Saturday, October 21, 2006

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Auditable accounts - The Campaign for accountability continues

Correspondence sent to the City Council's Finance and Governance committee

The Lord Mayor and Councillors
City of Melbourne

Dear Councillors
In perpetration for the next update of Councillor's Travel Expenses due out next week.
I have noticed that the administration has altered information and also deleted some records from the previously published Travel register data.
Clearly there is a demonstratable need for the provision of record id's to be included in the register
Given the City Council's record of corruption and the fact that the Travel Register in its current form is not a fixed register but an "electronic whiteboard" it is rather easy for the administration to alter and remove records at will making it difficult for any effective audit of the published data.
I can only re-iterate my previous recommendations (Click here to view report) As the City Council has failed to properly consider these recommendations I request that the report below be referred to the Council's Audit Committee for further consideration by the City Council's auditors.
Yours faithfully

Monday, October 02, 2006

Happy Birthday

John So turns 60 today

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHN... 60 You should be considering retirement at 60.

Seriously John Happy Birthday and may you get a new deputy soon.

Anthony..

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The Dome

by Arnold Zable published 26 September 1996

MELBOURNE ROYAL EXHIBITION BUILDINGS PROPOSED STATE MUSEUM

10 years on and we reflect on the campaign to oppose the relocation of Melbourne's Museum from the city center to the Royal Exhibition Buildings, Carlton Gardens.

The State Museum in its current site is struggling to attract visitors and is in financial difficulty. The Museum will soon need to expand but has no where other into the park to go. The predictions and concerns of Trevor Huggard, Miles Lewis, myself and others have been proven right.

It was 10 year-ago when Peter McMullin, Ivan Deveson and Rob Adams sold out their integrity under threats by the then Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, to back off from supporting the campaign to have the museum relocated back into the city center. Peter McMullin lost the Deputy Lord Mayors post the following year and failed to be reelected to council in 1999 and 2001. Ivan Deveson lost support and did not stand for re-election in 1999. Rob Adams is still with the City Council but with his reputation stained as a result of his actions.

The Age, the Herald Sun and the people of Melbourne all expressed opposition to the proposed development. In 1999 Jeff Kennett lost office.


[archive publication - a lost opportunity, poor planning and lack of integrity prevailed - Thanks to Bambo Rob and Clown Hall]

The Dome By Arnold Zable. Published 26 September 1996

We called it, simply, 'the dome.' We saw it every day, as we made our way from our single-fronted terrace, in Canning street, the three blocks south, to Lee Street Primary school. It was a constant in our lives, the southern boundary of our childhood world, distant, but clearly visible, especially from the open road, where we rode our scooters, raced our bikes, got up to no good, and played epic cricket matches between the Canning and Amess street boys.

The dome: In summers it seemed to shimmer in the crackling heat. On foggy mornings, it emerged, triumphant, from the mists. In late spring, when the poplars on Canning Street regained their leaves, it rose above an avenue of vibrant foliage. The Exhibition Buildings was the first wonder of our childhood world. It was majestic; free standing and unobscured, in a parkland setting. Its Florentine dome overlooked flower beds and shaded paths. It was our grand landmark, our neighbourhood icon. Sometimes we made it inside, under the dome, lured there by the latest show to come to the Exhibition Building. We were engrossed in collecting glossy brochures, and viewing the vast array of cars, boats, camping gear, or whatever, that crammed the exhibition halls. Just occasionally we glanced up and sensed the grandeur of this cavernous wonder, with its maze of galleries and arches, sumptuous ornamentation and towers.

As we grew older, the inner city skyline became more hard edged. Curves and church spires were dwarfed by rectangles and right angles. High rises cluttered the skies. Even then, the dome was still visible. Reduced in scale somewhat; but all the more precious, because it defied the times. It was a constant reminder that there are other possibilities. Other visions. Other ways to design a city.

The Royal Exhibition Building, the dome, and the Carlton Gardens, are now facing a far more lethal threat. In a decision that was made with no public consultation, no impact studies and no historical advice, the new Museum of Victoria lost its half-completed building on Southbank, and is to be built, instead, in the Carlton Gardens.

