Item 9.8 for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is in response to Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings held between the CEO and MRC, and/or trustees, in the past two years. Penhalluriack’s request was for a ‘detailed report’ on any meetings that might have taken place. Most reasonable people would presume that this means: who attended, dates, and topics of discussion.
The tabled report is again ‘anonymous’ with no names attached as to author, or responsible officer. We presume that this report was written, or at least authorised by the CEO. We note the following:
Penhalluriack’s request for ‘detail’ has not been addressed. The report is not only scant on detail, time, and dates (apart from one meeting), but we have such disclaimers as:
“Other meetings have taken place with Ministers, Ministerial staff, MPs or others concerning the Racecourse Reserve where Councillors were not notified beforehand and no records of the meetings were provided afterwards. Council officers are not in a position to provide any notes of those meetings as no officer attended”.
What an extraodinary paragraph!!!!! No ‘officer’ may have attended, but we can only presume that the CEO did. As part of his
fiduciary and legal duties we ask:
- Did he make notes during, or after the meeting(s). If so, where are they? If not, why not?
- Was the Mayor subsequently informed of these meetings? Were other councillors informed of these meetings? Was anyone informed of the content of these meetings? If so, how was this information transmitted? Where is the record of this sharing of information?
- Further, are we really meant to believe that when officers are beavering away on the section 173 agreement, and other sundry issues, that Newton would not communicate with his officers regarding the outcomes of any of these
discussions? Again, if so, where is the evidentiary trail of this feedback, orders, reporting?
It absolutely beggars belief that Newton attended meetings (and we don’t know who ‘others’ refers to, or how many meetings there were) and that councillors did not know that these were about to happen and that no official record exists about anything!
The real test will come on Tuesday night when Councillors vote whether or not to accept this ‘report’!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM
With this response there can be no question as to whether Penhalluriack is right about behind the scenes goings on in relation to the MRC and the racecourse in general. It’s obvious that Newton has met, discussed and had a major say in the outcomes of the C60 but without the full knowledge and participation of all councillors. This should be condemned in the strongest possible terms and Newton held to account by the appropriate authorities – beginning with councillors who are his employers.
May 13, 2011 at 8:31 PM
The minimal notes provided from the meeting with le Grand (was he representing the MRC or the Trustees?) et al raises many questions. What were they referring to when mentioning the extra car parking available at the Guineas. If they were referring to the two high rise carparks first proposed by the MRC, were not these removed from plans and excluded from C60? Council have certainly not allowed this to be discussed as it was not part of C60. So why was it discussed and what was agreed? There should not be any further development on crown land – our land – and this should be enshined in Council policy. Also what did glue in locks mean? Are they insinuating that residents put glue in the locks because they do not want access? Were police called? Why raise it if they did not. Finally I note that someone who wrote the ‘paper’ says that the cost of parking in residential streets is to be borne by the MRC. This comment could not be any less accurate – the costs of parking through approval of C60 will be borne by the residents for a lifetime thanks to four dopey Councillors!
May 13, 2011 at 9:55 PM
The guineas carpark is not and never has been part of C60. As usual people are jumping at shadows.. Make no mistake, this is about Penhalluriak trying to embarrass Newton.. Name any CEO in the public realm who is asked to report on meetings with key stakeholders in such a manner. Do you think Demetriou has to advise the AFL Commission of every meeting he has?
May 13, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Methinks you’ve missed the point. The C60 and racecourse are the most important events to come up in Glen Eira ever. People ask questions when they don’t get answers. The job of a CEO is to provide answers and timely advice. This wasn’t happening, so that’s why you’ve got the request for a report. It’s got nothing to do with embarrassing anyone, but doing your job as a councillor. Newton however chooses to play by other rules. In this way he maintains control.
May 14, 2011 at 6:21 AM
You are so naive. Clearly you have no clue what a CEO’s role is.. Let’s ask Frank how many meetings he’s had with developers over the years.
May 13, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Just read the “report”. Says a “note” was given to councillors. Great stuff – a note! Wonder if it contained more than 2 sentences and how “detailed” this tiny little “note” was. If this is reporting back in depth to councillors then you can bet your bottom dollar that Newton would have said as much. His use of the word “note” tells us exactly the kind of reporting that has been going on. Only the select gang of four got to know anything. Everyone else was kept guessing and on the outer. Penhalluriack is damn right to ask questions and demand answers. That’s what all councillors should be doing.
