Item 9.11 of the Agenda Items contains Newton’s response to Penhalluriack’s ‘request for a report’. It reads: “That officers prepare a report on suggested changes to the Local Law that will provide for Councillors to raise a notice of motion.”
Newton begins by stating that Glen Eira “does not provide for Notices of Motion” and, in part, the justification is that previous councils (ie 2003-5; 2005-8 and the present council) “‘have all decided against having such a provision.” Does this mean it is set in concrete and untouchable for ever more?
We then get a page and a half “summary”’ of the Queen’s Avenue issue, which precipitated the last Council Meeting fiasco. Newton deflects the argument stating that the path is narrow, unsafe, etc. and that “people should not be encouraged to use that side of the road in its present state”. He concludes that “it would be undesirable to make minor changes which increased use without increasing safety”. In what appears to be an incredible statement, Newton then refers to the MRC agreement where improvements” have been scheduled (with MRC approval of course) within 5 years! So are we to presume that this currently “unsafe” strip of land will remain untouched for up to 5 years, regardless of the fact that people are obviously using it? And this in itself begs the question of
- for how long has it been in this state?
- how many residents have already complained and for how long have they been complaining?
- SURELY RISK MANAGEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANY POTENTIAL DANGER TO RESIDENTS BE SEEN TO IMMEDIATELY? But No! It sounds as if Newton is prepared to leave the path untouched until the MRC benevolently grants
permission for works – whatever the current risk!
Newton then neatly sidesteps the actual intent of the Request for a Report and rephrases it to his own purposes – namely “how can a Councillor get issues on the agenda of a council meeting?” These are admittedly Penhalluriack’s words, but they in no shape or form represent the actual “request for a report” that became a Council resolution.
Newton goes on to outline the 3 ways of getting issues onto the agenda.
1. Councillors can ‘ask’ for the matter to be included in their briefing meetings. However, in Glen Eira it is the CEO alone who has been delegated the authority to decide what goes onto the agenda. Councillors are thus reliant on his benevolence. One could well ask: How many ‘suggestions’ from councillors have been accorded entry into the agenda over the past few years? How many have been refused? How many have been conveniently forgotten? How many suggestions have got onto the agenda months and months later? Further, why should such ‘negotiations’ take place behind the closed doors of councillor assemblies?
2. Then there is that old chestnut of requesting a report under Urgent Business. What Newton conveniently neglects to tell us is that “urgent business” has to have occurred in the period following the publication of the agenda items and the actual council meeting. That is a matter of days and precisely the problem that Penhalluriack was grappling with at last Council Meeting!
3. However, the section which really demands close reading is Newton’s vision of decision making. Apparently, Councillors can only decide on something after ‘information and advice’ has been provided. He also states that “reports are regularly requested. They are submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting”. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Newton warns us that ‘considering decisions without necessarily having an accompanying submission setting out relevant information and advice’ is bad news. This of course assumes two things: (1) that officers’ advice is always comprehensive, balanced, accurate and truthful, and (2) that councillors are incapable of doing their own ‘research’, fact finding, discussions with residents, etc. Typically, Newton warns councillors that only by receiving officers’ reports and deciding on that bases will this ‘almost always be an adequate defence’. Defence to what Mr. Newton? It is councillors who run council and they are legally empowered to make any decision they like. All that’s required is a majority vote to have legal and binding force. Newton’s final admonition to councillors is – “In the history of Glen Eira, virtually all the decisions which have ‘blown up’ have been taken on-the-run ie without any supporting submission of information or advice”.
Next, we have a really important section entitled ”Technical requirements for Notices of Motion’. We are then assailed with 12 bullet points – all Dorothy Dixers implying almost insurmountable ‘technical’ problems. It’s strange that practically every other council in the state can simply include several unequivocal sentences or paragraphs into the Meeting Procedures and hey presto – the technical problems are all solved! Here are a couple of examples:
Bayside:
(1) A notice of motion must be in writing signed by a Councillor, and be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer by no later than 12 noon at least 4 business days before the meeting at which it is intended to be considered.
(2) The full text of any notice of motion accepted by the Chief Executive Officer must be included in the agenda.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer must cause all notices of motion to be numbered, dated and entered in the notice of motion register in the order in which they were received.