Not only will the proposed design destroy the free standing nature of the Exhibition Buildings, and not only will its massive bulk, which is over three times the area of the present buildings, impose itself on the gardens, but the dome will be obscured, from the northern view, by a projecting roof blade. According to Miles Lewis, professor of architecture at Melbourne University, this blade has been 'conceived solely as a feature to compete with the Exhibition buildings dome.'

More disturbing is the brief for the museum design, which states, 'it is also inevitable that at some time in the future additions to the complex will be required. The building needs to cater for expansion in both its internal planning and its external appearance.' So the new museum may well pave the way for further intrusion into the Carlton Gardens.

This is far more than a local issue. The Exhibition building is a major part of our nation's heritage. It was built to house the Great International Exhibition of 1880-81. It was the venue of the Centennial Exhibition of 1888. The first Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was opened here, in May 1901, with much celebration and ceremony. And it remains, along with the Eiffel Tower of Paris, one of the few structures that were built in the nineteenth century era of great exhibitions.

The Royal Exhibition building is a Victorian icon, and a national treasure. Trevor Huggard, former Lord Mayor, is lobbying the council to nominate it for World Heritage Listing. It is, according to Miles Lewis, the only building in Victoria with any prospect of achieving such an honour. This would mean a lot in terms of tourism and prestige. In fact the building is well placed for such as listing because in the 1980s it was restored to its 1901 concept of colour, design and art decoration.

A group of Melburnians who are enraged by this decision, are still trying, desperately, to get their message across. They first called their group, Defend the Dome. As the issues have broadened, they have renamed themselves, Defend our Heritage. Spokes-people like Anthony van der Craats, Mary-lou Jelbart and Trevor Huggard, continually point out, there are a number of far more preferable sites for the new museum, such as the vacant CUB site, Queen Victoria site, or the former police head quarters in Russell street. Building the museum on one of these sites, would help the inner city revive. It would place the museum where it belongs, as part of the cultural spine of the city.

And it would be a boon city businesses in the CBD, already in decline as the focus shifts to the casino complex on Southbank. Inner city businesses face a loss of revenue from a projected one million annual visitors to the new museum. It is only once in a life time that the opportunity comes to create a great new building for this purpose. Melbourne deserves a world class museum, where it belongs, in the heart of the city.

It is not too late to reverse this decision. The cyclone fences have gone up. The bulldozers are at work. But the contracts for the building have not been finalised. This is written as a plea to the premier, his government, his planning minister, those who hold the reins of power, that for the sake of our city, for the sake of future generations, stop, rethink, take a look at what you are doing.

You are destroying a place of grace and grandeur. You are destroying the peaceful ambiance of its surrounds. You are destroying the work and vision of our collective past. You are destroying aspects of our common heritage. Yes, our heritage. At the same time, you are consigning the new Museum of Victoria to the city fringes.

Stop it before it is too late. Institute a stay of execution. Set up a process of genuine public consultation and review. Allow the broader community to be informed. And, above all, spend some time in the gardens to absorb its serenity. Walk the road that leads to the dome, and contemplate what you are about to do. It is so obviously wrong.

Arnold Zable is a Melbourne based writer. In the 1970s he taught a course in urban and environmental politics at Melbourne University.

Comment made in 1996 in relation to Jeff Kennett, Premier of Victoria 1992 - 1999

We have a state government that loves to congratulate itself on its great works, and on the way it is transforming the city. But the reality is, that it is intruding into our parks and gardens, making crucial decisions with little consultation, and without regard to overall strategic planning. And in the process it has left a lot of people feeling powerless, disenfranchised and unwilling to speak out.

The article by Arnold Zable printed above records a significant turning point in the history of the Royal Exhibition Buildings in Melbourne and it's nomination for World Heritage, the development of Melbourne's Museum and the campaign to have the Museum of Victoria relocated.

It records part of the missing chapter in the history of the Royal Exhibition Buildings written by David Dunstan, historian.

