Please forgive this very long report on tonight’s council meeting. We’ve only covered a few of the agenda items, but will report on the rest in the next few days.
ITEM 9.8 – Newton’s ‘Report’
Hyams/Pilling moved motion to note report.
HYAMS: ‘I don’t have much to say on this. The CEO was asked to give a rport on his meetings with the MRC and he has done so’.
PILLING: did not say anything.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m disappointed in this report’….(Penhalluriack then read out the paragraph about the meetings with MPs and ‘others’)….asked whether Newton had actually attended those meetings. Newton replied ‘Madam Mayor, I didn’t’. Penhalluriack then said that since he’s written the paragraph, ‘then presumably somebody did otherwise you wouldn’t have it in the report’….
Paul Burke then intervened with “I may be able to assist your Worship. I understand that you attended those meetings Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack asked that Burke claify this which Burke claimed he couldn’t. Penhalluriack then went on to say that he did attend a meeting and Cr. Forge provided the minutes of that meeting back to council. He went on to say that ‘there is an olligation on council to keep detailed records under the Public Records Act’. Quoted Section 13 of the Act….’and I am frankly disappointed that we get in this report a lot of things that we didn’t ask for…..we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made’….’I’m not happy with this report’.
FORGE: ‘Yes, I have concerns too about the matter of detail and I support Cr. Penhalluriack’s observatiions’.
HYAMS: ‘I didn’t find the paragraph that Cr. Penhalluriack referred to (unclear)…because it said quite clearly that no officer attended (so it could only be councillors)…and I certainly didn’t attend any of these meetings…Cr. Penhalluriack is right that we have to keep detiled records but it doesn’t necessarily mean….detailed records in the agenda….I wouldn’t like to carry them, but some bodies might like to…There was also the comment that there was no record of (meetings attended, but there is) chronological order in paragraph 5….so I’m happy with this report.
MOTION CARRIED: Against Penhalluriack and Forge. For the motion – Hyams, Pilling, Tang, Magee, Esakoff.
REQUEST FOR REPORTS
TANG: ‘council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the mulch facility …..at another site in GlenEeira. The report should consider the recommendations of the Health assessment’ team. Claimed he was only ‘testing the water’ since he understands that councillors made a decision to remove the facility but now there’s been ‘public discord’ emails, phone calls and newspapers. He is ‘interested to see whether all options are exhausted before close the door’. He understands that some councillors have got strong views about all this such as where the facility was placed and whether it could be operated from a different location. ‘testing the water to see if councillors will open their minds to other options…..(and if this motion is defeated then it’s clear that council won’t be providing this facility from anywhere in Glen Eira).
HYAMS: ‘My concern….wasn’t the site but the dangers of handling it….so I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it at any other site but (since there are a couple of councillors absent) ‘it’s been a bone of contention so I’m happy to (support the request for a report) and see what comes back’ …’but I don’t think I’ll change my mind’.
PILLING: Stated that he did ask if there was anywhere else for the facility to go
FORGE: reminded councillors that she and Magee raised a number of issues apart from legionnaires and the dangers that the facility contained.
PENHALLURIACK: Stated that people are obviously concerned when they go to the mulch facility but the signs indicate that ‘they’ve been denied a free service’. Said he could understand people’s concern, but he is also concerned that ‘the Leader is running a campaign’ because the mulch bin is still sitting there. ‘The wording of the motion which was passed is very straight forward. Officers are under obligation to listen to (councillors decisions) resolutions and do it expeditiously. The wording says that council removes the facility….AND it no longer provides this free service…..I’m reasonably competent in English …..the building is a prefabricated building ….and they could be stored almost anywhere….It’s simple English….This bin itself was badly designed right from the start…..it’s designed to allow the mulch to be pushed in….a bottle neck at the far end…..(explained how it could be better designed. ‘Standards Association says the mulch should be pasteurised….it is not pasteurised…..(then unless it is pasteurised) you cannot put this facility anywhere in Glen Eira. Spoke about insurance companies and whether they know about the dealing with a dangerous product and the same with Glen Eira college. Job is to protect the community. ‘I’m not prepared to do it’ – ie. take the risk.
TANG: ‘would be shocked’ if they didn’t know about the risk. Council had spoken with principal of college. Insurance would have an appraisal, so they also know. ‘I encouraged Penhalluriack to bring the issue forward….would be good to implement every one of those recommendations…..some councillors as concerned about the mulch service as concerned about where it is located…there is very strong feeling….our duty to investigate whether there are optiions…..If there aren’t I will let the issue lie….
