public review in line with the municipal reviews undertaken by every other City Council.
Any review of the City Council must include a review of the representative model including the directly elected Lord Mayor and should also consider changes to Melbourne's external boundaries.
Melbourne City Council is due for such a review its last review (Which was not made public) was over two terms ago. Why is it The City Council exempt from this process?
Million Dollar Entourage John So's cost of being popular
The Herald Sun has confirmed what we have been saying for the last six years.
John So has no idea of fiscal policies or how to govern. His Deputy Lord Mayor and political advisor is renowned for his financial activities and lack of transparency.
John So has embarked on a care-free spend fest.
So is prepared to tax motorist and Melbourne's business community with immunity.
The City Council is more interested in lurks and perks then holding So to account for his expenditure.
Only last month a Ernst and Young review, in which John So and the Council administration tried to keep secret, exposed the fact that the Council has been in the red for the last two years.
The report was condemning of the Council administration, alleging overt deception in the way in which the Council's finance and governance has been administered.
Designer-a-job is riff within the city council.
The Council had become a private club where senior officers designed themselves a job and their task was empire building. If there was something to their disliking they would employ someone to do the task that they should have done themselves.
Last year the Council also was exposed following a raid by the State Ombudsman. Alison Lyons, Council's legal advisor at the time, tried to thwart the Ombudsman from looking into the affairs of the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Council had acted corruptly and that the Council had extorted millions of dollars of funds from motorist illegally.
John So suffered a limp wrist blow last month when the City Council moved a motion of no-confidence in the Lord Mayor. The motion was lost on the casting vote of John So himself.
Last week former Lord Mayor, City Councillor and Finance Committee Chairperson Kevin Chamberlain called on the State Government to sack the City Council .
What is clear is that the City of Melbourne must undergo a full review in line with other municipalities reviews. Why is Melbourne exempt?
The Member for Melbourne, Bronwyn Pike, had promised during last years State Election camiagn to undertake a review of Melbourne's external boundaries. A promis that saved her seat in parliament.
It's time for the State Government to act on the promises made and to initiate a public review so that any recommendations and findings can be implemented prior to the 2008 council elections.
The proposed review should also reconsider teh merits of the direct election model of te Lord Mayor with further consideration given to creating a expanded rater City for Melbourne.
The State Government's "Do nothing - bury their head in the sand" approach can not continue. Dick Wynn, Minister for Local Government knows the issues well it is time he puts a plan for reform into action
Peter Mickelburough and Ian Royall
Herald Sun
July 13, 2007 12:00am
JOHN SO is the most expensive mayor Melbourne has had.
An Insight investigation has revealed it costs ratepayers up to $1 million a year to keep the mayoral office running.
Cr So, our first popularly elected Lord Mayor, is a cult figure to many Melburnians and last year became the first Australian named World Mayor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Have your say below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But his office, like other city council departments, has bloated under his leadership.
His trappings of office include seven personal support staff: a full-time chauffeur, a media minder, an on-call speechwriter, an executive assistant, two part-time Pas and a chief of staff.
Cr So's office and councillor expenses were off limits to a team from Ernst & Young called in to review council operations amid growing concerns they had become flabby and inefficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John So: Power and passion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $300,000 review found the Town Hall management was top-heavy and disjointed and identified potential savings of at least $11.4 million.
Scores of staff are being axed across council departments to cut costs and balance the books.
But Cr So's office has been spared the knife. He will retain all his staff, whose annual wages bill alone is estimated to nudge $700,000.
Add to this Cr So's $120,000 annual allowance, expenses bill, and the cost of running his car and supplying his office.
"He certainly costs more than any lord mayor before him," said one observer.
"If you include the many thousands spent on promotions that have a John So appearance clause built into them, it would easily top $1 million a year."
The Lord Mayor yesterday defended the cost of his office and rebuffed his critics.
He said the resources of the mayoral office were for him and his deputy, Cr Gary Singer.
"I'm very conscious of the expenses, and the expenses have been reducing for a number of years," he said.
"All I can is that we are very conscious of the resources that are available to us."
Cr So also said he had called for the Ernst & Young report, saying that tough decisions had to be made as the previous review had been back in 1991.
The Insight investigation also revealed generous perks for the Lord Mayor's chief of staff and close friend Kevin Louey, who is on a package of $140,000.
Cr So said the employment details were a management issue and he was not involved in drawing up Mr Luey's contract.
"I believe he is the best person for the job," Cr So said.
Insight can also reveal that councillors and executives were warned of long-term financial woe two years before the Ernst & Young efficiency report.
Cr So defended the council's spending on marketing, promotions and sponsorships.
They were about stimulating business and bringing people in to the city, he said.
Just this week, councillors were asked to approve $720,000 in sports grants for city events linked to five major sporting events for the coming year. Instead, they signed off on $2.1 million for three years.
Every year until 2010, the council will hand out $100,000 for an international rugby match, $100,000 for the Formula One Grand Prix, $120,000 for the Australian Open tennis, $250,000 for AFL Grand Final week and $150,000 for the Spring Racing Carnival.
The funding was approved despite some earlier disquiet about the wisdom of the council giving cash to wealthy organisations such as the AFL and the Victorian Racing Club year after year.