IN 1996 a meeting between John Brumby, former leader of the Victorian State opposition, Trevor Huggard, former City of Melbourne Lord Mayor and Exhibition Buildings Trustee, Sigmund Jorgensen, Montsalvat Arts Foundation and Anthony van der Craats, Carlton Resident and community activist, took place in the Victorian State Parliament to discuss issues of concern and opposition to the then proposed development of Melbourne Museum adjacent to the Royal Exhibition Buildings.

It was at this meeting that John Brumby first proposed and supported the listing of the Royal Exhibition Buildings on the World Heritage List in hope that the nomination would cause Jeff Kennett, Premier of Victoria 1992-1996, to rethink the proposed development of Melbourne's Museum in the Carlton Gardens. At the time Jeff Kennett opposed the World Heritage Listing.

In 1979 history has recorded that Jeff Kennett, as a Liberal State Minister, proposed the demolition of the Royal Exhibition Buildings. Whilst he managed to demolish the Royal Ball Room he was unsuccessful in his desire to see the Royal Exhibition Buildings demolished.

The National Trust's expert building committee opposed the design and development of Melbourne's Museum citing that the development was not in keeping with the scale, design and significance of the site. Dr Miles Lewis, Architectural Historian and member of the National Trust's historic building committee express serious concern at the failure of the Kennett State Government to subject the proposed development to a proper planning process and assessment.

The Board of the National Trust, who had an on going business relationship and close association with the Museum of Victoria, overturned, to the dismay of it's members, the recommendation of the Trust's expert committee.

In December 1996 Anthony van der Craats, was elected to the Board of Directors of the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) in opposition to the determination of the Board to overturn the recommendation of the expert committee. He served as a Councillor of the National Trust for three years until 1999. He was later joined by fellow activists Julianne Bell and Mary-lou Jellbart both who were elected to the Board of the National Trust in 1997 and 1998 respectively.

Whilst the community campaign to stop the Museum development in 1996 was unsuccessful, John Brumby, who later became Victoria's Treasure in late 1999, recommended and approved the nomination for World Heritage Listing.

The Royal Exhibition building is Australia's first building to listed for World Heritage. There continues to be ongoing concern and issues related to the Museum which was built adjacent to the Royal Exhibition Buildings prior to the World Heritage Listing.

The following persons deserve recognition for their contributions for the preservation of this magnificent historical Melbourne Icon.

Trevor Huggard, former Lord Mayor of Melbourne and Member of the Exhibition Trustees;
Linton Lethlean, former Director Exhibition Trustees, who faithfully restored the Royal Exhibition buildings to its original deign;
Mark Duckworth, former Melbourne City Councillor and member of the Exhibition Trustees
David Dunstan, historian who wrote the history of the Royal Exhibition Buildings;
Miles Lewis, for his endless work and professionalism in supporting the nomination for World Heritage and his tireless contributions to the preservation of Melbourne's history;
Mary-Lou Jellbart, Arts Broadcaster and former Councillor National Trust of Victoria;
Carlton Community who have been its protector and neighbour without whom the Carlton Gardens and the Royal Exhibition Buildings would not exist today.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Heads begin to roll

But CEO and Lord Mayor not held accountable

The Melbourne City Council has began to swing the axe following the recent Ombudsman investigation and report into corruption in the Council administration earlier this year.

Alison Lyon, Council's former legal and Governance (sic) officer, had escaped review by her early resignation of her position with the City Council, thus avoiding the possibility of being dismissed.

The City Council acting on false legal advise, tried to thwart and hinder the Ombudsman's investigation. Thankfully the Ombudsman's department was not going to be intimidated by such tactics and continued with its investigation.

The City Council is renowned for misusing and abusing the legal system to avoid accountability.

The Ombudsman investigation found that the Council administration had acted inappropriately in a corrupt manner bordering on outright deceit. The Council administration when caught-out began a excise of cover-up, lies and denial of the Council's knowledge and involvement in serious mis-management.

Whilst we welcome the decision of the Council to begin to address the issue of corruption the fact remains that the CEO also should be held accountable for the problems identified. He must be held accountable along with the Council's Governance department. They can not and should not escape responsibility.

