The following comments are taken directly from the minutes of the last council meeting and refer to Magee’s statement (cited in an earlier post) about the farce that occurred when Penhalluriack attempted to request a report. Both Tang and Hyams responded to Magee’s comments.
11.2 Right of reply
Cr Tang: “I’d like to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by Cr Magee at this meeting at Item 11.1 Requests for Reports. Cr Magee has suggested that once Cr Penhalluriack opens his mouth he is expected to go through a rigmarole. I believe by direct implication the rigmarole he was referring to was the application of the Local Laws. I believe the direct implication is that other Councillors are not subject to the same application of the Local Laws. I distinctly recall being put through the same rigmarole last week when I tried to move an amendment to the budget as advertised. And at other times when we have tried to settle a motion where not all Councillors were in the same position of agreement nor was it clear that there was a majority of Councillors in agreement that would support any particular motion and in doing that it’s a bit messy but Councillors have to be able to move amendments because they should be able to amend something that is on the floor. Otherwise motions will come that no majority of Councillors are in support of. Motions will come where there are two Councillors on one side two Councillors on another side two Councillors in the middle and two Councillor who don’t know what is going on and one Councillor who is not there. Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency. You’ll have the Chair dictating which motion they’ll accept and you’ll have no objective assessment as to whether the Chair was being fair in that application. So I think the implication that Cr Magee clearly made was against each and every one of us Councillors in trying to apply the Local Law to Cr Penhalluriack but not applying it to any other Councillor.”
Cr Hyams: “I would also like to exercise a right of reply if I may. To the same comments that were made by Cr Magee. I agree with Cr Tang that the import of Cr Magee’s comments were that somehow the Local Law is being applied unfairly to some Councillors whereas not others whereas I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t. And I think that if Councillors look back on the way things have worked around here, each Councillor has at times been pulled up for going outside the Local Law. And I also think that when Councillors are finding their ways frustrated other Councillors who have actually tried to assist those Councillors in finding a way to do what they want to within the Local Law.”
Glen Eira Debates 
May 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Tweedledum and Tweedledee – joined at the hip. What lousy, lousy presentation, especially for lawyers. Ain’t they supposed to be articulate, even eloquent? This drivel is the hallmark of the kind of claptrap (I won’t dignify it with the appellation of ‘debate’) that occurs in chamber. But, and a very big but, is that both are attempting to hide the culprit – the Local Law itself. If this law wasn’t so antidemocratic, then two things would happen. You wouldn’t have this nonsense of a ‘rigamarole’, nor would you have a call to sack council. You’d also have real democracy on hand. So what, if two councillors disagree with two others? The chamber should be the place where those arguments are put, openly and in public, and then let the real debate start. And if councillors have to sit there for an extra hour or so, then so be it. I’d rather things like this than what we’ve got now – orchestrated performances that are all teed up in assemblies. The joke of course is that when it suits them they claim that they’re not Hansard or parliament, but when it comes to gagging councillors, oh my gosh, then the Local Law is sacrosanct. What a load of total bull! Wake up councillors and stop defending the indefensible. Either you change, or you won’t be there in December 2012!
May 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM
It’s really simple. There are laws of nature: physics, chemistry, biology etc. There are also man made laws that lawyers are so fond of because it makes them money and makes them important people. The simple fact is that a bad law is a bad law, and people change it with monotonous regularity. If you go to any Law Library and have a look at the Law books of 1901, when Federation was created and compare to the number of laws created every year since then, you will not be surprised at the complexity our lawmakers have created for their own benefit, but hardly anybody else. In fact the laws are so convoluted that lawyers themselves are bamboozled by them.
To our lawyers, Tang, Hyams, and Lipshutz I say do your job properly and make sure that the Local Laws are user friendly, beneficial to both Councillors and the Community. Lawyers supposed to be business people. In business the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies. You have failed miserably in Glen Eira.
May 20, 2011 at 11:31 PM
Did I miss something but didn’t Frank raise a motion regarding a footpath on Queens Avenue? What happened to it?
May 20, 2011 at 11:33 PM
It was lost in the mayhem!
May 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM
These comments by Tang and Hyams are to my mind incredibly revealing in regard to the mentality that operates within this council. Tang’s attempt to defend the local law, and hence the status quo, hinges on an incredibly suspect argument -“motions will come that no majority of councillors are in support of”. The logical extension of such an argument is that the only motions worth putting up are those that have already been decided, or are most likely to have majority support. This effectively rules out minority voices, and minority views. It is antithetical to the whole concept of free speech and equal representation. processes should never, but never, be given prominence over the right of anyone to freely express an opinion, and the opportunity to argue a case.
In turn, Hyams defense of the law comes across as arrogant and again barking up the wrong tree. By claiming that he is one of those elect few “who work within the law”, (that is his superior understanding because he is a lawyer?)is insulting to his other colleagues, as well as an admission of how out of touch this local law actually is.
I’m not suggesting that laws should be ignored. I value their existence, and the roles they play. But this is not an argument to defend the Glen Eira Local Law. That both Tang and Hyams see fit to do so, via arguments that defy logic, should make it 100% clear to ratepayers exactly what they believe in, and exactly how they seek to stifle genuine debate.