MOTION CARRIED: Against – Penahalluriack: FOR: Esakoff, Tang, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Forge
COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
PENHALLURIACK: ‘i’ve given notice of a motion concerning a footpath down the western side of Queen’s Avenue. The matter is not urgent (but he was told the criteria for an ‘urgent’ motion was that it had to have happened after the agenda was published)…’It seems in Glen Eira that whatever does or does not go in the agenda is the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer….There is no other way for me to get discussion on my motion….my question is Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a provision for councillors’ motions on notice, so if a seconder can be found…(important issues can be discussed)?
ESAKOFF: ‘Who are you directing the question to?’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘To you madam Mayor’
Esakoff started to reply when Hyams interjected with a point of procedure. That questions to councillors had to be given to that councillor prior to the meeting, and that in the current situation he ‘didn’t want to set a preceent’. Burke then said that ‘the matter was considered in the Local Law Process ….and Council took a view that it was satisfied with the process as (it stood).
PENHALLURIACK: ‘how can I get this matter debated’ if I can’t move a motion of notice?
BURKE: ‘you have 8 other colleagues…seek their support. The Local Law will allow you to do so….
TANG: ‘I’ll take lilberty and put a question to Mr. Burke (trying to help Penhalluriack)….would Cr. Penhalluriack be able to have this discussed if he were to move a request for a report….?
BURKE: ‘Yes’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I take umbrage at that response. he suggests I get all 9 councillors together (even when 9 councillors are together) ‘I can’t get a motion because our CEO controls the agenda ….I can ask for a report and a report will come back to us ….(but how do I get the Local Law changed)
BURKE: Requests for reports are a ‘catalyst’ for all sorts of’ things, including what you’re seeking.
PENAHLLURIACK: Tried to ask for a report on the agenda item
ESAKOFF: ‘It’s too late’
HYAMS: Moved a procedural motion that would allow Penhalluriack to request a report. Pilling seconded.
TANG:’ There’s no such thing as a procedural motion….I’ll just move that ‘council reopen discussion of 11.2’
ESAKOFF: 11.1. Hyams accepted the amendment
Vote on amendment – carried unanimously
ESAKOFF: ‘We’re back to 11.1. Cr Penhalluriack’
PENAHALLURIACK: ‘How circumlocutous can we possible get! …..Can councillors please provide a report to councillors on why Glen Eira doesn’t have a provision for councillors to have a motion on notice….. Tang seconded.
TANG: ‘just hope that Cr. Penhalluriack remembers that we helped him out on getting these things…’
PILLING asked for a repeat of the request for a report.
Penhalluriack re-read the motion – why glen Eira doesn’t have a provision ….so that a seconder can be found and that matters of importance can be debated.’ Pilling then suggested changes to the request for a report, referring to the Local Law and the necessity to change that. Penahlluriack didn’t want the word ‘suggestion’ in Pilling’s rephrasing. He wanted to change the word ‘suggestions’ to ‘draft’. Burke then again said: ‘that may give officers a deal of angst’ since you’re asking for a report that means that your wording will change , so ‘officers are actually drafting what you want’. Penhalluriack then seconded Tang’s motion! Tang then tried to clarify.’ Cr Penahlluriack has moved a motion, I seconded that motion and Cr. Pilling has moved an amendment. Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested that he is prepared to’ accept the amendment , so he’s withdrawing his motion and moving the motion ‘as read by Pilling’.
ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack and Tang whether they supported the amended motion. Both agreed.
MAGEE; ‘I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my life …every time Cr. Penhalluriack tries to do something….road blocking. The last 5 minuytes have been an absolute disgrace. (gallery clapped) …looking after 100 million dollar business should be informed and I think…..should be sacked’.
HYAMS: ‘at lot more of us would be sacked if we tried to ignore our local law rather than stick with it ….(interjection from the gallery about ‘ordinary business’) ‘I understand Mr. dunstan that you were a very ordinary councillor so I understand why you’d want ordinary business’
TANG: a question to Magee. ‘if we didn’t apply the local laws consistently the alternative would be to leave all the power in the hands of the chair and allow the chair to act at their discretion…accept or reject motions…..