It is incumbent on the Lord Mayor to act independently and call for the resignation of the Council's CEO and head of Council's Governance and Finance departments. Failure to do so will only reflect poorly on the elected Council who will continue to be seen to be implicated in the in-house cover-up and attempt to avoid accountability. They are only seen to act when they are caught out.

If the Lord Mayor does not act then the elected Council must take action by holding a open and transparent and open investigation in to the management of the Council.

It is not satisfactory to just just hold secret behind closed door meetings in the hope that the issue will go away. Anything short of an open investigation will only continue to bring the City Council into ongoing disrepute undermining further public confidence in the City of Melbourne.



The Age newspaper reports...






City council removes traffic boss
Rachel Kleinman
August 16, 2006

Branch manager Noel Reid has been removed in favour of troubleshooter Steven Nagle, council chief executive David Pitchford announced yesterday. Mr Nagle will start today.

Mr Reid will be moved to the facilities management branch for the remainder of his contract. He and his deputy each received an official warning.

They had shown poor judgement and were reprimanded for clearly unacceptable behaviour, Mr Pitchford said.

He said the action, in response to a scathing State Ombudsman's report, would reform the council's management of parking and traffic.

The Ombudsman's report in April revealed that a dysfunctional team of parking officers had illegally issued parking fines worth $50,000 between 2002 and last year.

Two new assistant managers will join Mr Nagle, who has worked for the State Government, RMIT University and the Victorian Taxi Directorate.

Australian Services Union industrial officer Leanne Sumpter said morale in the parking and traffic branch was low.

The union has yet to be briefed on the changes.

"At this point I don't know much," Ms Sumpter said. "(But) some officers feel attacked from both inside and outside the organisation. Some feel they have been made scapegoats."

Mr Pitchford said all 160 staff members would have performance reviews and further casualties could not be ruled out.

"There have been problems within this branch for 15 years," Mr Pitchford said.

"This is an entirely new team and will bring a fresh approach to the way the branch operates."

The branch would shift its focus from enforcement and fines to customer service.

Mr Pitchford admitted the council might lose revenue through the change.

"I am happy to wear that if it means that we are issuing parking infringement notices for bona fide offences," he said.

He said these changes were part of a 46-point plan aimed at fixing problems highlighted in Ombudsman George Brouwer's report.

Two Melbourne councillors, who refused to be named, told The Age last month they doubted Mr Pitchford's competence in handling the affair.

Their attack came after Mr Brouwer launched a second investigation into allegations that the whistleblowers who triggered the original probe were later intimidated and bullied by senior council staff.

Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, it is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in jail to take revenge on or threaten reprisals against a whistleblower.

Lord Mayor John So said yesterday: "Following the Ombudsman's report, I demanded an assurance from the chief executive to act on the recommendations and address all the issues immediately. I'm happy that action has been taken."

But council sources have told The Age that, in private, Cr So's attitude towards Mr Pitchford has cooled in recent weeks and his contract may not be extended beyond September next year.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

City rents luxury apartments for staff to experience the high life

devoid of reality John So and Co demonstrate they have no control

More extra-ordinary revelations exposed about the mismanagement of the Melbourne City Council under the governance of John So and co.

How long can the City administration continue to go on unchecked and without accountability.

The list of mismanagement and waste is never ending as the City Council shows that it has lost all touch of reality and is out of control. John So and co continue to demonstrate that they have no idea how to manage the affairs of the City adding to concern that direct election of Lord Mayor does not deliver good governance. Spring Street must be beginning to wonder if it did the right thing when it adopted a direct election model. It is time the City Council and its representative structure is subjected to a serious review. Hopefully this will take place as soon as the State election in November is over and Victoria appoints a Local Government Minister that takes a serious look at the structure of the Melbourne City Council and its boundaries.


Its time to reconsider amalgamations and a greater Melbourne City Council. One that is professional and representative.






MCC luxury rent plan cops blustein Kelly, city editor

August 12, 2006 12:00am

LOCAL residents are outraged that Melbourne City Council investigated renting an apartment on the Docklands waterfront so staff could "experience life" at the precinct.

City chief executive David Pitchford this week confirmed he discussed the possibility with prominent Docklands developer MAB Corporation.


