This comment was posted by Cr. Pilling. We repeat it as a post.
“I will certainly stand on my record as always voting wholely on the merit of a motion without fear or favor.
Three weeks ago I fully supported and voted for Cr Penhalluriack’s previous motion articulating Council’s vision for the increased public amentity and access at the Caulfield Racecourse as reported in this blog- I did so because I felt it was a sound and important motion that codified Council’s position.
Last nights motion again moved by Cr. Penhalluriack was concerned with how and where Council would negotiate with the MRC- Ultimately I felt it was a poor motion and not practical in providing a professional framework for negotiations to begin and succeed – This is the reason I voted against it and I totally reject the accusations directed at myself and other fellow Crs on this matter.”
Glen Eira Debates 
March 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM
geez neil, for goodness sake, if you support someone’s idea but it is poorly worded then suggest something better! you have chopped it without any counter proposal from any members of the ‘gang of five’. what’s in it for you neil?
March 16, 2011 at 7:32 PM
First of all Cr. Pilling, thank you for responding directly to what you consider as criticisms of yourself and fellow councillors. I do however find it difficult to understand, much less accept your arguments in this case. If GlenEira’s report on the meeting is accurate, then you failed to provide any real reason as to why you could not vote for Cr. Penhalluriack’s motion. You have done exactly the same in this comment.
Cr. Penhalluriack’s motion was definitely concerned with ‘where’ the negotiations should take place – at Council Chambers. I see nothing wrong with such a proposition since the intent was for councillors to present Council’s ‘codified’ position. Why should such an event take place on MRC turf? You also claim that Penhalluriack’s motion involved the ‘how’ of negotiation. There is absolutely nothing within his motion that sets down guidelines, methods, stipulations as to ‘how’ something is to be negotiated. In this you are sadly mistaken.
And even if Penhalluriack’s motion did include a ‘how’ – this still does not explain, much less justify your position. You provide no cogent reason why you voted against it – apart from resorting to such language as ‘practical’ and ‘professional’. So I would like to know exactly why you think the motion was not ‘practical’, why wasn’t it ‘professional’? Simply using throwaway lines without proof, without evidence, and without clear, coherent argument is not becoming in any councillor.
Your comment only reinforces for me, and I’m sure for many others the strong belief that the entire objective of last night’s meeting was to defeat Cr. Penhalluriack and to ensure that the current powerbrokers remain in control. None of you provided one single shred of detail or argument that is supposed to be the hallmark of debate. This was nothing more or less than a preplanned and carefully carried out stifling of contrary opinion. For this you should be ashamed. I can only hope that voters remember this in 18 months time.
March 16, 2011 at 7:45 PM
Council will never get anywhere with the MRC because all this is about Politics and nothing to do with Glen Eira . Council is a disorganised rabble incapable of anything tangable and only look good thanks to our Cities loyal and tallented Staff.
March 16, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Thank you for your response to the previous post Neil, it restores in a small way some of the faith we all had in you. However you are at a stage where you need to decide who you stand for. You need to consult with Green members such as Sue Pennicuik and Peter Job about the Greens policy towards opening up of the Caulfield Racecourse. Perhaps you disagree, in which case you need to be an Independent and resign from the Party. I am pleased that you have returned to your website and can only hope that you honestly and truely represent the Party that assisted you in becoming a Councillor and raise an appropriate resolution to support the firm and unquestionable Green policy of opening up the racecourse for the community.
March 16, 2011 at 10:02 PM
thanks viewfromahill for your comment-
– with respect this motion was not about endorsing Greens or any other party policy-What it was about was determining the most appropriate and effective way to conduct negotiations with the MRC.
I take issue with you querying my Green credentials which I feel is plainly untrue. I have continued to advocate strongly on many ‘green’ issues including the racecourse over the past two years.
As such I make no apologies for endeavoring to work co-operatively with all crs in achieving positive results for our communities
March 16, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Meh you’ve been hoodwinked by Crs Lipshutz and Hyams and you’ve only just realised. At the moment your claim to fame is spending a million on an underground rain water tank. Did they see you coming or what? Move on Pilling and let someone in who is prepared to represent Glen Eira and not think of it as a lazy way of getting into state or federal politics.
March 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM
In think Cr Pilling probably realises that the previous meeting’s motion was meaningless unless it is followed by action.
And I tend to agree that Frank’s motion put to last night’s meeting was poorly worded and not particularly practical. I think it was largely symbolic – which is the reason it should have ben supported rather than opposed for largely technical reasons.
Anyone who has been involved in any sort of negotiation would realise that having 9 negotiators on one side won’t work. However, the alternative of having Esakoff and Newton doesn’t offer much hope either.
Yes, Frank was grandstanding (and not being very intelligent about it either – you don’t put up a motion like that without canvassing numbers) but I think the exercise would have been of value if only to demonstrate to the MRC that Glen Eira is serious about pursuing issues of access and community use of the racecourse property. And a welcoming party of residents outside the council chambers wouldn’t hurt either.
