Several comments have made us go back to the original submissions on the Local Law (decided in November, 2009) and to have a closer look at Council’s Official Response (uploaded here). Apparently this ‘letter’ was sent out to all submitters, but it remains unsigned by the Mayor, or anyone. More significantly, we note that the important stuff dealing with Meeting Procedures does not make an appearance until Issue 6. Here we have the response to why Council will not change its then Local Law and introduce a Notice of Motion clause. We quote:
“No changes have been made to the Local Law. Council’s ‘no surprises’ policy is in place to ensure that Councillors have an opportunity to properly respond to issues. It is considered that a notice of motion process does not add anything to councillors’ existing ability to have matters brought before Council. In particular a matter not on the agenda can be dealt with at an ordinary meeting if council resolves to deal with it as urgent business.”
COMMENT: What the above does not indicate, and which Penhalluriack referred to at last night’s meeting, is that according to the Local Law ‘urgent business’ is exactly that – URGENT, and has to have occurred during the time the Agenda was printed and the actual council meeting. Everything else is excluded! We also remind readers that councillors are only given a few days to read and digest the agenda. The public version is only available after 12 on the Friday prior to the council meeting.
Submissions to the Local Law also condemned the fact that Glen Eira was the only council to explicitly hand control of the agenda over to the CEO – in contrast to other councils that stipulate the agenda be set in consultation with the Mayor and/or other councillors. Again, Glen Eira’s official response is woeful. We quote:
“A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”
COMMENT: Again, the distortion, dissembling, and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is obvious! In the first place councillors are not ‘responsible’ for the agenda, nor did submitters request this. The point was that items appearing in agenda papers should not be the unilateral decision of one unelected individual. The role of a CEO is to advise, and presumably consult with his Council – in this case through the Mayor as the councillors’ representative. Leaving it all up to the CEO, without any avenue for official councillor input, is as we’ve said time and time again, undemocratic and places barriers in front of residents who may have matters that they wish discussed in open council – last night was a perfect example of this. If only the CEO determines the agenda, then the notion that a councillor is the conduit between the community and council is bankrupt!
Another issue brought up by submitters related to advisory committees – their composition, and reporting standards. The official response stated:
“No change has been made to the Local Law. Council agreed that a process in relation to Advisory Committee reporting should be implemented. This should be done by council determining procedures or policies, not in the Local Law.”
COMMENT: Where is the policy or procedure? In two years nothing has come up for discussion! There was no objection to including the ‘no surprises’ into the Local Law, as opposed to its previously being only a ‘policy’, so why the difference? Further, when you have ‘policy’ such as ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ (and which no one has clapped eyes on!) why change things? The ultimate insult would be if the Local Law actually mandated the form, content, and regularity of advisory committee meeting minutes. That would really have thrown a spanner into Hyams’ recent manoeuvrings with the minutes from the Sport and Rec Committee Meeting!
We certainly urge all residents to consider these fundamental issues and how they restrict the practice of genuine democracy in Glen Eira!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM
That’s a good read Glen Eira.
It shows that –
1. There were a number of submissions from the community raising important issues of concern – and virtually none were accepted. Nothing new about that.
2. If some of the community suggestions had been accepted, Tuesday’s council meeting would not have descended into such a farce.
3. Every councillor voted for these Local Laws – Penhalluriack, Magee, Lobo and Whiteside included (Pilling absent). None of them spoke up in support of residents’ suggestions. If they didn’t understand what they were voting for they don’t deserve to be there.
You reap what you sow.
May 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Glen Huntly, we’re in agreement – except that Lobo became a councillor only after Staikos resigned. The “newbies” at that time (Magee, Penhalluriack) had only been in for less than a year. Hyams was an old hand. This doesn’t excuse them entirely, but shows what a steep learning curve it may have been. I’m sure that both Burke and Newton can be exceedingly charming to newcomers!Maybe it takes a while to acclimatise and figure out how you’re being hoodwinked and bluffed and frightened into compliance by you know who. Overall, I believe that the real culprits have always been Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and now Pilling. What do you reckon is in it for Pilling to account for his total about face and desertion of all Green principles and statements about community consultation? I’d love an answer to this question.
May 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM
Actually, Staikos had resigned some time earlier. Lobo voted on the Local Laws – see minutes on November meeting.
May 18, 2011 at 11:38 PM
My mistake – but reckon the argument still holds. Lobo was a very, very new kid on the block.
May 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM
To this parade of horrors there should be added councillor assemblies which are in reality decision making forums. They can protest all they like and deny such claims, but anyone with half a brain knows that this is what goes on.
May 19, 2011 at 9:31 AM
Intellectual dishonesty. I think I saw that at the meeting on Tuesday night. I noticed that Cr. McGee excluded himself from voting on a planning item. He claimed that he had a conflict of interest. Now “conlict of interest” can be defined pretty well these days. It should be incumbent on all Councillors to actually describe the conflict in detail. Owning land near a proposed development is not a conflict. If you are an objector then it would be. I think this bloke was simply trying to get out of voting. It has happened before. One of the main characteristics that we all expect from Councillors is that they are fair dinkum. McGee’s actions would have to be questionable.