Cr So said that everything he did was about delivering a balanced budget, stimulating business, and improving the quality of life in the municipality.
"It's my job as Lord Mayor to represent the people of Melbourne," he said.
John So has no idea of fiscal policies or how to govern. His Deputy Lord Mayor and political advisor is renowned for his financial activities and lack of transparency.
John So has embarked on a care-free spend fest.So is prepared to tax motorist and Melbourne's business community with immunity.
The City Council is more interested in lurks and perks then holding So to account for his expenditure.
Only last month a Ernst and Young review, in which John So and the Council administration tried to keep secret, exposed the fact that the Council has been in the red for the last two years.
The report was condemning of the Council administration, alleging overt deception in the way in which the Council's finance and governance has been administered.
Designer-a-job is riff within the city council.
The Council had become a private club where senior officers designed themselves a job and their task was empire building. If there was something to their disliking they would employ someone to do the task that they should have done themselves.
Last year the Council also was exposed following a raid by the State Ombudsman. Alison Lyons, Council's legal advisor at the time, tried to thwart the Ombudsman from looking into the affairs of the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Council had acted corruptly and that the Council had extorted millions of dollars of funds from motorist illegally.
John So suffered a limp wrist blow last month when the City Council moved a motion of no-confidence in the Lord Mayor. The motion was lost on the casting vote of John So himself.
Last week former Lord Mayor, City Councillor and Finance Committee Chairperson Kevin Chamberlain called on the State Government to sack the City Council .
What is clear is that the City of Melbourne must undergo a full review in line with other municipalities reviews. Why is Melbourne exempt?
The Member for Melbourne, Bronwyn Pike, had promised during last years State Election camiagn to undertake a review of Melbourne's external boundaries. A promis that saved her seat in parliament.
It's time for the State Government to act on the promises made and to initiate a public review so that any recommendations and findings can be implemented prior to the 2008 council elections.
The proposed review should also reconsider teh merits of the direct election model of te Lord Mayor with further consideration given to creating a expanded rater City for Melbourne.
The State Government's "Do nothing - bury their head in the sand" approach can not continue. Dick Wynn, Minister for Local Government knows the issues well it is time he puts a plan for reform into action
Peter Mickelburough and Ian Royall
Herald Sun
July 13, 2007 12:00am
JOHN SO is the most expensive mayor Melbourne has had.
An Insight investigation has revealed it costs ratepayers up to $1 million a year to keep the mayoral office running.
Cr So, our first popularly elected Lord Mayor, is a cult figure to many Melburnians and last year became the first Australian named World Mayor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Have your say below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But his office, like other city council departments, has bloated under his leadership.
His trappings of office include seven personal support staff: a full-time chauffeur, a media minder, an on-call speechwriter, an executive assistant, two part-time Pas and a chief of staff.
Cr So's office and councillor expenses were off limits to a team from Ernst & Young called in to review council operations amid growing concerns they had become flabby and inefficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John So: Power and passion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $300,000 review found the Town Hall management was top-heavy and disjointed and identified potential savings of at least $11.4 million.
Scores of staff are being axed across council departments to cut costs and balance the books.
But Cr So's office has been spared the knife. He will retain all his staff, whose annual wages bill alone is estimated to nudge $700,000.
Add to this Cr So's $120,000 annual allowance, expenses bill, and the cost of running his car and supplying his office.
"He certainly costs more than any lord mayor before him," said one observer.
"If you include the many thousands spent on promotions that have a John So appearance clause built into them, it would easily top $1 million a year."
The Lord Mayor yesterday defended the cost of his office and rebuffed his critics.
He said the resources of the mayoral office were for him and his deputy, Cr Gary Singer.
"I'm very conscious of the expenses, and the expenses have been reducing for a number of years," he said.
"All I can is that we are very conscious of the resources that are available to us."
Cr So also said he had called for the Ernst & Young report, saying that tough decisions had to be made as the previous review had been back in 1991.
The Insight investigation also revealed generous perks for the Lord Mayor's chief of staff and close friend Kevin Louey, who is on a package of $140,000.
Cr So said the employment details were a management issue and he was not involved in drawing up Mr Luey's contract.
"I believe he is the best person for the job," Cr So said.
Insight can also reveal that councillors and executives were warned of long-term financial woe two years before the Ernst & Young efficiency report.
Cr So defended the council's spending on marketing, promotions and sponsorships.
They were about stimulating business and bringing people in to the city, he said.
Just this week, councillors were asked to approve $720,000 in sports grants for city events linked to five major sporting events for the coming year. Instead, they signed off on $2.1 million for three years.
Every year until 2010, the council will hand out $100,000 for an international rugby match, $100,000 for the Formula One Grand Prix, $120,000 for the Australian Open tennis, $250,000 for AFL Grand Final week and $150,000 for the Spring Racing Carnival.
The funding was approved despite some earlier disquiet about the wisdom of the council giving cash to wealthy organisations such as the AFL and the Victorian Racing Club year after year.
Cr So said that everything he did was about delivering a balanced budget, stimulating business, and improving the quality of life in the municipality.
"It's my job as Lord Mayor to represent the people of Melbourne," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)