If Cr Pilling or others were worried about the wording of the motion, it could have been amended or another motion put up. But what did we get – Esakoff and Newton. The MRC must be laughing.
March 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM
I’m not a mind reader so don’t know what was on Penhalluriack’s mind when he wrote the motion. It read “That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to a meeting with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land. The Mayor shall open the meeting, and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position. The meeting shall then be open for all to contribute. The meeting shall be sound-recorded and minutes shall be prepared.
This doesn’t sound like negotiation to me. What I think it does is to establish the ball park issues that are important and that confirm the previous motion that was passed. The insistence on having 9 councillors is to ensure that the real message of the last motion gets presented in no uncertain terms. everything up to now has been so wishy washy and councillors have been left in the wake of all those meetings between Newton and the MRC. The fact that Penhalluriack had to request a report on what went on shows exactly how much they’re being kept in the picture. Therefore i reckon this was an attempt to make sure that this didn’t happen again. Remember that at last council meeting they also knocked on the head the Lipshutz and Hyams motion which attempted to give the reins exclusively to Newton and Esakoff. If they voted against this last meeting, then what kind of wheeling and dealing went on this meeting so that Lipshutz got his way in the end. That’s what Pilling has to answer for. voting something in one week and then the very next reneging on what he had stood for. It’s that simple and has got nothing to do with how many councillors are present to ‘negotiate’. We’ve not talking negotiation but making sure everything is above board and that the COUNCIL resolution is kept up front where it belongs. Letting Newton loose and you can bet your cotton socks that the MRC will get everything they want.
March 17, 2011 at 1:55 AM
THE PRESS CAULFIELD AND PORT PHILLIP LEADER March 15 2011 (Advertisement page 23
“ROSSTOWN WARD FORUM
Rosstown Ward Councillors (Cr Margaret Esakoff, Cr Steven Tang and Cr Neill Pilling will be in the Carnegie Shopping Centre in Koornang Road, Carnegie Saturday 26 March from 10 am -12 pm. Margaret, Steven and Neill look forward to meeting and greeting residents, answering question or simply talking about issues of interest to the community.”
March 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Like all other forums of the past a public relations exercise. No feedback to residents, no action, just more weasel words from this gang of three. Now that it’s under the auspices of council rather than an individual councillor calling it on his own as has happened in the past you are assured of a public relations exercise.
March 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM
I’ll be taking advantage of this meet and greet to ask Esakoff about the C83 Amendment re the removal of heritage overlay HO14 lodged by Council in May, 2003 (Esakoff was a councillor in 2003). The overlay was lodged on the advise of the Council’s heritage adviser, Gabrielle Moylan. Moylan said that the building was influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and that “this apartment block … is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted”. The 2011 C83 amendment states “Council considers this site not to be worthy of heritage significance and therefore should not be included in the Heritage Overlay” but gives no reasons for the change – the building hasn’t changed significantly. Council admit that in 2003 they screwed up notifying some of the owners (at that time the three units were owned individually) of the heritage classification but this is not a reason to remove the heritage overlay which is designed to protect, enhance and promote the understanding of Glen Eira’s history. At least that’s my opinion, an opinion not shared by the mayor’s husband, Jack, who now owns all three units and is the developer seeking the removal of the heritage overlay.
March 17, 2011 at 4:48 PM
This sounds very serious, so I googled the planning scheme amendment and then the relevant addresses, which led me to the the minutes of the Council meeting of 31 August. The minutes showed that Esakoff declared a conflict of interest in this motion and left the Council chamber, so she took no part in the decision. The other councillors voted unanimously to remove the heritage overlay. The report also refers to three owners, which shows that Esakoff’s husband does not own all three units as Heritage has claimed. Also, the overlay was approved in May 2003, as Heritage says, but that means that was when the government approved it. It probably went through the Council months before that, and most likely before Esakoff joined the Council in 2003.
March 17, 2011 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous, can you then explain why the vote was taken to remove heritage from all three buildings. If a mistake was made and the seaview properties weren’t notified, then I agree, there should be some compensation. But why the need to remove all as the resolution states. After all, its the Hawthorn rd property that is the Frank Llyod Wright significant one. The resolution only makes it look that if Esakoff does own them all, that that’s the way out of a dilemma. So let’s help out our mate – regardless of when he might have become the owner of all three, or only one.
March 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM
I’m not sure. The aerial photo in the minutes shows it’s all one building and the officer’s report gave the options of either listing all three units or removing the listing from all three. Maybe it’s not legal to heritage list part of a building.
March 20, 2011 at 2:55 AM
Why not remove all evidence of any history that we were once quite an elite suburb so as not to delay any developer who needs to build in a hurry. Yes smash them down quickly and all the trees as well so as we can put up more square sheet like boxes! Hope this happens soon so as we soon look less exclusive and the rates might fall.