• Lobo got the ball rolling by questioning the accuracy of the record/minutes of assembly. He noted that the reference to communication via emails should read ‘racism’.
  • On Item 9.1 (5 storey development) Lipshutz used the term ‘appropriate’ at least 5 times in the space of 10 sentences. Pilling concurred. Passed unanimously.
  • Items 9.2 and 9.3 were passed. Magee voted against item 9.3. The basic argument was that these items were really only ‘housekeeping’, the land was not really valuable as open space/park, since it was behind a brick wall, no-one knew about it, and hence too late to do anything about it since it wasn’t in council’s control – although they had ‘authority’. PITY THAT THE PUBLIC WASN’T PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THAT THERE IS A COURT CASE PENDING BETWEEN THE OWNERS!!! Seems that this little detail somehow escaped the Officers’ report. Perhaps Glen Eira Debates should take some credit in prompting this tiny tit-bit of information into the open?
  • Farce of the evening was the self-congratulatory performance of nearly all councillors who actually thought they were conducting a ‘debate’ on the financial statements and the prioritisation of capital works. Perhaps ‘debating’ sessions should be given to councillors in conjunction with refresher courses on governance as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?
  • We’re told that the item which generated most ‘debate’ was Esakoff’s ‘urgent business’ relating to potential state government regulation on pruning of trees near power lines. Esakoff moved that GE provide $30,000 for ‘fighting fund’ in conjunction with other councils and MAV. Magee opted for the ‘wait and see’ approach. Pity that such ‘debate’ and ‘spontaneity’ cannot be directed to more pressing issues that impact severely on residents.
  • 2 public questions were taken ‘on notice’ and one was declared inadmissable as it did not refer to a councillor in the performance of his duty as councillor. A question directed to senior executive was also taken on notice. Will be interesting to see how long it takes for these ‘answers’ to surface!

Apparently there were also numerous occasions when several councillors did not know correct procedures as to asking questions of officers (Esakoff); being allowed ‘Right of reply’ on behalf of someone else (Magee); speaking to agenda item (Lobo). After two years, and for some many more, is it asking too much that councillors are au fait with their own local law and its Meeting Procedures? Even Tang we’re told had to defer to the wisdom of Burke!