Melbourne 2016 – The Light on the Hill Team

Representing Local Residents. Ratepayers and Businesses Equally – Issues include:

STOP THE WAR ON CARS

  • Review of Melbourne’s Bicycle network and improve traffic flow in the City. End Traffic Congestion by fixing LaTrobe Street and other cross city roads.
  • Safer roads for (All) users including Pedestrians, Motorcyclists, disabled and the elderly Commuter Parking.
  • Shared access to the Road Network.

Improved Pedestrian Safety, remove Bicycles from the Yarra Promenade

Better planning South Yarra, South Bank, Carlton, Parkville, East Melbourne, Docklands and the whole city. – Protecting our Heritage and Local
Amenity

Save Queen Victoria Market:

  • Trade 7 days a week.
  • Car Park under existing Car Park (Open space above) –

End the rorts and junkets

  • No free booze Bar.
  • Limited Overseas travel

Replace Lord Mayor’s Limo with an electric vehicle. Inclusive Melbourne:

Melbourne Family Friendly:

Establish a Strategy Plan to increase activities to make Melbourne more family friendly.

Governance:

Increased accountability and transparency. Reduce expenditure lower rates.

Reunite Carlton

Review of Melbourne’s external boundaries and electoral system with the aim of establishing a Greater Melbourne City Council that incorporates City of Port Philip, The former  City of Prahran and the City of Yarra with 21 Councillors (3 members x 7 wards) .

Advocacy:

MetroRail

  • improved local amenity.
  • MetroRail Stations to include local shops and services.
    Tunnel under Punt Road between the Yarra and Nepean Highway and grade separation along Hoddle Street.
  • Save the Historic Number 8 South Yarra Tram –


Email: melbcity@gmail.com

Review Disclosure – Due March 21

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.

Review Disclosure – Due March 21

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.

Review Disclosure – Due March 21

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.