May 21, 2011 at 7:51 PM
Ya hafta know when to keep your mouth shut. That’s beyond Tang and as for Hyams, well he blew his stack. Not a good look Jamie boy! So below the belt, so over the top, so unnecessary. Gosh, how dare anyone challenge you and your mates. Watch it buddy – your true colours are coming out.
May 22, 2011 at 7:08 PM
ABSOLUTE HYPOCRITES
Cr Tang’s comments “Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency”
Does he seriously think he can make statements like this and people will treat him with respect, I mean after all the crap that’s gone on with the Frisbee group and his mates, does he know about Local Law 326?
If he does know about Local Law 326, how does he explain “our treatment” versus the “Frisbee groups” treatment with direct reference to his comment above?
I’ll give you consistency, we REQUIRE a permit and INSURANCE, and your MATES DO NOT. I dare you to challenge me and say I am lying!
Cr Hyams comments “I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t.”
WRONG, we do understand Local Law 326, we work within Local law 326, can you shed any possible light on why we would still feel frustrated, just have a wild guess?
These will be coming back again as public questions too, just thought I’d give you some prior notice this time so you can concoct some meaningless answer again, I know try something fresh, how about you take the “questions on notice” or “we have answered this before”.
I also would like to appologise for lodging my question in accordance with the published guidelines as set out on your official website. But for some strange reason they still get knocked back, sorry for making you do your job after I have followed your own policy, I should know better.
May 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM
MULCH ADO ABOUT?
The campaign about the Glen Huntly Mulch Shed by Leader is ably assisted by Glen Eira Admin. The sign at the shed reads ‘At te Council Meeting on 5 April 2011, Council resolved to close this facility and no longer provides this free service.’
The Leader headlines read:
• Mulch never a problem
• Service solely missed
• Mulch ado about?
• Mulch service victim to the nanny state
• Move it don’t bury it
• Anger after free service scrapped
This Mulch story reminds me of the Wolf and the Lamb story http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aesop-fable-the-wolf-and-the-lamb.htm . The moral of the story is ‘Any excuse will serve a tyrant’.
Here are some questions: How long does it take to remove a shed? How long does it take to install a shed somewhere else? How long does it take to find another place in Glen Eira for a shed to provide the FREE mulch service?
May 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM
you may as well ask ‘how many politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb? four is the normal answer. one to do the job and three to argue about.’ in ge i can’t see any light bulbs. everything is done in the dark.
clearly, the mulch issue is being milked for all its political worth to screw penhalliurack. is the admin being supported by other councillors? for sure by the gang of four or five. i wonder what’s in it for them.
May 23, 2011 at 8:22 PM
The Mulch Shed issue is a typical example of how this Council uses administrative procedures and communication (weasel words) to generate conflict and dissension among Councillors and the Community. How long does it take to dismantle a shed like this? I’ll give you 2 hours and would sack anybody that could not do it within such time. To erect such a shed should not take more than 4 hours!
As for choosing a replacement location that has no playground, there are 4 such parks or reserves: Moorleigh Community Village; Virginia Reserve; Boyd Park; and Mallonbool Reserve. It took me 20 minutes to search and find those sites. It’s 7 weeks from 5 April when the decision was made. Shame on you Council.
I think this Mulch Ado About is a deliberate, malicious, and vindictive action on the part of those that are doing it. It is also highly unprofessional and unbecoming of anybody, Councillors or Administration. It’s one more nail in the coffin of this Council as it will be remembered.
May 23, 2011 at 10:34 PM
I agree with everything you have said. Having recently visited Allnut Park, the yet to be spread mulch heaps are clear evidence of how little thought was put into what to do with the mulch. Those of you still complaining about the removal of the mulch, just head your trailer to Allnut Park – it’s yours for the taking.
May 23, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Instead of one foot deep mulch, there’s now 2 foot deep mulch everywhere in our parks. We’ll need a flood like in Noah’s time for rain to actually get down to the roots of trees. And the mess everywhere. I must also congratulate the genuises who keep piling up this mulch on no longer existing trees (that is, they’ve been ripped out years ago) so that we have piles of mulch that don’t protect anything. All they’re doing is stopping grass regrowing. Now, if this council had any sense it would have either removed the old mulch from these now vacant spots, or replanted the trees that they ripped out unnecessarily, or allowed to die for lack of water and proper attention in the first place. But hey, that would be too logical and competent.
May 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Just a few quick ideas.. perhaps the mulch would be suited for the horse staqll boxes at the racecourse.
May be the mulch heap would look noce in the Town Hall Carpark.
The area on east of raqcecourse where our councillor hopelessly tried to move an emergency motion needs urgent attention as it is always filled with puddles and is abreeding pond for killer visuses carried by mosquitoes. Or doesn’t it matter if residents in Caulfield EAST CONTRACT MALARIA, ENCEPHALITIS OR ROSS RIVER FEVERTHE EAST SIDE OF QUEEN’S AVENUE NEEDS A FOOTPATRH!!!!!!!