(4) Except by leave of Council, each notice of motion before any meeting must be considered in the order in which they were entered in the notice of motion register.
(5) If a Councillor who has given a notice of motion is absent from the meeting or fails to move the motion when called upon by the Chair, any other Councillor may move the motion.
(6) If a notice of motion is not moved at the meeting at which it is listed, it lapses.
(7) If a notice of motion is moved but not seconded, it lapses.
(8) Except where the notice of motion is to confirm a previous resolution of Council, the notice of motion may be amended.
(9) If the Councillor who has lodged or is moving a notice of motion wishes to amend it, he or she may do so by seeking leave of Council to amend the notice of motion prior to it being seconded.
(10) Once a notice of motion has been moved and seconded, the mover cannot amend it.
(11) Notwithstanding sub-clause (10) another Councillor may move an amendment to the notice of motion, which motion must be dealt with in accordance with clause 35 of this Local Law.
(12) No member of the public may speak to a notice of motion when presented at an Ordinary meeting or a Special meeting. Individuals may request to speak to issues associated with the notice of motion under Division 10 in the event of a report on the item being considered by a Special Committee at a later meeting.
Kingston –
21. (1) A notice of motion must be in writing, signed by a Councillor, and be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer by 12:00 midday on the Wednesday preceding an Ordinary Council meeting. Any notice of motion received after that time must, unless withdrawn in writing, be included on the next relevant meeting agenda;
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must arrange for every notice of motion received by him or her to be endorsed with the date and time of it being received and for it to be kept or entered, in the order received, in a register of notices of motion.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer may include on the agenda immediately following a notice of motion any comment which provides relevant factual information in regard to the issues dealt with in such notice of motion.
(4) If the member who has given a notice of motion is not present at the meeting when the matter is the next item on the agenda to be considered, the Chairperson may move it or may call upon any other member to move it and if the motion is not moved (and
seconded) it lapses.”
Simple isn’t it? Surely, our 9 intelligent councillors can cope with such ‘technical problems’! And let’s not forget that we have three lawyers on Council to oversee the matter.
Here’s the $64 question though –
- Will this report be accepted as it stands? Will it be ‘noted’ and that’s the end of the attempt to introduce a ‘notice of motion’ (and hence real democracy) into Glen Eira?
- Will Newton be asked to rewrite his response and ensure that it directly answers the original ‘request for a report’, or will councillors once again allow this to go through to the keeper?
- Will Newton be asked to clarify and correct his errors of fact?
- How much more spin will ratepayers put up with?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 3, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Notice of motion goes against the grain of this council because it would jeopardise the control that Newton and his lackey councillors have. Nothing could threaten them more than the possibility that unpopular motions are put up and debated in an open council meeting. The myth of cohesion would then evaporate. It would also signal to residents that they might be able to have some say in what goes on the agenda. Again such an idea would be totally reprehensible to Newton and Lipshutz and Tang and Hyams. Councillors over the years have gagged themselves but in the process have succeeded in stifling all transparency and any semblance of good government. Control is best exerted and maintained in secret councillor assemblies and the abominable no surprises policy.
June 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Don’t you get it. Frank has little influence on this council so he know wants to force debate on issues only he is interested in. Andrew Newton is 100% correct in ensuring that Councillor’s decision making process is made only after independant expert advice is provided.
June 3, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Don’t you get it. Newton has all the influence on this council so he now doesn’t want to force debate on issues he wants to hide. Frank Penhalluriack is 100% correct in ensuring that Councillor’s decision making process is open, transparent and accountable.
June 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Bayside and Kingston answer all of Newton’s qualms. Kingston even allows the CEO to provide a report in conjunction with the notice of motion. There shouldn’t be any problems in changing the local law and including the option for a notice of motion into Glen Eira. That this hasn’t been done for years and years says a lot about the way this council works and how it manipulates the law to its advantage and to the detriment of residents. Mr Newton the sky won’t fall in if Glen Eira has a notice of motion.
June 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM
No report back on the floods this council meeting. Even if its presented at the next meeting that will be 4 months since Esakoff asked for the report. Newton can claim all he wants but the truth is that the advice that officers give is very often months late and very often irrelevant to what the request was. 4 months waiting for something as important as how well our drains are going is not what we should be putting up with.
