Item 9.14 of council agenda was membership of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct committee. This committee was set up in late 2009 and comprised 4 councillors. The recommendation was to appoint another councillor to replace Magee who resigned following his appointment as trustee to the MRC.

Tang vacated the chair since as a trustee he declared a conflict of interest. Magee did likewise. Hence, there were only 6 councillors in chamber – Pilling is on leave.

Cr. Penhalluriack moved a motion to DISBAND THIS COMMITTEE. His argument was that he now has to hang his head in shame; he had voted last year in favour of this committee believing that some good may come out of it, but he was mistaken. The whole process is undemocratic and anticommunity. Only 4 councillors will be able to vote on vital issues such as the C60 amendment and the centre of the racecourse because they are trustees, or have been winky popped as he and Forge have been. This is antidemocratic and anticommunity. All this because of a ‘convoluted law and a convoluted interpretation of the law’. When we discuss C60 ‘I’m not allowed to vote… (this is) a nonsense’. ‘This is my park, my land and I’m being excluded…Why should we leave it to 4 people when 9 people have been elected’? ‘Council is not beholden to the MRC’. ‘Council needs to take a stand’…’time council stood up… I want to have a say in C60…”

Cheryl Forge seconded this motion stating that this issue was the most undemocratic thing that had yet faced this council.

Lipshutz opposed the motion stating that whilst terrible, the MRC will go to court and ‘our decision goes down the gurgler’ if processes are incorrect. Therefore conflict of interest is important and must be taken into account. He didn’t want to ‘take the risk’.

Lobo began by stating that it is a ‘shame that we have laws where lawyers play around and earn their living’ Frank is in the history books for making things happen. He has been ‘gagged and he has my full support’.

Hyams agreed with Lipshutz and ‘empathised’ with Frank. He offered two reasons why council needs this committee – (1) potential litigation and (2) problem is the decision relates to perceptions of bias and when statements might be seen as perceptions of bias. ‘we make a decision and we’re exposed to litigation’. Again and again we heard it was ‘risk to council’.

Penhalluriack responded by stating that this was an atrocious situation. If Lipshutz and Hyams are correct then the only people who could challenge are the MRC and they ‘wouldn’t have the gall to stand up’ and go to court. Council must challenge them to do that. They have excluded us year after year and this committee should be abandoned

Esakoff who had taken the chair to replace Tang, then used her chairman’s position to cast the deciding vote. Penhalluriack, Lobo and Forge, voted for abolishing the committee; Lipshutz, Hyams, and Esakoff voted against. Esakoff then used her decisive casting vote – without giving any reasons for this vote. She did not utter a word, except state that she is voting against the motion. Penhalluriack called for a division.

Lipshutz/Hyams then moved the motion that Esakoff be appointed as councillor on the committee.

Penhalluriack then questioned Esakoff’s ‘bias’ in that she had previously voted against his motion to abandon the committee when she is now being nominated for the committee. The response was that councillors can vote themselves onto committees. Penhalluriack then ‘respectfully dissented’ from this decision, asking that this be put in the minutes. Penhalluriack also asked for a vote on his motion of dissent – it was declined after much confusion, consultation with Newton and Burke. Esakoff was voted onto the committee. Surprisingly Forge voted for her!!!!

OUTCOME:

• 4 councillors (a minority) will decide the fate of C60 – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Hyams
• 4 councillors decide the fate of the Racecourse for 132,000 residents
• Council will not, as Penhalluriack states ‘stand up’ to the MRC
• Council has abrogated its responsibilities to residents and to all semblance of democratic process 

Tonight’s council meeting was unique in that the following occurred:

• A motion of dissent was moved by Cr. Penhalluriack against acting chair Esakoff
• Esakoff, with the ‘guidance’ of both Newton and Burke ‘gagged’ this motion instead of allowing it to go to a vote according to accepted, democratic principles of meeting procedures
• The ‘gang of four’ (Lipshutz, Hyams, (Tang) and Esakoff) basically abandoned council’s obligation to the community to ‘fight’ the MRC and the c60 amendment
• Cr. Lobo responded individually to public questions asking each councillor to outline what they believed they had contributed to the community during their stint as councillor – in opposition to the stock, all encompassing mumbo jumbo of ‘council speak’
• Cr. Lobo attempted under ‘right of reply’ to question the process of mayoral elections. He was ruled out of order

A full coverage of these events will be online tomorrow.

