At the last council meeting, a public question was directed to Paul Burke ‘and Councillors if he cannot answer it’. Tang’s response was:
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Public Questions are to Council. Clause 232 (2) (b) of the Local Law allows an individual Councillor to respond to a Public Question if the Chairperson redirects the question to them. There is no such provision that allows a Public Question to be redirected to an individual Officer other than if an appropriate Officer is called upon by the Chairperson to respond to a Public Question to Council.
Additionally, I remind you that Clause 232 (1) (b) of the Local Law requires questions to be less than 150 words. However, despite your question exceeding 150 words Council can advise that Council has nothing to add to the responses previously provided to you.”
The actual Clause 232 (1) (b) states:
The Chairperson may decide to either:
(i) personally answer the question; or
(ii) refer the question to the appropriate Councillor; or
(iii) refer the question to the appropriate officer; or
(iv) advise that the question is taken on notice and that a written response will be sent.
Tang does have the power to ensure that Burke answers the questions. Various officers have responded to public questions in the past. Tang’s gagging of Burke is deliberate, given that the question could be viewed as embarrassing given Burke’s previous cited remarks ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL. The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that once again Tang has performed the bidding of his masters! The victim remains accountable government.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 19, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Questions are directed to Council and it is at the discretion of the Mayor as to who answers the question. That is clear to me.
December 19, 2010 at 10:18 AM
The past few posts and many of the comments have shown up one thing – that councillors are the privileged ones and that the community is merely the plebs. Double standards all the way through. Councillors get away with abuse, distortion, and to use lipshits constant phrase ‘intellectual dishonesty’. When even this is not good enough to camouflage poor governance, then the gag is applied.
The c60 delay and the decision to give residents 3 minutes each is a joke. Like little kids the public is admonished by both Hyams and lipshits about repetition, stick to the point, or we’ll cut you off. Well let’s see the same rule applied to councillors. At the last council meeting councillor after councillor exceeded his three minutes. Esakoff went on and on about Packer Park providing information that was already in the so called report. Magee also went on and on about police. Then the gallery had to endure Tang’s interminable ‘summing up’ – even he got an extension of time!
Debate is not about hot air! It is not about liking the sound of your own voice. And it’s certainly not about using meeting procedures to stifle criticisms.
December 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Tang hasn’t followed the rules. He has a choice of THREE THINGS – NONE OF WHICH WERE DONE! HE DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION; NO OTHER COUNCILLOR ANSWERED THE QUESTION AND HE DIDN’T PASS IT ON TO BURKE!!!! There is no escape clause here – he must do one of three things or rule the questiion out of order or take it on notice. Whoever asked this question should complain about this!
December 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM
The public question was mine,
He has tried to use a loophole, he will be getting the question AGAIN with the reverse order and I’ll be asking him to direct it to the appropriate officer (Paul Burke) exactly as the clause says to do so. Lets see how they weasel out of it this time?
What are they hiding?
Why dont they want the question answered?
Are they abiding by the Inspectors official recommendations of open, transparent and honest governance?
Remember I have been asking these questions for years and although they know exactly what the question is, if it is not worded correctly they will weasel their way out using various “Intellectual dishonesty”
That is how they operate, what about the pathetic 150 word excuse, it also says questions “should” be kept to 150 words.
Why dont they enforce the “Park Permit” law like they enforce the 150 word suggestion? Double Standards? They cant because a Councillors son plays with them and they are mates with a Councillor too!
They will then say you are asking repeated questions after not even replying to the first one. Hello Mcfly is there anyone home there, answer the question honestly and you wont get a repeat question or the need to use and FoI document to prove you wrong!