MAGEE: ‘we’re all very aware from the first word of Cr. Penhalluriack (what he wanted) ‘and all we did was play tennis with it’
TANG; ‘I don’t think Cr. Magee has answered my question’.
MAGEE: ‘I think we all knew where Cr. Penhalluriack was going ….and all we did was play around with it. …we should have gone straight to the point…..
PILLING: ‘it was confusing….I was trying to get what Cr. Penhalluriack wanted
PENHALLURIACK: I get pissed off as well…..I’m happy for the motion as it stands …”
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
May 18, 2011 at 12:27 AM
What an absolute bunch of wankers with Hyams at the top of the list. How dare he talk about the Local Law when he and his gang of five are totally responsible for insituting this mockery of democratic process. He and Lipshutz did Newton’s bidding on the cone of silence, and all the other traps to stifle debate and transparency. Glen Eira council is a disgrace and the sooner Newton and his band of five are sacked the better off we will all be.
May 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM
People need to have a read of the submissions that were put in when the Local Law was reviewed. These are incredible because they pinpoint exactly what happened last night. Most of the submitters called for the meeting procedures to include a Notice of Motion and pointed out that most other councils do have this. There were also questions as to why Glen Eira specifically handed all control of the agenda to the CEO. One person also wanted advisory committees to be brought into line in terms of status with normal council meetings. In hindsight, all of these recommendations by residents should have been taken up. Instead, the likes of the gang of five trampled all over these suggestions. That’s what is behind all this farce. The Local Law gives no protection to residents whatsoever – it leaves the option of addressing council exclusively to the Mayor (who acts on the orders of Newton and Burke) and provides no guidelines for the operation of advisory committees and the way their minutes are kept and reported. Penhalluriack is dead right. The issue isn’t only about councillors getting something onto the agenda, but giving residents the rights that are intended by the legislation. The fact that ratepayers are effectively left out of everything stems from this Local Law and the blame must be laid at the feet of the administration and Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams. They have basically gagged councillors and disenfranchised ratepayers.
May 18, 2011 at 2:44 PM
Absolutely right D Evans.
In fact, the review of the Local Laws was very much the work of our friend Cr Lipshutz – as I recall, he was especially thanked by council for all the time he put into it.
Residents’ submissions were almost completely disregarded while the new laws incorporated Cr Lipshutz’ so-called “no surprises” principle.
Many of the changes made were designed to limit public dialogue between councillors and residents and also between councillors themselves.
It means councillors can’t ask each other questions without notice. It also places limitations on public questions without any corresponding obligations on council about how they answer questions. Which means councillors do not have to give specific answers and at the same time can abuse the residents asking the question – and the Mayor has no power to intervene.
May 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM
Notice of Motion is not acceptable in this dictatorship because it sidelines the administration. All councillors have at their side at the moment is a Request for a Report which means they’ll involve officers and then the result will be a report that endorses exactly what Newton wants. It will be biased, and not provide all of the available information. That’s why there is no Notice of Motion. My God, with a notice of motion all you would need are two people to agree and you get something discussed and debated in open council. At the very least it gets on the agenda.
May 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Correct and I’d also like to add that by having advisory committee meetings closed to the public this ultimately functions in the same way. That’s why the recent post regarding the doctored minutes by Hyams is so repugnant and against every single principle of open and transparent government. I absolutely despair at what is happening in this council and has been allowed to continue for the past 12 years.
May 18, 2011 at 3:12 AM
After reading all this rubbish above I feel as though our directors (councillors) would not even be able to run a yabby race if they had to. They seem to have been completely divided to always disagree with some councillors no matter which issue is discussed, the supposed chair person of the meeting feels the necessity to fully participate except for moving motions and all positive debate seems to be stiffled by one means or another.
COULD ALL COUNCILLORS STUDY NORMAL MEETING PROCEDURES FOR THE NEXT MEETING SO AS NONSENSE LIKE THE ABOVE RABLE NEVER OCCURRS AGAIN. MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDUCT OF SPORT’S CLUB MEETINGS WAS FAR MORE ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT THAN THE ABOVE REPORT REFLECTS BECAUDE THE CHAIRPERSON ONLY CONDUCTED THE MEETING AND IF HE/SHE WISHED TO SPEAK THEN THEY VACATED THE CHAIR TEMPORILY AND CERTAINLY ALWAYS ENCOURAQGED DEBATE FROM ALL SIDES OF THE LINES.
