Forgive this long post, but we believe it’s important!
Penhalluriack moved his motion under ‘Urgent Business’. It was seconded by Forge. Again a rousing speech which began by going over the history of the original grant and its 3 purposes – a racecourse, a recreation area, and a public park. ‘We don’t have a public recreation ground; nor do we have a public park’. It is important that we negotiate to ‘share this land….It is a huge land and many people here tonight have never been inside this land’. Last meeting proposed that we be given access to ‘all the land inside the training tracks’ – most of the land anyway is taken up with racing and training tracks. ‘For 150 years we have been kept out of it’. ‘It’s about time that we stood up and fought for our rights…..the Melbourne Racing Club has used that land for their own purposes…..we have 20 or 21 race meetings a year. That’s all!….but they have training every morning and every afternoon and that means that we can’t go on it….they are using land that is close to 2,000 million dollars…..2,000 million dollars for 20 bloody race meetings a year! Get real! It is our land……It’s time that we negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to take back this land…..The only fair and equitable way to do this is to invite the Melbourne Racing Club …to come to a meeting of all nine councillors and discuss it’.
Penhalluriack then stated that if he loses the motion and three councillors go off to negotiate that he ‘wouldn’t be happy when they come back and say this is the best we could get….because I won’t believe it is the best we can get and I’m sure Councillor Pilling will feel the same’. Lobo will also feel the same. ‘This is our land’. ‘we need to have access, unrestricted access to the land’….The trustees meet twice a year’, they haven’t done anything, councillors are 2 or 3 against 13 or 15.
Penhalluriack claimed that he comes from a business background and that it’s ‘common sense’ to him that ‘we should all be partaking of this exercise’….we need to get value for our money.
Forge then spoke stating that most of the community had ‘no idea’ that there were three purposes to the racecourse. School and sporting communities ‘are crying for space’ and ‘we’re looking at a sand belt in the middle and nothing for the public…..at the moment the horses are being treated much better than the public….not one of the 15 recommendations (from the public lands inquiry panel) has gone through…..what’s Glen Eira Council doing for us? We have put no ideas on paper….I think we have to be far more explicit….Cr. Penhalluriack and I have had more experience about this industry than anyone else (on council)….we have to look more closely at the makeup of people’ who will be representing us to the MRC.
Pilling then got up and commended the ‘passion’ of both Penhalluriack and Forge and the work they’d put in ‘but this motion is about the best way to negotiate with the MRC.’ Penhalluraick’s motion isn’t the best way to negotiate. ‘I won’t support the motion’.
Tang then asked whether it would be a meeting open to the public. Penhalluraick responded that no it wouldn’t be – just councillors.
Lipshutz continued the ‘theme’ by congratulating Forge and Penhalluraick for the work they’ve done and that ‘no one can suggest that they’re not passionate about this HOWEVER, this is not about passion. He objected to penhalluriacks remarks about the past. He was a member of council in 2005 and ‘took a very strong stance’ about opening up the park. The fact that they didn’t achieve this ‘was not because of lack of trying….because we had a government that wasn’t prepared to assist us…..this is about how to best achieve the result we want…..Penhalluriack said that he wouldn’t trust that (if 3 councillors came back with a proposal)….at all times this council delegates…..and when I vote for someone I trust them; I trust every member of this council. I believe every member of this council is reliable, is trustworthy….when I vote for someone to go off and represent council I trust them, so I reject what Cr. Penhalluriack says’. Claimed that how many racemeetings were irrelevant and that the real issue is ‘how best to negotiate’. No negotiation should ‘bring people in, have 9 people’ trying to negotiate. It ends up as a ‘free for all’. The example was a councillor saying that he wants fences removed and another councillor saying I don’t want that – I want something else. ‘so where do you go?’ You negotiate by good will, not by bringing in 9 councillors and having a free for all. Compared decision making to what happens at council – that is committees are set up to discuss issues. ‘I want as much as anyone here the racecourse to be opened up…..this (Penhalluriack’s motion) is a recipe for absolute disaster’. It basically says that this council ‘has no idea how to negotiate…we’re a professional council and we should do this properly….’
