Hiding the count Victorian Electoral Commission refuses to publish details of 2005 Municipal Elections

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

Clearly the Victorian Electoral Commission in refusing to provide Mr Quick the information requested raises serious questions pertaining the conduct of Elections.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Hiding the count Victorian Electoral Commission refuses to publish details of 2005 Municipal Elections

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

Clearly the Victorian Electoral Commission in refusing to provide Mr Quick the information requested raises serious questions pertaining the conduct of Elections.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Hiding the count Victorian Electoral Commission refuses to publish details of 2005 Municipal Elections

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

Clearly the Victorian Electoral Commission in refusing to provide Mr Quick the information requested raises serious questions pertaining the conduct of Elections.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Melbourne City Bank State Government raids City fo Melbourne Capital reserves to fund speculative private development

The Victorian State Government seeks to acquire 43 Million Dollars of Melbourne City Council’s capital reserves to fund speculative private/commercial development, further reducing the Council’s working capital ratio.

The Age – $1 Billion Mini-City Along the Yarra

Whilst the city needs investment one has to seriously question if Council’s priority should be on underwriting State Government – private investment speculative projects.

If the project is viable then why is the City of Melbourne is being asked to make a contribution and what are the overall benefits?

Melbourne City Council is still paying for Federation Square which has been a financial disaster and a project that was ill-conceived and poorly managed.

More questions then answers

Ratepayers of the City of Melbourne need to know if they are to committee 43 Million Dollars what is the return rate for their investment and will the City be equal partners/shareholders and will the City Council see real dividends from any commercial activity/profit? Or is the City Council expected to just chip in and meet the costs of external infrastructure and forgo and real profits in effect providing the State G0vernment and private developers with a free access to Council’s reserves?

43 Million dollars wisely invested elsewhere can return significant dividends.

It is incumbent n the State Government and the City of Melbourne to publish a prospectus providing full details of the costs and economic viability of the project, and not hide behind commercial confidentiality, before committing to any joint partnership development project.

Anything short of full disclosure should be met by the City Council with stiff resistance and refusal to fund the project.

Melbourne City Bank State Government raids City fo Melbourne Capital reserves to fund speculative private development

The Victorian State Government seeks to acquire 43 Million Dollars of Melbourne City Council’s capital reserves to fund speculative private/commercial development, further reducing the Council’s working capital ratio.

The Age – $1 Billion Mini-City Along the Yarra

Whilst the city needs investment one has to seriously question if Council’s priority should be on underwriting State Government – private investment speculative projects.

If the project is viable then why is the City of Melbourne is being asked to make a contribution and what are the overall benefits?

Melbourne City Council is still paying for Federation Square which has been a financial disaster and a project that was ill-conceived and poorly managed.

More questions then answers

Ratepayers of the City of Melbourne need to know if they are to committee 43 Million Dollars what is the return rate for their investment and will the City be equal partners/shareholders and will the City Council see real dividends from any commercial activity/profit? Or is the City Council expected to just chip in and meet the costs of external infrastructure and forgo and real profits in effect providing the State G0vernment and private developers with a free access to Council’s reserves?

43 Million dollars wisely invested elsewhere can return significant dividends.

It is incumbent n the State Government and the City of Melbourne to publish a prospectus providing full details of the costs and economic viability of the project, and not hide behind commercial confidentiality, before committing to any joint partnership development project.

Anything short of full disclosure should be met by the City Council with stiff resistance and refusal to fund the project.

Melbourne City Bank State Government raids City fo Melbourne Capital reserves to fund speculative private development

The Victorian State Government seeks to acquire 43 Million Dollars of Melbourne City Council’s capital reserves to fund speculative private/commercial development, further reducing the Council’s working capital ratio.

The Age – $1 Billion Mini-City Along the Yarra

Whilst the city needs investment one has to seriously question if Council’s priority should be on underwriting State Government – private investment speculative projects.

If the project is viable then why is the City of Melbourne is being asked to make a contribution and what are the overall benefits?