Also adopt Votaire’s words which are basic to democracy
‘I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY BUT I WILL DEFEND WITH MY VERY LIFE YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT!!!!
Some councillors and their instructing officers seem to have missed the obligation to listen to all councillors as they actually represent the CAMDEN WARD AND NOT THEMSELVES AND ON THAT NOTE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MOVE MOTIONS TO IMPROVE OUR WARD TOO.
After all IT SEEMS THAT Cr Penhalluriak was only requesting the idea of a discussion of the installation of a simple footpath not a grandstand or a 45million dollar swimming pool two kilometres from any reasonable transport. IS THIS AN ANTI-CAMDEN WARD TEAM WHEN WE HAVE BEEN VOTED IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING C60 by a majority of team representatives from other wards? THE RUNS ON THE BOARD FOR CAMDEN WARD RESIDENTS LOOK VERY POOR. MAYBE THERE IS A PLAN TO REDUCE OUR RATES AS OUR FACILITIES ARE OVER USED AND WE BECOME OVERCROWDED WITH NO BASIC BENEFITS IN RETURN.
May 18, 2011 at 8:54 AM
Last night I attended my second Council meeting. Unfortunately, as with my first Council meeting, I left with a feeling of disgust at the unprofessional conduct of Councillor’s and the Administrative Officers.
Superficially, discussions occurred and motions were passed in an orderly manner and this will no doubt be reflected in the minutes. However, what will not be recorded in the minutes are the facial expressions, side glances and snickers and body language that attended the many of the discussions. Such displays (principally by and between Crs. Esakoff, Tang, Pilling and Hyams and Admin Officers Newton and Burke) present an appalling insight into internal squabbles and petty gamesmanship that reflects badly on the perpetrators. These antics have no place in any meeting – televised parliament doesn’t sink to the level reached last night. Magree was right to express his frustration – I only wish he had gone further.
If it were not for the fact that ratepayer’s would probably be charged $100K, I’d recommend Council videotape their next few meetings so they could actually see how negatively they present to attendees and how blatant and totally unbecoming/unprfessional their conduct at Council meetings is.
May 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM
The issue goes far deeper than merely unprofessionalism. If only that was all we had to worry about. There’s the complete perversion of laws and what represents good government by Newton, Burke and certain councillors. The victims of all this skull duggery are residents.
May 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM
It’s mind boggling that you have one councillor presumably calling for the sacking of his council. Yet, I agree with him. There’s no doubt that Glen Eira is dysfunctional. There is back stabbing, secret deals, and devious set ups going on all the time – and these are only a glimpse of what probably goes on behind those firmly closed doors.
May 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM
What in the hell is Esakoff doing allowing Hyams to attack and denigrate residents and then letting Burke do her dirty work for her? At least Hyams true colours keep coming out – swarmy, supercilious, with no idea what people expect or want. Just love the way he supposedly is all in favour of democracy in allowing Tang’s report cos that makes him sound like such a reasonable and concerned bloke. Reality is it’s all a ploy to get Tang’s motion up. Devious, underhanded, and sick.
May 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM
Someone’s telling some real porkies here. The paragraph about mps was a total set up by Newton. Then Penalluriack tells us that he and Forge did meet someone and that they reported back to council. I can’t believe that he would be that stupid to say something that couldn’t be backed up either in writing, or by others. Reckon that leaves Newton. He claims no documentation exists of anything. I know who I’d believe.
May 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM
I can’t help seeing this Council working in terms of The Three Little Pigs story. Here is my take on it. Mama Pig are the residents, who tell their representatives, The Little Pigs, ” Whatever you do, do it the best that you can because that’s the way to get along in the world.” The Little Pigs, Councillors, go out into the world of the Council to do their best. We all know the story, but just in case you do not remember look it up on http://www.shol.com/agita/pigs.html . Then there is the Wolf, the Council reality within which the Pigs have to operate in. And The Wolf has a story to tell as well. This one you probably do not know, as the Wolf is charged with murdering Pigs in http://www.shol.com/agita/wolfside.html . Reading this blog I can relate to the Wolf story. But what about Mama Pig, the residents? For that you need to go to the Pig Psychologist and read his account of what it all means in http://www.schol.com.pigpsych.html
The moral of this tale is “The Three Little Pigs” teaches the nursery age child …. that we must not be lazy and take things easy, for if we do, we may perish. Intelligent planning and foresight combined with hard labor will make us victorious over even our most ferocious enemy-the wolf!”