MAGEE said that the MRC will undoubtedly have their legal advisors, as council could, but that the meeting ‘should be held on council’s grounds….we can only put forward what we as councillors think is appropriate….anything that puts all the cards on the table and lets everyone know where we stand is a good meeting….
HYAMS then threw in his ‘dorothy dixer’ asking Tang to explain why, when every other time the racecourse had come up for discussion he had declared a conflict of interest, yet tonight he did not
TANG stated that his position as trustee put him in a difficult situation. He would ‘dearly love’ to be able to discuss these issues but ‘unfortunately they are a risk to council…..as a trustee I have responsibility to the Trust’. He is a ‘councillor nominee’ which enables him to ‘passionately advocate for the community’s interests’ by putting people’s ideas to the trustee meetings. He has ‘conflicting duties’ when ‘matters of policy affect matters of the Trust’ and since this discussion is not about changing policy he can comment(!!!!!!!) so since no questions affecting the trust are being considered now, there is no conflict of interest.
HYAMS then asked what happens if the MRC says ‘no’
Penhalluriack replied that ‘we are under pressure from this government and so are the MRC. I don’t believe they would stand up’ and say no.
HYAMS then asked about the composition and Penhalluraick responded ‘I don’t expect all councillors to show up….I would like to see all nine councillors come along and share the passion that Cr. Forge and I….we are democratically elected to represent our constituents…..if councillors want to turn up, if the MRC all want to turn up we can go and hire the pavilion….’
HYAMS then asked what would happen if the MRC wanted to go away and deliberate and how this would impact on council’s meeting schedule. He stated he ‘doesn’t disagree’ with the motion but the most important thing is that we act ‘reasonably’….in negotiation each side sends its representatives….they discuss…..they then go back to report to their constituent bodies…..and they see where they go from there…..I’m concerned (that we might be seen to be) ‘acting unreasonably’…the only question is how best to go about it…..we need to be reasonable’. Hyams also admires the passion and commitment of Forge and Penhalluriack, BUT ‘sometimes someone can get so close….you don’t know when to step back…..so close to something that you don’t trust anyone else to do it…..and when we reach a situation where that might be the best for everyone we don’t see that that might be the best for everyone…..it’s time to step back’. He doesn’t doubt Forge’s and Penhalluriack’s intentions, just the method of achieving what ‘we all want to achieve’.
TANG: ‘I resent what Cr. Penhalluriack has said…..(it is) self serving….Noone can doubt that they’ve been active in this issue…..I’ve dealt with Penhalluriack and Froge when they weren’t councillors….Council made very strong representation (and the Select Committee)….’we were all very interested…..it is annoying and frustrating when it becomes about personalities; who should negotiate….we’re now debating personality rather than policy….but I’m here to tell you that on policy everyone agrees…..’. Tang then claimed that it was the previous government’s fault and that the Liberals were no different now. ‘I agree we want the best possible negotiating team on behalf of the community….it is not about personality….we should be supporting each other in achieving that outcome….’
Penhalluriack summed up that the feeling is that we need to be ‘reasonable and my motion is not reasonable…..Last meeting we passed’ what everyone now seems to think was excellent points.’Prior to that meeting I had to negotiate, cajole, beg four councillors to vote with me….Those four councillors as it happens are all in their second term….and those four councillors….most vigorously oppose this….Well so be it. But I believe they will live to regret it. Those four councillors have achieved nothing by way of opening up (the racecourse)….absolutely nothing….This council has allowed the racecourse and the training areas to expand and expand….to the detriment of what we, the community wants…..and now we’re forced to negotiate with the MRC with one hand tied behind our back’. Lipshutz claimed that in 2005 they tried to open it up but the government wouldn’t assist – ‘well I’m sorry we’re also a local government….it’s up to us to negotiate to get this thing through. It’s our land…..’.