Melbourne City Council is still paying for Federation Square which has been a financial disaster and a project that was ill-conceived and poorly managed.

More questions then answers

Ratepayers of the City of Melbourne need to know if they are to committee 43 Million Dollars what is the return rate for their investment and will the City be equal partners/shareholders and will the City Council see real dividends from any commercial activity/profit? Or is the City Council expected to just chip in and meet the costs of external infrastructure and forgo and real profits in effect providing the State G0vernment and private developers with a free access to Council’s reserves?

43 Million dollars wisely invested elsewhere can return significant dividends.

It is incumbent n the State Government and the City of Melbourne to publish a prospectus providing full details of the costs and economic viability of the project, and not hide behind commercial confidentiality, before committing to any joint partnership development project.

Anything short of full disclosure should be met by the City Council with stiff resistance and refusal to fund the project.

City taken to the Cleaners Melbourne City Council CEO fails to negoiate cost of clean-up after the games. Ratpayers left to pick up the tab

Melbourne City Council CEO, David Pitchford, failed to negoiate the cost of clean-up following the Commonwealth Games leaving ratepayers to foot the bill for the clean-up costs.

Herald-Sun

The City of Melbourne has spent at least 32 Million dollars on Commonweath Games related expenditure including $170,000 in cost of free tickets to events for Councillors , staff, guests and hangers-on.

Normally clean-up costs of major events are paid for by organsiers of Major events but this time Melbourne City Council’s CEO and Council Officers failed to ensure that the Games organisers made provision for the clean-up adding further to the costs to the City for this extravagent two weeks jock fest event.

The failure of the City Council to ensure that organisers meet any additional cost raises ongoing concern about the ability of David Pitchford to manage the affairs of the city and the ability of the Council to keep a watch on the performance and administration of the Council.

Our elected Councillors more interested in partying and social events then they are in administration and proper governance.

Meanwhile our Lord mayor, John So, makes unsubstanciated claims in statements to the Herald Sun that the City will reap dividends from the Games event. How? John So conveiniantly failed to outline extacly how and how much Melbourne will benefit. We doubt that Melbourne will see any real benefit from its 32 million dollar give away and that is not counting the one to two billion dollars that the State Government has spent overall on the games.

Any excuse and pretense to justfiy the unjustifiable.

John So, our City Councillors and staff are more then happy to spend up up big with no limit on costs as Melbourne is left to pick up the tab.

The Melbourne City Council continues to avoid responsibility and accountability by refusing to disclos? the full costs and alleged benefits.

Melbourne may never know the true cost of Ron Walker’s folly, if at all, until after the November State election.

Hopefully this will be the last Commonwealth Games event held in Australia

City taken to the Cleaners Melbourne City Council CEO fails to negoiate cost of clean-up after the games. Ratpayers left to pick up the tab

Melbourne City Council CEO, David Pitchford, failed to negoiate the cost of clean-up following the Commonwealth Games leaving ratepayers to foot the bill for the clean-up costs.

Herald-Sun

The City of Melbourne has spent at least 32 Million dollars on Commonweath Games related expenditure including $170,000 in cost of free tickets to events for Councillors , staff, guests and hangers-on.

Normally clean-up costs of major events are paid for by organsiers of Major events but this time Melbourne City Council’s CEO and Council Officers failed to ensure that the Games organisers made provision for the clean-up adding further to the costs to the City for this extravagent two weeks jock fest event.

The failure of the City Council to ensure that organisers meet any additional cost raises ongoing concern about the ability of David Pitchford to manage the affairs of the city and the ability of the Council to keep a watch on the performance and administration of the Council.

Our elected Councillors more interested in partying and social events then they are in administration and proper governance.

Meanwhile our Lord mayor, John So, makes unsubstanciated claims in statements to the Herald Sun that the City will reap dividends from the Games event. How? John So conveiniantly failed to outline extacly how and how much Melbourne will benefit. We doubt that Melbourne will see any real benefit from its 32 million dollar give away and that is not counting the one to two billion dollars that the State Government has spent overall on the games.

Any excuse and pretense to justfiy the unjustifiable.