There is a deafening silence from the vast majority of State Candidates about the Caulfield Racecourse and the entire Caulfield Village development. Only two candidates have expressed views:

1. Peter Brohier – Independent Candidate for Caulfield District campaigns for extensive infrastructure development to become the junction between East and West of Australia and to link Hastings Ports to Tasmania. He sees the Racecourse as a Public Asset to be used properly by the Public for the Public use;
2. David Southwick – Liberal Candidate for Caulfield District (replaces Shardey) campaigns against an inappropriate development in Caulfield and in particular around the proposed MRC Caulfield Village. He wants to work with the community and the Glen Eira Council to resolve the issue of Public use of the Racecourse. 

No other Candidates are campaigning on the issue of the Racecourse and the development of the greatest asset that Victoria has got according to Peter Brohier. The value of the area, which was also examined in the Sir Rod Eddington’s Report, is between $10 billion to $20 billion at present. The proposed developments plus the likely future developments may either double the value or if it is NOT done properly it may destroy the area and ALL other areas around the proposed Caulfield Village.

 On the grapevine we hear that both major parties are divided about the proper use and future development of this area. Baillieu is totally against the development and Brumby has not said a word. 

There will be 17 MPs in the Parliament, whose votes are important for the Caulfield Racecourse Public Recreation Ground and Public Park with its surrounding areas. The Public deserves an answer from ALL candidates on this big issue that will affect the whole of Victoria and Australia as this transport hub should be developed into a major link between East and West.

We ask each candidate to state their position on the following:

1. immediate public access to the middle of the racecourse
2. development as a public recreation ground and public park
3. appropriate development of Caulfield Village
4. development as a major transport hub
5. involvement of local and wider community together with stakeholders at each step of development

Today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly –

Whiteside went out swinging

Caulfield is currently inundated with election posters, pamphlets, notice boards. All are full of promises about the Caulfield Racecourse. David Southwick appears to be winning the stakes (excuse pun!) in this area. Ms Abramson’s publicity machine is running a very long second we suggest. She definitely needs to pull the whip out and begin to concentrate on the local community.

We thought that those readers who may not have seen the latest Southwick effort might be interested in this poster that went up under his name and concerns the Caulfield Racecourse. We quote:

Fight inappropriate development at Caulfield Racecourse 

The proposed Caulfield Racecourse development will mean:

• High density towering commercial buildings
• Traffic congestion
• Local lost amenities
• The threat of antisocial behaviour 

The Brumby Labour government has done nothing to protect Caulfield residents from the proposed massive racecourse development which would see

• Twelve hundred residential units (including high rise towers)
• 20,000 square metres of office space
• 15,000 square metres of retail space

 I want to work with you and the local community to ensure a better deal.

 David Southwick

 Liberal for Caulfield.

We received  the following email and it is printed below –

Ah, looks like Glen Eira Debates is making an impact when we compare the Assembly of Councillors ‘records’ over the past few agendas and the current one. If detail was skimpy before, it is now almost non-existent.  A curt sentence of about 5 words is all the community can now expect. Yet, the censors can’t eliminate all data and those grudgingly made ‘subject listings’ provide further room for speculation. We’re very curious about the following:

• A Pools Steering Committee that discusses ‘assembly of councillors’. Is it their business?
• The 26^th October Assembly of councillors which discussed ‘records of assembly’!!!!!
• A revisiting of the October 12^th records of assembly. Was this to curtail such expansive ‘minutes’ as “Exchanges between councillors in the Council Chamber and through emails’ – especially when Lobo wanted this relabelled as ‘racism’? Or could it be the somewhat embarrassing notation as: ‘Can councillors be reimbursed for legal costs incurred as a result of the Municipal Inspection’? Or even the ‘untouchable’ such as “CEO appraisal by council’. We can only conclude that councillors and/or administrators were not too happy with previous records of assembly. The result is now obvious. Another major win for secrecy and back room discussions with no accountability to the public.

 However, we are most pleased to report that the previous, apparent ailment of many councillors is now rectified. Their bladders have improved markedly!