Mr Pitchford said he thought "it may be a good idea to possibly give City of Melbourne staff a chance to experience life at Docklands".


The plan was for staff to "get to know Docklands better" by staying in a serviced apartment before the council regains control of the suburb from the State Government next July 1.


While the deal did not proceed, residents are furious the city considered wasting ratepayers' money on the exercise.


And former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin called on the council to instead rent a unit in a high-rise Carlton housing estate to learn about city issues.


Docklands is only five minutes by tram from Melbourne Town Hall.


Mr Pitchford said "the level of detail of who was going to stay, and for how long, was not considered".


He said the only discussion in relation to payment was that the City of Melbourne would have paid whatever the market rate was.


"This was simply an idea I floated. We have now decided not to proceed with this idea."


Mab's prices range from $1120 a week for a one-bedroom serviced apartment to $2300 a week for three bedrooms.


Mr Chamberlin said it was clearly an inappropriate use of ratepayers' money.


"It's clear the Melbourne City Council has lost contact with the electorate to come up with crazy ideas like this," he said.


"If the council really wants to know how inner Melbourne works, they'd be better off renting an apartment in a high-rise housing estate in Carlton.


"Then they'd have unsurpassed views over the City of Melbourne, not like the Docklands where you have unsurpassed views over adjoining municipalities."


Southbank Residents Group president Joe Bagnara hit out at the idea, saying council staff should instead visit by day and take the free city circle tram.


"It's incomprehensible. They're away with the fairies on occasion. They could get on the city circle tram and it wouldn't cost anything at all," he said.


"Maybe they need to go have a look at their upcoming liability, because Docklands is going to be a liability.


"But they don't need to spend a month down there. A day-and-a-half would be enough."

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Melbourne City slugged with debt

The price the Council are prepared to pay for for Melbourne's new designer region

Melbourne City Council regains control of the Melbourne Docklands precinct with a debt of over 8 Million Dollars raising ongoing concern over the mismanagement of the Docklands Development. The Docklands project and its management was the responsibility of the formerly Kennett State Government who basically issued the Docklands development authority free range and an open checkbook. The Docklands development whilst transforming an industrial wasteland was poorly managed with questionable benefits arsing from major planning and financial mismanagement.

Three Stars to Former Melbourne City Councillor Kevin Chamberlain who has been on top of this issue over the life of the project. John So and his team are so keen to claim the Docklands as part of Melbourne the financial management issues are the furthest from the Council's mind. The City Council has been left picking up the tab and will not see any real benefits to the city for years to come. The hand over deal should have been struck so that the City was not burdened with the financial liability of past mistakes by the Docklands authority. Again we see the week negotiating skills of John So and co at work. No doubts Rob Adams and his designer team are keen to make their mark on this new canvass as they forsake their duty and responsibility to the older parts of the city. They want something new to work on. Bamboo Rob is a top shelf expensive administrator who is renowned for back flips, and questionable integrity and budget overruns.

The Hearld Sun reports

Jen Kelly

August 09, 2006 12:00am

RATEPAYERS will be slugged with an unexpected $8.4 million debt when Melbourne City Council regains control over Docklands.

Councillors last night agreed to shoulder the colossal debt when it wins back the rates-rich precinct from State Government control.

Former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin warned ratepayers would be hit hard by the debt and the cost of providing new services for Docklands.

"This debt will result in a further cut in services and a further increase in rates," he said.

"Given the perilous financial situation of the council, it is not capable of taking on any more State Government debt or obligation."

The $8.4 million operating deficit has arisen as the cost of providing services to the growing suburb has outweighed rates revenue.

The council hopes to begin taking control under a "trial marriage" next month, with the final handover on July 1 next year.

Since 1999, the booming suburb has been run by VicUrban and its predecessor, the Docklands Authority, on behalf of the State Government.

The council says the debt will not impact on services or rates for Docklands or other Melbourne ratepayers.

The council's Docklands spokesman, Cr Peter Clarke, said it was hoped the debt would be paid off from surplus revenue at Docklands over the next five years because its rates would outweigh costs of service provision.

But Mr Chamberlin warned the costs of providing services to meet high expectations from Docklands residents and businesses would far outweigh rates.