John So, our City Councillors and staff are more then happy to spend up up big with no limit on costs as Melbourne is left to pick up the tab.

The Melbourne City Council continues to avoid responsibility and accountability by refusing to disclos? the full costs and alleged benefits.

Melbourne may never know the true cost of Ron Walker’s folly, if at all, until after the November State election.

Hopefully this will be the last Commonwealth Games event held in Australia

City taken to the Cleaners Melbourne City Council CEO fails to negoiate cost of clean-up after the games. Ratpayers left to pick up the tab

Melbourne City Council CEO, David Pitchford, failed to negoiate the cost of clean-up following the Commonwealth Games leaving ratepayers to foot the bill for the clean-up costs.

Herald-Sun

The City of Melbourne has spent at least 32 Million dollars on Commonweath Games related expenditure including $170,000 in cost of free tickets to events for Councillors , staff, guests and hangers-on.

Normally clean-up costs of major events are paid for by organsiers of Major events but this time Melbourne City Council’s CEO and Council Officers failed to ensure that the Games organisers made provision for the clean-up adding further to the costs to the City for this extravagent two weeks jock fest event.

The failure of the City Council to ensure that organisers meet any additional cost raises ongoing concern about the ability of David Pitchford to manage the affairs of the city and the ability of the Council to keep a watch on the performance and administration of the Council.

Our elected Councillors more interested in partying and social events then they are in administration and proper governance.

Meanwhile our Lord mayor, John So, makes unsubstanciated claims in statements to the Herald Sun that the City will reap dividends from the Games event. How? John So conveiniantly failed to outline extacly how and how much Melbourne will benefit. We doubt that Melbourne will see any real benefit from its 32 million dollar give away and that is not counting the one to two billion dollars that the State Government has spent overall on the games.

Any excuse and pretense to justfiy the unjustifiable.

John So, our City Councillors and staff are more then happy to spend up up big with no limit on costs as Melbourne is left to pick up the tab.

The Melbourne City Council continues to avoid responsibility and accountability by refusing to disclos? the full costs and alleged benefits.

Melbourne may never know the true cost of Ron Walker’s folly, if at all, until after the November State election.

Hopefully this will be the last Commonwealth Games event held in Australia

City taken to the Cleaners Melbourne City Council CEO fails to negoiate cost of clean-up after the games. Ratpayers left to pick up the tab

Melbourne City Council CEO, David Pitchford, failed to negoiate the cost of clean-up following the Commonwealth Games leaving ratepayers to foot the bill for the clean-up costs.

Herald-Sun

The City of Melbourne has spent at least 32 Million dollars on Commonweath Games related expenditure including $170,000 in cost of free tickets to events for Councillors , staff, guests and hangers-on.

Normally clean-up costs of major events are paid for by organsiers of Major events but this time Melbourne City Council’s CEO and Council Officers failed to ensure that the Games organisers made provision for the clean-up adding further to the costs to the City for this extravagent two weeks jock fest event.

The failure of the City Council to ensure that organisers meet any additional cost raises ongoing concern about the ability of David Pitchford to manage the affairs of the city and the ability of the Council to keep a watch on the performance and administration of the Council.

Our elected Councillors more interested in partying and social events then they are in administration and proper governance.

Meanwhile our Lord mayor, John So, makes unsubstanciated claims in statements to the Herald Sun that the City will reap dividends from the Games event. How? John So conveiniantly failed to outline extacly how and how much Melbourne will benefit. We doubt that Melbourne will see any real benefit from its 32 million dollar give away and that is not counting the one to two billion dollars that the State Government has spent overall on the games.

Any excuse and pretense to justfiy the unjustifiable.

John So, our City Councillors and staff are more then happy to spend up up big with no limit on costs as Melbourne is left to pick up the tab.

The Melbourne City Council continues to avoid responsibility and accountability by refusing to disclos? the full costs and alleged benefits.

Melbourne may never know the true cost of Ron Walker’s folly, if at all, until after the November State election.

Hopefully this will be the last Commonwealth Games event held in Australia