June 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM
Something urgently needs to be done in Queens Avenue urgently as there has been water in puddles there and even on the road currently for about five months now. Mosquitoes will be breeding and our residents will be coming down with Ross River fever,Murray Valley incephjalitis,malaria and other mosquito borne deadly diseases.
Maybe the MRC could pay for proper drainage works as 1. It has built up the track so much the water drains onto the public f
“public Scrub ” area outside it’s tin fence and
2 The club uses excess water all the time on the track for the 20 or so meetings per year and the old science adage of the real Newton comes in
“Water seeks its own level’
tHAT IS OUT ONTO qUEENS rOAD!!!
June 4, 2011 at 7:06 PM
Agree that Queens Avenue is a mess. I was driving along there the other day and almost hit what I guess was a student, who was Asian and was listening to their ipod. Parts of it you can’t walk along, so people walk along the busy road. Five years is too long, lets show some risk management and do something before someone gets killed.
June 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Hi Rosetta , happy to agree on this issue as my latest blog posting demonstrates,
June 4, 2011 at 3:41 PM
Dear Cr. Pilling,
we certainly welcome your change of heart on this fundamental issue given that on November 24th, 2009 the minutes record that in relation to the current Local Law you voted in favour of its acceptance. This was despite the various submissions and individuals speaking for the need for a Notice of Motion to be included.
The minutes read:
“Crs Lipshutz/Tang
That the recommendation in the report be adopted.
8.46pm Cr Hyams left the Chamber.
8.48pm Cr Hyams returned to the Chamber.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”
However, as stated, we applaud your current position and wish you success in passing your intended motion.
June 4, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Let’s see you go whole hog Neil. Get rid of the no surprises policy and Newton’s sole charge of the agenda.
June 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM
For the record Rosetta I wasnt able to attend the Nov 24th 2009 meeting after having been unexpectedly delayed in returning from overseas.
June 5, 2011 at 12:20 AM
We apologise Cr. Pilling. We’ve double checked the minutes and you were an apology!
June 4, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Several matters here have been conflated and need to be unbundled.
Council’s rules for the conduct of a meeting should provide “for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly”. Any use of the rules to intimidate members or limit full participation should be unacceptable. There appears to be a difference of opinion about the purpose of the rules and the way they are being applied. It doesn’t help that there is such a toxic set of relationships around our current Council.
Under Council’s Local Law, the CEO controls the Agenda. There appears to be no guidance or set criteria for what makes it onto the Agenda. Andrew’s response to Council’s request for a report suggests that when a submission is available to inform Council of the beliefs of its officers, then a matter will be put on the
Agenda. Unfortunately Andrew also controls when reports and submissions are made available. They’re not necessarily made available in a timely manner, despite his assertions. It seems to me that there should be a register maintained and publically available of requests for items to be included in the Agenda, along with an explanation from the CEO if a request is refused. The public could then satisfy itself (or not) about the integrity of the process.
There is an established part of the Agenda for Councillors to request reports, and a corresponding part of the Agenda for Councillors to consider reports and move motions based upon them. Provided reports are prepared in a timely manner, that sounds reasonable. To prevent reports getting lost or forgotten, each Meeting should be updated with a list of outstanding reports and the current estimate of when that report will be available. Council could as an Agenda item establish the relative priorities of the outstanding and new requested reports.
I’d also question any automatic assumption that advice from officers is impartial or expert. All reports making recommendations carry with them bias, being the relative weights attached to the various matters. There is also an implicit bias about the choice of what matters get left out of a report. In planning for example, Council officers rarely disclose the policy violations of an application.
Under the Local Law, there is a provision for Urgent Business, for matters that have arisen since circulation of the notice paper. Well until I read Andrew’s report, I was unaware of the danger of the proximity of traffic along Queens Avenue to pedestrians on the western side of the road. For example, “anyone using that side would have to walk very close to the road in places”. It is justifiable for this matter to be treated as Urgent Business now that Councillors are aware of that danger.