May 14, 2011 at 3:24 AM
We need many more councillors like Frank PEN as our needs seem to be completely over-run by the needs of the town hall to pull in the money no matter what the repercussions. Why would the “democratically chosen and elected four” be pushing for this $750million development for any other reason than to gain another the equilavent of more then 1500 properties to rate whether they be domestic or commercial. In actual fact the majority of this select group does not represent my ward, how strange, only one Mr Lishutz”.
On current rate figures this will bring in 1500 multiplied by $1,000 (one and a half million on today’s charges)AND WE WILL BE CALLED UPON TO SHARE ALL THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PARKS,LIBRARIES,TRAINS,CAULFIELD STATION,ROADS,AND EVEN STATION STREET WITH ABOUT 10,000 PERSONS daily WHO WILL BE RESIDING , SHOPPING THERE, ATTENDING MEDICAL APPOIINTMENTS OR WORKING IN THE TWENTY STOREY BUILDING. ONE WONDERS IF THE THREE TO SIX THOUSAND STUDENTS WHO COME FOR MONASH EXAMINATIONS OR THE THOUSANDS WHO ATTEND THE CARAVAN AND CAMPING SHOW ALREADY OVERCROWD THE DISTRICT AND GRIDLOCK IT WILL ALL FIT TOO? WHAT IS TO HAPPEN ON CAULFIELD CUP DAY?
One supposes our special four councillors will be over here assisting with sorting out the hour long traffic jungle which one can visualise OR WILL THEY BE ON OVERSEAS JAUNTS JUST AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE Mr Lip……is currently after the damage is donE??? oUT OF THE AREA SO AS HE CANNOT BE CONTACTED……
May 14, 2011 at 2:41 PM
There are now two reports neither of which reveal much at all. There is absolutely no explanation as to why Glen Eira didn’t insist on a 5% development levy for all buildings, whether this was even discussed. The only thing emphasised in these reports is how wonderful officers have been. I’m rather cynical about this claim and keep asking myself could the community have got lots more in terms of money, parking, access and many other things. The absence of dates, names and details overall just fuels my suspicions as to the part that Newton has played in this disaster.
May 14, 2011 at 4:01 PM
this blog is wallowing in governance issues and it just can’t get out of it. i was wandering why? i know that budget sessions always generate problems in glen eira. this is particularly so for the mayors. unless the mayor and the ceo see eye to eye things just don’t work out well. so, i had a look at the mayoral history in glen eira:
* Alan Grossbard – complained, disgraced, sacked
* Barry Neve – retired
* Norman Kennedy – not re-elected
* Veronica Martens – complained, sacked, not re-elected
* Noel Erlich – complained, sacked, not re-elected
* Pater Goudge – complained, disgraced, sacked
* Dorothy Marwick – complained, disgraced, sacked
* Bob Bury – sacked, not re-elected
* Margaret Esakoff – sacked, re-elected
* David Feldman – resigned
* Steven Tang – re-elected
* Helen Whiteside – complained, resigned
i do not know of any other council with such a poor governance record. the key man, andrew newton, was employed as the governance expert. one should include here margaret douglas the first ceo, who resigned for some mysterious reason before her term expired.
‘something’s rotten in the state of denmark’
May 14, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Looking at the list that you’ve put up Forthright it certainly tells a sad history of dissent and intrigue. The even sadder thing is that it sounds like nothing much has changed.
May 15, 2011 at 9:56 AM
As is often said, “It’s my way or the highway” Couldn’t be truer.
May 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM
I suggest that more people start attending Council meetings – next is Tuesday, May 17. Be warned they can be boring but sometimes quite entertaining! Don’t speak or you’ll be ejected, but attending sends a message to those we pay to represent us. Or check out the website of the Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA) if you want to read up on the guidelines as to how Councils should operate.
May 15, 2011 at 11:12 PM
Newton’s report doesn’t explain or reveal anything about the meetings he’s had.I’ve read it a couple of times now and notice that in the paragraph that GlenEira has quoted there is no mention of councillors attending. According to the resolution that was passed by council, Newton was supposed to be a member of a team – not the lone ranger. Thus, it’s important to know whether any councillors also attended these meetings with MPs and “others”, or whether it was Newton alone. And if alone, how did he report back to council. If strictly verbal, then this is absolutely lousy record keeping. If it was in writing, then this should be available to all councillors. If this hasn’t been done, then Newton has failed in his duty and usurped his role. He is not authorised to make deals behind council’s back, or to engage in any “negotiations” without the so called support of Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams. The whole episode and Newton’s role stinks to high heaven as does his pathetic report.