The Agenda Items for the next council meeting (23^rd November) are out and as per usual, make for fascinating reading. Given the recent fiasco over the planning conference for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development, we did a little more digging and have come up with the following table. Please note that all of the 6 items were given the ‘stamp of approval’ by council officers.

We’d like residents to focus on two things:

1. Size of potential development and number of adjoining properties notified
2. Number of objections and how this is inversely proportional to the number of notifications?

We wonder why?!!!!!!!! 

Cr. Neil Pilling will be standing in the State election as a Green Candidate for the Upper House in the Southern Metropolitan Region.

Council minutes of 10^th August record: “Cr Pilling has previously sought Leave of Absence for the period 23 July to 22 August. He is a candidate for the seat of Goldstein in the Federal Election”.

This is now the second time within 4 months that Cr. Pilling will be taking leave from his Council duties in order to concentrate on ‘electioneering’. Whilst Cr. Pilling is perfectly entitled to seek a political career, we can only ask: With two months leave in such a short period of time, how well is/has Cr. Pilling represented his Glen Eira constituents? Should the community have been made aware of Cr. Pilling’s political ambitions prior to his election in November, 2008?

We beg to differ Cr. Tang! When figures for interviews, forums, questionnaires, focus groups are all lumped together as they are in the Annual Report (Page 82), then it is quite misleading to assume that Council’s consultation methods are truly multi-faceted, or that the community repeatedly fails to avail itself of the opportunities provided. By and large, the only way that the community gets a ‘formal’ look in is via formal submissions and public questions.

We’ve therefore taken the trouble to quantify our assertions – to present facts rather than spiel. Our analysis includes all public minutes from December 16, 2008 until November 3^rd, 2010. That is, the current reign of these councillors. We cannot, of course, vouch for the total number of contacts such as phone calls, emails, letters, private meetings that may have occurred. These are never published so that the community actually never gets to know such vital statistics as: how many complaints have been registered? How many compliments have been registered? How many queries have been successfully answered? And the most important, how ‘satisfied’ are residents following their contact with council and councillors? Our figures reveal:

501 separate approaches to council

258 known individuals who either submitted public questions or submissions. We listed the names a few posts back. The ‘unknowns’ include:

8 individuals signing a petition;

14 ‘unknown’ on amendment C75;

2 ‘unknowns’ on Council Plan;

23 ‘unknowns’ on Bicycle Strategy;

1 ‘unknown’ on Early childhood Development Plan;

18 ‘unknown’ on Toilet Strategy;

5 ‘unknown’ on amendment C76;

23 ‘unknown’ on Street Tree Strategy.

Our analysis also revealed a total lack of consistency in process and policy as to the publication of submissions. For example, those submissions falling under Section 223 of the Local Government Act revealed the names of correspondents. Others, that fell outside these parameters were ‘revealed’ only, it seems, when it was politically advantageous, or fairly innocuous. Those issues that could be expected to draw major criticisms were deemed ‘not suitable for publication’! We have the full submissions on the Toilet Strategy, and the environmental strategy (the latter including names), yet the Planning Scheme Review, Bicycle Strategy submissions are totally missing. Why? What is council’s real agenda here? Why do they publish some submissions yet ‘hide’ others and in the case of the Planning Scheme Review, and the Early Childhood Development Policy, offer only a bare skeletal, so-called ‘summary’. If toilets can be given the spotlight, then surely something as fundamental as the Planning Scheme also needs to be put under full scrutiny?

The most important finding however relates to outcomes. We repeat our previous questions. We want to know:

• Of all those individuals and groups who bothered to write, were they ‘satisfied’ with the outcome(s)/responses?
• Were they even answered? Ie. what’s been done about the petition?

This is our ‘hidden agenda’. We request all those people and groups that we’ve previously listed, contact us (gedebates@gmail.com) and let us know exactly how ‘satisfied’ they are with the manner in which their submissions, questions and petitions were responded to and acted upon. Did your viewpoint or suggestions actually change anything? Were your problems attended to, fixed up? Were the answers provided accurate and relevant? Or were you simply fobbed off?

This council, the administration and councillors must now be called to account by YOU, THE PUBLIC. Their failures should be exposed, and where relevant, the ‘successes’ highlighted. But most importantly the community has to judge performance on outcomes and decide whether we want these same individuals to continue being councillors and administrators.

More detailed analysis will appear in the days ahead.