The record of assembly of councillors printed in the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a fascinating document. We are left to wonder whether councillors have incredibly weak bladders since this specific meeting was nothing short of a swinging door of councillors leaving the meeting and returning a minute later. Please note the procession taken directly from the record –
7.17pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room
7.18pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room
7.45pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room. Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.
8.02pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Briefing Room.
8.03pm Cr Penhalluriack returned to the Briefing Room.
8.03pm Cr Magee left the Briefing Room.
8.04pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.
8.04pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.
8.05pm Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.
8.08pm Cr Magee returned to the Briefing Room.
8.44pm Cr Pilling left the Briefing Room.
8.45pm Cr Lipshutz left the Briefing Room.
8.46pm Cr Lipshutz returned to the Briefing Room.
8.47pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room and Cr Esakoff assumed the Chair.
8.48pm Cr Tang returned to the Briefing Room and resumed the Chair.
Cr Pilling returned to the Briefing Room.
8.54pm Cr Esakoff left the Briefing Room.
8.55pm Cr Esakoff returned to the Briefing Room.
Such comings and goings are unbelievable. Yet the only declared ‘conflict of interest’ comes twice from Tang – one notable instance is when the Municipal Inspector’s Recommendations are discussed!
The Local Government Act requires councillors to declare any conflict of interest even in an assembly of councillors. Why isn’t this noted in the record? Why isn’t the nature of the conflict of interest included? Why are all directors present so that in effect this becomes a defacto council meeting behind closed doors? Is this an example of ‘winky pop’ in action? Or are we, the poor public, simply left to speculate on the state of each councillors’ bladder?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Readers might be interested in what the legislation actually states –
Requirements to be observed by an assembly of Councillors
80A. Requirements to be observed by an assembly of Councillors
(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of-
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending;
(b) the matters considered;
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3).
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is-
(a) kept for a period of 4 years after the date of the assembly; and
(b) made available for public inspection at the offices of the Council for a period of 12 months after the date of the assembly.
(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a
conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by
the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either-
(a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or
(b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun, as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.
October 12, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Most of these exits lasted one minute. This is hardly enough time to discuss any issue. Makes me suspect that what was happening was not a discussion but a vote. If it was a vote then this is illegal – assemblies are only meant to consider stuff not vote. Glen eira is correct in asking questions and we must insist on full answers.
October 15, 2010 at 12:43 AM
I smell a rat here, we used to all do that at school, write the answer down outside the exam classroom, next person would go to the toilet get it, it was great illegal collusion – didnt know it happened at Council level though?
Interesting exit names!
October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM
No surprises here! It’s the decision making behind closed doors syndrome in full swing. Methinks this council should be renamed “The Secret Society” – then at least we will have some honesty!
October 12, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Yes, quite funny – but also quite irrelevant.
What is significant is that this is the first time that council has published a record of these briefing meetings. Presumably this is in response to the findings of the inspector.
Note that the meeting went for nearly 3 hours (6.44-9.31) – longer than most council meetings.
There was a wide range of issues addressed – the first two items took about half an hour so presumably there was much discussion.
It seems this is why very little is fully discussed in council – it has already happened behind closed doors.
October 13, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Glen Huntly, the Local Govt Act now makes it compulsory for assembly of councillor meeting ‘minutes’ to be included in the agenda items for the next full council meeting. This has now passed both houses and is about to come into effect (if it hasn’t already – we’ll check!). so, we doubt how much this agenda item had to do with the Municipal Inspector, and how much it had to do with the change in legislation.
October 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I should have known that council wouldn’t be publishing these minutes unless they were legally obliged to.
October 13, 2010 at 9:53 PM
The Act was assented to on 14th September, Glen Huntly