The agenda for the upcoming council meeting contains several important items.
The local law review committee proposes under the heading ‘Vexatious Questions”:
“Issue of the same question being asked repeatedly was discussed. Two alternatives were suggested:
1. answering the question at the relevant meeting but not reading it; or
2. disallowing the question and not reading it.
Suggested amendments to be drafted reflecting the alternatives.”
In the ‘Assembly of councillors’ item there is this statement/question: “Can Councillors be reimbursed for legal costs incurred as a result of the Municipal Inspection?”
Item 9.7, entitled ‘Childcare in Elsternwick’ tables a ‘report’ on the imminent closure of the current facility. The result? No new facility, no new budget allocation, etc. etc.
Once again the ball is in the councillors’ court. The community will be very, very interested to see how this meeting turns out and whether this signals the start of the further erosion of democratic principles.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 8, 2010 at 2:14 PM
When councillors consistently refuse to answer questions then they resort to what they have done inthe past – cut residents access and rights.The other issue of course is that this then gives them the power of judge and executioner. They are the ones who decide what is vaxatious.
a great pity that Lipshutz and tang inparticular have seen fit to resort to such underhanded tactics.
October 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM
This agenda item is obviously about my continuous public questions relating to the issue of Sportsground usage and the relationship between certain groups and Councillors, and why certain groups are “untouchable” whilst other have to abide by the rules and laws? I have learnt one lesson, where you exist in the family/friend tree can be used as a valuable tool to do as you like. If someone finds repeated questions vexatious its probably because they are hiding something. Who gives the right for a Councillor to judge “vexatious” questions? The next Councillor along and the general public might find the questions appropriate and therefore and answer should be given (honestly). There are rules and guidelines in place that governs “public questions”.
WHY CHANGE NOW?
What are you hiding?
Why do Councillors, and their mates and family not have to follow rules and laws like everyone else?
I Know, lets make up a new rule (that this time we will enforce) that when someone asks a question we dont like or will make us look silly (plenty more words to describe this)we will just ignore the question.
NOW THATS WHAT THE INSPECTORS ARE TALKING ABOUT GUYS, WELL DONE GOOD TRANSPARENT, OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNANCE.
Now we realise why you are the laughing stock of other Councils!
MODERATORS’ COMMENTS: The issue of an individual being ‘vexatious’ does have legal standing. There is also a history in Glen Eira where individuals have been labelled as ‘vexatious’. However, the core issue here is the process of determining real ‘vexatiousness’, and whether the potential alterations to the local law will merely become a tool to silence criticism.
October 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM
So lets get this straight, someone asks a valid question and the Councillors do not like it because it implicates them with poor governance. So now they just make a new rule up to ban questions which may bring out the truth? This is disgusting and a blight on our rights to ask public questions to Councillors, who we elect and put in power to uphold our views!
May I ask out of interest who is on the Local Law review committee?
MODERATORS’ COMMENT: Lipshutz is chair, and the other members are Tang and Pilling.