Good on you Frank, you are my Little Pig hero with the solid brick house!
May 19, 2011 at 7:36 AM
Story teller, it’s a good yarn but who is the bad wolf here? Your analogy suggests many wolfs reside in Glen Eira Council. And equating pigs with councillors that stretching imagination a little, isn’t it?
May 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM
i think i dig your analogy, story teller. in the previous comment i mentioned about mayors departing from this council in an undignified manner. your analogy of the wolf (those that usurp the power of the council) devour the little pigs (mayors). one recent example is whiteside resigning in spite of the investigation into council affairs as she could not stand the huffing and puffing and her house was clearly not made of ‘solid brick’. the real question to answer is who usurps the power of the council? i think residents know by now. i think it is time they take action to clean up this council from any wolf eating little pigs. mama pig where are you?
May 18, 2011 at 11:28 PM
I reckon Frank has made a bit of a hash of this. He’s supposed to be a smart businessman, but his attempt to nail the CEO was amateurish.
Newton’s response – although somewhat confusing- has refuted Frank’s implication that the CEO has been having meetings (and making decisions) without reporting to council.
And his complaint that “we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made” shows he can’t accept that he got it wrong. There is no evidence that any decisions were actually made in the meetings the CEO attended with councillors – and they do know who attended and should know what was on the agenda as councillors were present.
Newton clearly states he did not attend any meetings unaccompanied by councillors.
Point 3 in his report states that meetings between MRC and officers were reported to council in December 2010.
Point 5 lists 4 meetings – all with councillors present. The first is covered by an attached note and the other three were meetings regarding the centre of the racecourse and reported back to council by the Mayor (see point 4).
Point 6 refers to “other meetings” – plural not single. However, because the wording is somewhat obscure it appeared to refer to meetings the CEO had. However, it now seems that it actually refers to councillor meetings. Penhalluriack acknowledged that he had one meeting and reported back to council (is it in the council minutes?) – but which other councillors had meetings? The phrasing indicates there was more than one “other meeting”. Where is the documentation of those meetings? Funny that no other councillor spoke up on this.
There is obviously a pretty toxic relationship between Frank and the council administration. Why might that be?
I’ll give you one suggestion. Frank has had a number of planning applications relating to his store knocked back by council officers over recent years. He was even forced to take down a a large timber rack that he had illegally built abutting a neighbouring residence. Because of this he bears a grudge and would love the opportunity to take down the CEO. But he’s going to have to do better than this latest effort.
May 19, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Glen Huntly, you think you are clever commenting left, right and centre regardless of the situation any individual Councillor may find themselves. I suggest that you enter the fry of politics and find out how it really is rather than speculating. Why don’t you talk to Councillors and find out directly from them. You may be surprised what you will find. It’s easy to stay on the sideline and shooting once mouth off.
At the end of the day conflicts and conflict of interest are part and parcel of any organisation. It is how you deal with it in practical ways that determine if governance is good or bad. Glen Eira Council is bad for many years now, because it is governed by the divide and rule machiavelian ways.
Can you Glen Huntly suggest solutions? Or are you part of the problem?
May 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM
I can’t wait for the election to come. I feel in my bones the new dawn arising in Glen Eira, just like it happened in Port Phillip Council as a result of the St Kilda triangle. And we have the Caulfield Village debacle.
Of course it may happen earlier. There were so many changes of Councillors in this term and someone suggested that Tang may leave as well. Somehow I doubt if he will. Although if he cares for his career and family that is exactly what he would do. But no, there will be many influential people, who have an interest for him to stay on the Council, telling him to remain. After all Tang owes them his livelihood.
If Tang leaves the most likely replacement would be Don Dunstan, the old warhorse of Council fights. The whole dynamics of this conflict ridden Council would change. No, I cannot see Tang leaving unless he has to because of some proven illegality. Ethics and morality does not come into it.
May 19, 2011 at 2:56 PM
If you think Don Dunstan is a step forward for Glen Eira then I’m not sure where Glen Eira will end up. Been there – done that, move on.
May 22, 2011 at 2:53 PM
move on to where? simpson desert? or sahara? anyone knows where is this council going?