‘it’s not going to be a free for all….we are responsible citizens, councillors are all responsible citizens….this (council meeting) is the only area where council can make policy….this is supposed to be where these things are debated…..in public in an open and transparent manner….I think councillor Tang should perhaps consider resigning his position…and appointing someone else who doesn’t feel that moral obligation…of not being able to report to us….the whole purpose of having a councillor as trustee is that so we know in an open transparent manner what is happening…..’
Esakoff put the motion to the vote. IT WAS LOST.
PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION.
PENHALLURIACK, FORGE, MAGEE, LOBO VOTED FOR
LIPSHUTZ, TANG, HYAMS, PILLING AND ESAKOFF AGAINST.
Lipshutz then moved a motion that Newton, Eskakoff represent council in negotiations with the MRC. Motion was passed. Only Forge and Penhalluriack voted against.
CORRECTION: The Lipshutz motion also included himself and Magee as the councillors to ‘negotiate’ with the MRC.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 16, 2011 at 4:03 AM
Thank you for such a detailed report back. Words can not describe how angry I am at this Council. Pilling has let down the Greens and is a disgrace to the party and should resign. Lipshutz is a disgrace to his ward and should resign. Esakoff is unethical and uses Council for her own personal benefit of land rezoning and should resign. Tang also only has a job because of a Council relationship and should resign from council and also the Trustees role – he does not even turn up to two meeting per year. I am so angry with the gang of four and their lacky in Pilling. Pehalluriack raised a great motion as it showed the Councillors you can trust and the five that stink……(MODERATORS: phrase deleted)
March 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM
John, I agree with you 100%. Pilling is an outrage. He is the stooge that sets the scene for the ridiculous arguments that Lipshutz and Hyams then come up with. As for Tang his hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. Last meeting he declared a conflict of interest. This meeting, because the gang needed his vote he doesn’t declare a conflict of interest. It sure wouldn’t have looked good for Esakoff if she had to cast the deciding vote using her role as chair. This way the bastards won 5 to 4.
I congratulate Penhalluriack for calling a spade a spade and bouquets to Forge, Lobo and Magee for supporting him.
March 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM
I think the vast majority of residents of Glen Eira will agree with the comments made. However, John neglected to mention the smarmy Hyams who is in the ear of Lipshutz, Esakoff and Tang. I am not one for violence but would turn a blind eye if I saw Frank taking him out the back of Chambers and just decking him. As a member of the Greens, I am writing to Greg Barber and voicing my concern over Councillor Pilling including questioning whether he should remain a member of the party. Sue Pennicuik has worked too hard on this issue for another member of the party ruin any chance of a breakthrough.
March 16, 2011 at 4:35 AM
Oh great, Newton and Esakoff to negotiate. More pissy little signs!
March 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM
I am afraid the Cr Pilling has not delivered for his community. I voted for him and was optimistic that he would contribute to positive change in this council now I regret my vote! This motion tested allegiances and they came through very clearly. Is it now the ‘gang of five’. Cr Pilling needs to think very carefully about his Green credentials and his accountability to the residents and electors of Glen Eira.
I am very disappointed to have the CEO and Cr Esakoff as the only councilors ‘representing’ the interests of our community – they have never successfully done this in the past. Pity that councilors have a four year term!
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM
If only Lipshutz’s words were true. Every councillor is reliable and trustworthy? Absolutely not! How reliable is Tang when he doesn’t even show up to trustee meetings? How reliable is Lipshutz when he doesn’t show up to 3 out of 8 audit committee meetings? How reliable is Magee when he doesn’t show up to Pools committee meetings? As to trustworthy? Well that’s a damn good question. Can we trust councillors like Lipshutz and Tang and Essakoff and Hyams when vested interests always appear to control how they vote and when motions are put forward to support their buddies – the removal of Heritage listing the latest example? So that leaves Pilling. What’s his game and why is he supporting these pathetic people who are supposed to work in the public interest? What’s his game and what’s the potential pay off? He has never put an argument forward that has any substance. Even his language as reported here apes his masters voice – ie. Lipshutz. ‘appropriate’ for development and in this case ‘not about passion’. Yeah, he has betrayed everything that he was elected on and this needs to be pointed out to him in triplicate. He’s a failed politician, and now a failed councillor. Time to go along with the rest of the baggage that fills our council.
