Item 9.12 – ‘Agreement’ between MRC and Council regarding the Centre of the Racecourse was decided tonight. The votes were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling in favour of agreement. Lobo, Penhalluriack and Forge against. Both Magee and Tang had vacated their chairs declaring a conflict of interest – ie as MRC trustee members.
We’ll report on this in full tomorrow.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 27, 2011 at 11:43 PM
All pretence of acting in the best interests of residents has been killed off with this decision and will be further assassinated tomorrow night when these bastards bulldoze through the C60. Esakoff, Pilling and in particular Newton, Lipshutz and Hyams must never ever be allowed to forget the damage that they have brought upon the residents of Glen Eira. We will be paying for their vain glory for decades to come. I hope that their lives are as equally disrupted as will be the lives of all those living in North and East Caulfield.
April 28, 2011 at 8:15 AM
Interesting to note that Magee adopted Tangies conflict of interest reason so that he too could fail to represent the interests of those who elected him. In the past he has not claimed conflict of interest … another worm turns.
I can’t believe this “ägreement”. This is a legal obligation under the terms of the original trust deed. There should be no need for an agreement – the rules are clear cut and after 150 years it is time to ensure they are complied with.
To add insult to injury, the failure to include performance standards and penalties for non performance is astounding. Given, the well documented and abyssmal track record of the MRC and Trustees in performing as promised (and legally required), these should have been included. Without such provisions our skilled negotiators have produced yet another piece of paper with no substance that is less useful than the one hanging on the wall of my bathroom.
April 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Major developments as this one would appear to need full scrutiny by the ratepayers residents who will be effected – impression is that when it is a fait accompli the ordinary folk will be informed. Can Councillors justify this as true representation. if two of nine are inelligible should there be a system where ratepayers can be voted to take their place for such decisions.
April 28, 2011 at 6:19 PM
WELL SPOKEN CATH.
BUT ANYTHING SEEMS TO BE OK IN THIS TYPE OF DYNASTY. lAST NIGHT’S COUNCIL MEETING GAVDE THE CLEAR GO AHEAD TO THE SPECIALLY CHOSEN REPS. BUT I WOULD SAY I WOULD NOT OPERATE WELL ON THE PRESSURE APPLIED TO ONE OF THE COUNCILLORS ON THE OUTER. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN TO BE BELIEVED! SHAME