"Because of poor planning in the Docklands by the State Government, the expectations of the people now living there are very high," he said.

"The cost of meeting some of those expectations will exceed the rates revenue received from the entire area by a considerable amount.

"The municipal infrastructure in Docklands is non-existent -- child care, high-quality open space, aged care facilities, library, roads, footpaths.

"Their attitude is they've paid big figures for their units, they've been let down by the Government and now they expect the council to fill the gap."

The council's forecasts show the area will generate a surplus of about $1.8 million in 2007-08, with about $1 million of that to go towards the debt.

The council expects to pay off the debt in five years by committing about half the Docklands surplus each year until the debt is gone.

The council expects Docklands to reap $8.5 million in rates this financial year, rising to $46 million by 2020-21 when the suburb is finished. This would be close to a quarter of the city's expected total rates revenue by then.

Docklands is expected to be home to 20,000 Victorians and a workplace for 25,000

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Pitchford's contact up for renewal

It is time for a clean out and restoration of good governance

Melbourne has not had an effective CEO since the departure of Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. The quality of Governance has been in serious decline ever since. the rot set in under Micheal Malouf and Melbourne's current CEO has done little to restore confidence in the Council administration. His contract and time is up.

It was not long ago we reported that the City of Melbourne was not happy with CEO David Pitchford's appointment. We also made mention of information provided to us by the a source in the Councils governance department that David Pitchford's time was up following the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. Well our sources have been proven right. Information published in the Age Newspaper highlight the concern and pressure David is facing. The focus of the article is based on Melbourne City Council's fraudulent activities exposed by the State Ombudsman. There is much more to David's demise then the Traffic Infringement issue. Basically Kevin Chamberlain was right when he expressed concern over David's appointment. He was not the man for the job. His inability to maintain an open and transparent Government has been of ongoing concern. The City Council is caught up in corruption and cover-up.



Earlier this year we saw former City of Melbourne's legal advisor, Alison Lyons, resign from the City of Council in the lead-up to the State Ombudsman's report. David Pitchford has refused to make details of Councillors travel, free booze and catering expenses public. He has gone out of his way to avoid accountability and disclosure. The report of the Ombudsman is damming and certainly justification in its own to deny Pitchford and renewal of his contract. The City Council needs more reform and clean out. The Council is internal cultural or ongoing avoidance and cover up. It is time that the City administration is brought to account. If the CEO is incapable of addressing community concerns then the Council must act to have him replaced along with the manager of Council's Governance department who should also be under review..



City chief under pressure of Ombudsman probe
By Rachel Kleinman
August 1, 2006
Pressure mounted on Melbourne City Council's chief executive yesterday as the State Ombudsman launched a fresh investigation into the council's traffic and parking branch.

Councillors will decide next month on the future of David Pitchford's $250,000-a-year contract.

One councillor, who did not wish to be named, told The Age yesterday that Mr Pitchford was under "significant pressure" as a result of State Ombudsman George Brouwer's new inquiry. "We are absolutely sick of being kept in the dark about the ramifications of these issues," the councillor said.

"Councillors are concerned that the CEO does not appear to be on top of this issue."

A colleague, who also refused to be named, said councillors received an email from Mr Pitchford's office yesterday morning, which announced that the Ombudsman would hold a fresh investigation into the parking and traffic branch, under the terms and conditions of the Whistleblowers Act. They were directed not to discuss the matter and were not told about the extent of the investigation.

Mr Brouwer's first investigation, concluded in April, found that the council had issued thousands of dollars worth of unauthorised parking tickets between 2002 and 2005.

His report pointed to morale problems, and complaints of bullying and harassment within the branch. That inquiry was triggered early last year by a whistleblower.

It found that senior staff had ignored warnings from lawyers about the unauthorised issuing of fines and prosecution of motorists who failed to pay.

Responding to Mr Brouwer's report in April, Mr Pitchford said: "It is most unfortunate the practices, albeit in good faith, were allowed to continue for such a long period."

The council has drawn up a 46-point plan to deal with the State Ombudsman's concerns, and says most of them are already being implemented.