March 16, 2011 at 12:27 PM
What I’m most disappointed about in this report of last night’s events is the duplicity of Tang and Pilling. The number of times in recent months that Pilling has either seconded a motion put by Lipshutz, or moved a motion that is seconded by Lipshutz tells a story in its own right. We are seeing the outcomes of the wooing of Pilling where all principles have been betrayed and sold out to the ‘gang’. His soul must not be worth much because I can’t see that he gains anything. What exactly does he stand for now? Apart from mouthing the usual slogans about childcare the recent past has not shown him to care much about anything else. So what has he got in return for his collusion. Nothing much it seems.
Tang on the other hand is equally duplicitous and Penhalluriack is dead right in telling him to resign. He is a liability when it comes to representing the people. All he has ever represented is Newton, Lipshutz and the rest. I suspect that his total focus is now on currying favour with his employers and as suggested on this blog, what conflict of interest is there in his being both an employee of the firm and a councillor.
As for open and transparent in the way that decisions are made, we now realise only too well how orchestrated the whole charade is. Even down to the opening lines. GlenEira calling this a ‘theme’ is also spot on. Pilling introduces the ‘theme’ and then hands over to his buddies Lipshutz and Tang to elaborate. No real arguments mind you, just plain old humbug. I’m surprised that Penhalluriack didn’t appear to try and demolish this rubbish a little more strongly. I think a five year old could present a better argument that these two so called legal brains. Yes, the teamwork is effective, but it’s not done with the community’s best interests at heart. Tang claimed ‘self serving’ by Penhalluriack. The label applies to him, Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling and Esakoff so much more accurately. After two and three terms on council they have got the game down pat. It’s time that they were all shown the door.
March 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM
I also congratulate Cr Penhalliurack for being consistent and campaigning to benefit the community that elected him on his platform of getting full access to the middle of the Racecourse. He has shown grit, determination and leadership.
I also congratulate Crs Forge, Lobo, and Magee to support Cr Penhalliurack in his vision for Glen Eira.
I caution, however, that to get this actually implemented will not happen without a fight. VATC/MRC has the legal rights and 150 years of tenancy that they are not going to suddenly give any part of the tenancy to the Public. VATC/MRC have got a great following of supporters and many, many influential people with plenty of money. I cannot see the four Councillors, shall we call them ‘gang of four’ to win this fight. They only ‘weapon’ they have is the voting rights of their supporters. So, there it is. The fight in reality is between the might of the dollar and its ability to attract votes versus the domocratic right to vote of supporters of the ‘gang of four’.
Whereas I can see the ‘gang of four’ losing. I am very, very curious how on earth the ‘gang of five’ negotiations with VATC/MRC will make any difference. My money is on VATC/MRC winning hands down to any challenge thrown by those Councillors.
March 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM
What’s the common denominator with this “gang of four”?
This stinks of hypocrisy, all of a sudden things are unreasonable and should be more transparent……that’s all this council knows, back room deals and dictatorship.
We voted them in, now lets vote them out.
March 16, 2011 at 6:32 PM
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.
March 16, 2011 at 9:55 PM
Cr Penhalluriach is a non Glen Eira resident and a developer. Does he want to purchase our Racecourse? It is about time he (and his merry men) told us exactly what he wants of the MRC. I can tell you that he has divided Council on this issue and he constantly deliberatly embarrasses his fellow Councillors in order to bully them into voting his way. Tell us exactly what you want of the MRC Frank or take your bat and ball back to Kew.
