The minutes of June 29, 2010 record the following as part of an answer to a public question:
“The nine Councillors meeting as the Council set policy and the Council Officers implement policy. The policy as set by Council is one of reasonable laws reasonably enforced.”
It’s amazing that if this is in fact a ‘policy’, it is not to be found in ANY MINUTES of ANY COUNCIL MEETING!
What’s even more revealing is that Council itself refers to this phrase, not as a ‘policy’, but as a ‘motto’. We direct readers’ attention to the Quarterly Reports Sections 13.9 and 13.10 – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Sevices_Report_June_2009.pdf
We highlight this issue as it again goes to the heart of good governance. Policies are meant to be tabled, endorsed, and ratified at full council meetings. ‘Reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ thus remains a figment of the imagination, a convenient slogan that is capable of camouflaging abuse, discrimination, and lack of accountability. There are no guidelines, no criteria, no public dissemination, of how, when, and why such a MOTTO will be interpreted and implemented. Nor is it clear whether this ‘motto’ applies to all laws, or just certain ones. If someone is two minutes late back to their car only to find a parking fine, will ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ also apply?
The past few months have seen repeated public questions from a social soccer group. They seek answers to why, when they have a permit costing $1600, council does not fine other groups who do not have a permit, and who repeatedly use sporting grounds that are not allocated to them. These questions have invariably focused on the meaning of council’s oft used phrase ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. In this instance, we surmise the following:
- It would be too embarrassing to go through another ‘kids in the park’ fiasco where John Brumby, Ian Thorpe and other luminaries castigated Council severely for their actions in threatening to fine a bunch of school kids for running around Princes Park.
- $1600 is chicken feed compared to the permit fees paid by other clubs – so this group of social soccer players is ‘expendable’!
But, all this begs the question of good governance and councillors’ failure to question and act. Their simple ‘request’ to be ‘consulted’ before fines are enacted is laughable. What does this mean in reality and will it apply to all infringement notices, or just to the social soccer people? Why aren’t the public privy to all so-called ‘policies’? When will councillors actually do their jobs and SET POLICY, that is open, transparent, and in the best interests of all community members. To hide behind slogans that are trotted out whenever convenient is not good government!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 10, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Thanks for pointing this out gleneira. The next time I write a letter asking for a parking fine to be withdrawn because of ambiguous signage and I get the mumbo jumbo of reasonable laws etc I’ll demand to see the actual policy and state that its only a motto and question whether it has any legal force.
September 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Last week’s council meeting is the perfect example that reasonable laws reasonably enforced is the result of who you are instead of what you do. The planning application for Albany court heard that the people involved had repeatedly broken their permit conditions but were never fined and possibly not even investigated. Their reward was to get their new permit through. Now that’s what I call reasonable laws reasonably enforced. Its a total joke.
September 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM
The following comment was posted to our archive by Nick Varvodic. We felt it also belongs here:
I think you will find that this investigation is far from over, my complaint in relation to unauthorised users of sports ovals is just warming up after it appears the Councillors have carefully chosen the specific information they gave out to the Inspectorate. It would have been nice if they gave all the full details out instead of trying to claim to the Inspectorate we were given an allocation every year during summer, and as the Councillors also conveniently forgot to mention the main reason of the complaint which is “Why cant we use Caulfield Park when your mates and relatives can?”
September 11, 2010 at 12:19 AM
The public questions you are referring to have been lodged to Council by myself every month and will continue to be lodged every month until they are answered honestly and transparently. And now that the Mayor has openly come out and quoted after Part 1 of the Investigation there will be more transparency I hope to receive an honest public answer for all to hear.
I must first stress, my group does NOT want to see anyone fined for playing sport, but you cant have one set of rules for some and another set of rules for others. Councillors mates and relatives have every right to use the parks just like anyone else, provided they abide by the same set of rules just like the rest of us, but sadly that is not happening!