But the new development has put Mr Pitchford's performance back in the spotlight. His existing contract expires in September 2007, but councillors could extend it until September 2009. They must decide by next month, or begin a search for a new chief executive.

Speaking off the record to The Age this year, several councillors have consistently refused to back the performance of Mr Pitchford since his 2003 appointment.

A spokeswoman for Mr Pitchford yesterday refused to comment about the new investigation.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Where is the report.

What does Cock do for his bucks?

Where is the report. What does Cock do for his bucks.

An anonymous writer wrote to us this week highlighting a report in the Age dating back to May 2006.

We are interested in knowing was such a report ever present and if so will it be tabled and made public.

It's time to put an end to the secret Council business and restore open and transparent governance to Melbourne and put an end to the corruption and constant cover-ups.

We still have not received any news or information about the cost of Councils in house catering and free booze. Council is due to report on the costs of Council's overseas junkets and Councillor expenses for the previous quarter. We will be there to summarise the facts and highlight the omissions.

Keep sending in your tidbits. There is a lot we hope to follow up on but as you understand we need to verify all claims. Thanks to the Tipster from the Governance Department for the information on the parking fine issue... It was very interesting.



Comment sent to us.


Diary has been waiting by the phone since May 10 for Melbourne City Council spin doctor Hayden Cock to explain why he sacked two media chiefs but we're not the only ones wondering what he does to earn his $230,000-plus package. Watchdog warrior Councillor Catherine Ng asked the finance committee for a "detailed report" of the Corporate Affairs Directorate, which Mr Cocky heads, because his appointment had contributed to a blow-out in staff costs. "Do we need to have more people talking about what we've done or more people to do the job?" Cr Ng told Diary. Oh, Catherine, if only Mr Cocky would talk!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/carbone--money/tolarno-finds-a-new-guy/2006/05/28/1148754869425.html?page=2

Friday, July 14, 2006

Art scandle reflects poorly on City Council

Deputy Lord Mayor must distance himslef from controversy and his appointment of his personal mates

The Herald Sun reports on issues of concern about conflict of interests when appointing personal friends to positions of public office mixing love art and politics. We contiue to express out ongoing concern ofver teh appointment of Deputy Lord Mayors personal partner to overseas Melbourne Art development. Melbourne City Council and the deputy Lord Mayor Garry Singer continues to be btrought into disrepute. Garry Singer should act decively and request his partner to stand resign from the Council postion. There is a question of conflict of interest one that does not serve the City well and only be distancing himeslf from teh controversy can this matter be resolved. Failing Mr Smith' resignation Gary Singer should resign. Time to act in the pubics interest.



Officials to act on art wrangle
Karen Collier
12jul06

THE National Gallery of Victoria has ordered an official investigation into a curator amid a conflict-of-interest storm.

The development follows an exclusive Herald Sun report revealing curator Geoffrey Smith's court battle with his former lover, Robert Gould, over art treasures worth $7 million.
Some arts world insiders have concerns about Mr Smith's close links with a commercial business during his relationship with Mr Gould, who runs a private gallery in South Yarra.

The Supreme Court has banned the sale of 23 paintings by famed artists such as Sidney Nolan, Arthur Boyd, Brett Whiteley and Charles Blackman until the dispute is settled.

In documents before the court, Mr Smith claims he used his special expertise and connections to lift the reputation and profits of Mr Gould's gallery in South Yarra.

The NGV has seen copies of the affidavits and last night announced an investigation.

"The NGV has policies and procedures in place to ensure staff adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and to investigate any alleged contravention of such standards," the statement read.

"In light of the material contained in these documents, the NGV has now commenced an internal investigation."

Mr Smith has been a curator at the taxpayer-funded gallery since 1991, and is understood to be on approved leave.

Mr Gould denies Mr Smith played a pivotal role in his business's success, saying it was he who introduced Mr Smith to key figures in the arts world.

In the court documents, Mr Smith is accused of having a secret, long-running affair with his new partner, Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer.

Mr Smith's appointment last year to a committee to advise Melbourne City Council on art prompted controversy.

The investigation comes just weeks before Mr Smith's major retrospective on Charles Blackman at the NGV.