March 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Honestly Anonymous, why don’t you do some homework and read what Penhalluriack has been saying for years and years about the Racecourse. Sure, he might be a developer, but he certainly doesn’t want to ‘develop’ the middle of the racecourse which is what his motion was all about. Read the VEAC submission for starters.
Your claim that he divides council is laughable. They are, always have been, and will continue to be divided as long as Newton is in charge and as long as its a lib dominated group. The difference now is that instead of everything going on behind the closed doors and always veiled in secrecy which the powerbrokers want, there are a few spots of light being shone into all those dark and murky corners. This can only be good for proper governance and will ensure that Newton stops all the underhanded tactics.
March 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM
If he doesn’t want to develop the centre of the course, why does he keep putting a dollar value on it (which seems to vary between $1bn and $2bn – a fairly generous range). Oh that’s right, he and Cheryl are puppets to good old 163 vote g-string man!
Why else would they include the canopy tree argument as an afterthought in their VEAC submission?? Puppets or Muppets????
March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM
If you want to know about openess etc ask anyone about the dealings of a certain Councillor on the former Murrumbeena Secondary site. Is it true that the matter was arbitrated at the State Parliament by Liberal mates? Fed up also find out what happened to the infrastructure of the above site and ask the developer whether he took responsibility for his development? Ask about the filler used on site and ask what happened to the front gates?
March 17, 2011 at 1:39 AM
For many years Glen Eira “representatives” have gone out to lunch in the committee room at the races and then tried to make independent decisions regarding our playground. Most of them opposed Cr
Penhallarick’s motion!! They eat with the committee and drink too…I know of at least three on the gang of four who have accepted this hospitality recently!!! Mr Newton meets secretly too … he may not go to the thoroughbred events but produces communiques which detail promises in the future for the poor old Glen Eira and Stonnington residents which only waste paper but,IMMEDIATELY organised for the former Mayor TANG to have his photograph taken endorsing the new rules to lock out (electronically)the 140,000 residents for most of every day and all racedays and up to 362 days a year if the Melbourne Racing Club wishes to stage/prepare or dismantle what they call major events. The MRC can accomodate and train hundreds of horses, take in semi trailors, tractors, caravans cranes and everything but the adults and childrren of Glen Eira cannot play ball on the 120 acre reserve!! Where is the justice??????? Thanks so much. By the way the most recent female former Mayor, Mrs Whiteside, also produced a wonderful communique or the like full of unfullfilled promises. She too enjoyed luncheon with the committee!!
Speaking of the situation in a sporting sense I too believe that many of the current negotiators have had their time in the cricket team to defeat the pommy situation and I would recommend we find a new team of players as thee are either far too old and have the runs which indicate they are incapable!
Another thing there are now many people writing to the Winning Post stating that they like me are tired of being pushed around by MRC as a member or in the public area.. the committee wonders why crowds are not attending there. They should go to Healesveale where almost the same number attend family orientated picnic meetings.
Personalle if in the members and one needs a seat to read the racing form usually these days there are no seats unless one pays over $80.00 for a lunch to watch the races on a closed circuit television just on the other side of the glass window. Members no longer hear the horses gallop from the stands of yesteryear.
As for Cr Tang attempting to represent us at Caulfield Racecourse Trustee meetings I have heard letters read out with requests for him to put the complaints to the Trustees and he has written back to the ratepayer telling the person to write to the Trustees themselves. The whole situation seems like a first class CHARADE to me. What does everyone else think? If we wish to view this theatre, if we could afford after our rates it would be more enjoyable at the real thing!!
March 17, 2011 at 8:14 AM
This is not about the racecourse – Tang and Newton have been in regular discussion with the MRC for some time (ask Jennifer Huppert where was in the room). This issue is about Frankie not getting anywhere with Newton and the administration.
March 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM
How did Tang get involved!!!. At both the February and March Council meetings only Newton and Esakoff were mentioned – an entirely unsatisfactory and untrustworthy duo but at least better than Newton and Tang.