For the last 4 years we have been denied permits during summer at Caulfield Park whilst other unauthorised groups just continue to play freely when they like and wherever they like. One particular group happens to be the Frisbee Group, we could not work out why they were so untouchable and “teflon-coated”. We were later informed and absolutely amazed to find out that this Frisbee group happen to be mates with the Mayor (Tang) and also have a Councillors son (Lipshutz) playing with them. I needed this clarified so I asked for a meeting with the Mayor, was granted one that same day, I put those questions to the Mayor and he said YES to both. I also asked if he had played with them because that is what we thought and the answer was NO. Now you might have a little understanding as to why we are so frustrated come summer time when we are told to “take off” to NO oval at all or recently to another so-called oval, whilst we sit an watch the “Teflon-Boys” just do as they like at Caulfield Park playing Frisbee without a permit. Surely if they are allowed to stay and play then so are we? WRONG! Where are the equal rights there? Well we are not mates with the Mayor or related to a Councillor and there lies the answer for all.
Council are fully aware of their internet facebook page titled “CP Frizza on Fridays”, with a Councillors son (Lipshutz)on the facebook page, this along with the fact the group are mates with the Mayor (Tang) you think would be damning enough? But NO they still claim there is “NO Conflict of Interest”. Council have done nothing about it for years, just turn a blind eye, WHY, they claim “Rasonable Laws Reasonably Enforced”
What is this, and why?
The reason is to protect themselves, their mates and relatives.
I have asked on many occasions to define what this policy is, and I kept getting nothing from my public questions, donuts, zilch. I then requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. And YES there is something in writing to define “Resonable Laws Reasonably Enforced” but it certainly was NOT forthcoming from the Councillors and I believe deliberately withheld by the Councillors. It is there in black and white, they voted on it, they knew about it, yet said nothing when I asked about it?
It is from the Council meeting on the 18th December 2007. It gives Council 3 options in relation to “unauthorised sportsground users”
a) Council can monitor the situation.
b) Council can uphold “Resonable Laws Resonably Enforced”. Council can take the following action for unauthorised groups:
– Issue a verbal warning in the first instance.
– Issue a written warning in the second instance.
– Issue a penalty infringement notice if the group continues to play.
c) Council can do nothing.
Council have clearly and in writing said they are upholding “Option B – Resonable Laws Resonably Enforced”, well if this is truly the case how are they still being allowed to play? Under the Freedom of Information act I have obtained the “park patrol” sheets which clearly mentions the Frisbee group more than 3 times.
I think the answer is obvious to all. And it looks like they are secretly upholding “Option C – Council can do nothing” for their mates and relatives.
Can the Councillors possibly be serious about this, they tell us we are NOT allowed to play at Caulfield Park in Summer even though we have Public Liability Insurance and seek a Permit, yet they allow there mates and relatives to play as they like without a permit??? Surely absolute worse case scenario we get the same rights and can both play? NO NO NO, it does not work like that at Glen Eira!
I think even the Frisbee group would say this is unfair.
September 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Whenever you have vague, generic statements, that are ill defined you will have problems. It’s inevitable and deliberate. Council does not want to tie itself down to one specific definition or interpretation. This would limit their power. As it stands they can call on ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’ in any manner they choose and without justifying anything to anyone. It basically gives them carte blanche but without the necessity of accountability. Look through all their policies – they’re all the same – vague, open to interpretation, no relationship between objectives and key performance indicators, and no valid assessment methods. The game is thoroughly rigged.
September 12, 2010 at 2:26 AM
“Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.”
we have three lawyers on the council, who i imagine would through their education and background understand better than us mere plebs what justice, fairness, and equity means. some lawyers consider themselves patricians, and we mere plebs are not much better than slaves. lucky for us we do have a democracy and our opinions count at the election times.
so what is the slaves and plebs opinion of people? to paraphrase the well known saying: ‘those that can do; those that can’t teach; those that can’t teach regulate (apply law); those that can’t regulate politicise (make laws)’; as we know the public has the lowest opinion of politicians, followed by lawyers.
why is it so? the answer is to do with morality and ethics of those wielding the power. ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ if it is used to hold on to power rather than for deciding on how to use laws in ethical and moral ways make the slaves and the plebs eventually chuck those politicians out of office either by voting or revolution.
the case that nick presented suggests that our lawyers on the council have little regard for justice, fairness, and equity. they seem to manipulate people and situations using their influence and power to promote their own friends and family.
September 24, 2010 at 8:41 AM
…………………………….(edited by moderators)
l call for Lipshutz to step down immediately…