May 17, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Tonight’s response to Andrew Newton’s report on meetings with MRC should be fascinating. Together, the request for the report and the response indicate a serious breakdown in the relationship between council (or rather, some councillors) and the CEO – and probably between councilors as well.
A few observations.
The report is rather obscure but anyone who has asked a question of council knows that you need to very specific if you want a specific answer (and even then you are unlikely to get one). The request is very generally worded. Frank should take some lessons from Nic Vardovic about asking specific questions.
But more important is the motivation behind the request. I can only interpret this as indicating a lack of trust and confidence in the CEO. Making a public request like this is usually done for effect i.e. to make a public statement. The clear implication is that the CEO has been having meetings with the MRC (or their representatives) without informing council.
Now in his report, the CEO has stated the only meetings he has had were to accompany councillors. This seems pretty unequivocal. So it seems Frank believes the CEO has been having “secret” meetings but the CEO denies it. Where do they go from there? If he accepts the CEO’s answer on this issue, Frank should apologise for his inference.
The other interesting point is that much of the report is about what a great job council officers have done in dealing with the racecourse issues. But this was not part of the request – so it suggests that the CEO has interpreted the request as an attack on himself and on council officers.
The section of the report on “other meetings” is very confusing. It seems that the CEO is saying he has held meetings alone with other parties about the racecourse issue but this is not clear. And it wasn’t actually part of the request – which referred only to representatives of MRC/Racecourse Trust. So why is it there? Perhaps it opens up the question of whether the Mayor or individual councillors may have held meetings without informing council. Now there’s a question worth asking.
May 18, 2011 at 3:29 AM
It would seem form all reports that the City of Glen Eira has three representatives at the very impotant meetings of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees Meetings which take place for an hour or so on only
two days a year. |It would also seem that for some reason our only representative to be present recently has been Cr Magee and Cr Tang has absented himself for one reason or another even when he was perhaps told not to go when his other meetings could have been attended by the deputy mayor.
May 18, 2011 at 3:40 AM
It would seem form all reports that the City of Glen Eira has three representatives at the very impotant meetings of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees Meetings which take place for an hour or so on only
two days a year. |It would also seem that for some reason our only representative to be present recently has been Cr Magee and Cr Tang has absented himself for one reason or another even when he was perhaps told not to go when his other meetings could have been attended by the deputy mayor.
NOW REMARKABLY THE THIRD POSITION HAS NOW BEEN VACANT FOR ELEVEN MONTHS. IT WOULD SEEM THAT OUR REPRESENTATION ON THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES IS BEING MANIPULATED IN SOME WAY SO AS WE ARE NEVER THERE TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF CAULFIELD. IT ALL ADDS UP AND MR NEWTON KNOWS WHAT GOES ON AT MEETING BUT DOES NOT GO AND STEPHEN TANG CANNOT TKE RESIDENTS’ CONCERNS TO THESE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUST MEETINGS WELL IT IS TOO INACTIVE TO BE A CHARADE… YOU GET THE IDEA!!
NOT BEING A BETTING PERSON BUT A GOOD ODDS ON BET WOULD BE FOR THE MELBOURNE RACING CLUB ALWAYS GETTING IT’S INTERESTS MET AS THEYNATURALLY GO ALONG TO THE TRUSTEE MEETINGS AND MANAGE TO VOTE THEIR WISH LIST IN WHILE OUR REPRESENTATIVES GO OFF ON OTHER TANGENTS.
THEN WHEN COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED THE NON CAMDEN COUNCILLORS FORM THE MAJORITY OF THE DECISION MAKING AND THEY ARE JUST SO HEPPY TO ACCEPT AN ALLOCATION OF ABOUT 15% OF THE WHOLE RESERVE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE MELBOURNE RACING CLUB HAVE THE REST A MERE 85%. And oh how could one forget the MRC
May 18, 2011 at 3:48 AM
cAN THIS BE PUT ONTO LAST COMMENT
$1.8 million of their $300Million plus income on “improvements” including a one and a half kilometre concretised path wide enough to be used for car parking 1200 cars on about thirty five days a year and many more black chain mesh fences probably many kilometres long. Oh wat a great recreative area it will be!!