They could, for example, avail themselves of the powers provide under Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act “Powers Of Councils Over Traffic”. These include lowering the speed limit, erect works and structures to protect pedestrians, regulate traffic, prohibit traffic on an unsafe road, place obstructions or barriers on a road temporarily. A temporary closure of the north-bound lane could be imposed until the MRC agrees and implements its portion of the works somewhere over the next 5 years. I look forward to reading the Leader Newspaper frontpage in that event (“MRC holds up traffic” or “Bastard Council says safety first”?).
June 4, 2011 at 11:20 PM
I will say it again in basic words that all will understand. All this is about allowing minority Councillors to publically raise issues they have no support for.This has nothing to do with the CEO because believe it or not he has no vote. If 5 Councillors vote for a Notice of Motion then the CEO must expedite the Councils recommendation. Has anyone out there ever seen the CEO vote at a Council meeting?
June 5, 2011 at 12:33 AM
You’re forgetting one thing. Councillors are there to speak for us, including you. It’s the community they’re supposed to represent. Thus if one person asks a councillor to get something onto the agenda like Queen’s Rd for instance, then it should be addressed. Just because it doesn’t suit Newton doesn’t mean that the community and those elected to speak for them should be silenced.
June 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM
This just goes from bad to worse. So now we have Anonymous publically asserting that the Local Law is indeed being used to prevent discussion on matters that one or more unknown individuals have decided they don’t want discussed publically. Worse, the contention is that this is being done *without* being informed on a matter, something that Andrew Newton clearly felt strongly about. Deciding to do nothing to change the status quo *is* making a decision. Since the decision as to what goes on the Agenda is Andrew’s, I don’t know how he establishs that a matter has no support from fellow Councillors or how those Councillors can justify prejudging a matter.
As for the CEO voting, we know the position is not a democratic one. Further, LGA requires council staff to act impartially and with integrity, including avoiding conflicts of interest. Andrew could, maybe even should, explain why he was privately lobbying councillors to vote for C60, and why this latest brouhaha involves yet again his very public support for the MRC. As if maybe doing something in the next 5 years is sufficient.
June 5, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Wonderfully well said Reprobate. I’m afraid that logic and the truth will never convince individuals such as our Mr. Anonymous. His consistent support of whatever Newton does, good or bad, only goes to reveal his bias and his lack of understanding about what really matters to ratepayers.
June 5, 2011 at 4:37 PM
I don’t see why you can say that it is not democratic. I always thought that the majority wins. Pretty simple. Frank P. got on the Council with one thing in mind and that was to do something about the caulfield race track. His efforts have had a big impact although he and other may not think so. He probably wants the MRC board running up the Straight in their underpants.
A vote was taken on C60 and it was carried. The MRC will spend $1.9 mill. on improving the centre of the track. Carried. That’s a good start. You may not like the methods of the CEO but if 9 councillors vote and it is 5 to 4 then the majority wins. As to what really matters to ratepayers. Go up and down your street and ask them who their councillors are or what is happening in the town hall. You may be surprised. Just because some live with the idea that everyone thinks like them, these “some” would be disappointed. Their bins get emptied and their land value goes up and their rates are cheaper than their friends in adjoining municipalities. Reality wins. Politics is tough business. That’s it, mate.
June 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM
An undemocratic vote of only four Councillors was taken on C60 so it got up. Penhalluriack who received a record number of electoral votes based on a election platform of improving access to the Caulfield racecourse was not even able to vote on the issue because Newton set up a “special” committee and excluded him and supporters such as Lobo and Forge. How is that democratic? Over 120 people in angry voice at a committee meeting says to me Newtons days are numbered along with his hacks (Burke, Waite, Akehurst, Gibbs, McLean…). Next year when elections are finally held will be a most telling point in the history of Glen Eira.
June 6, 2011 at 7:53 AM
If nine councillors had voted it wouldn’t have changed rhe outcome. You know that.
June 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Councillors set the strategic direction the Council takes and the CEO impliments the Policy. If you want a Council to discuss a path in Queen St then that Council will soon be unworkable.None of you have any understanding what a Board actually is there for. You are all peasants.
June 5, 2011 at 11:42 PM
There is no doubt that Glen Eira’s local laws are deficient not just in regard to not allowing a Notice of Motion but in many other respects which restrict debate and transparency in council.
The last review also placed additional restrictions on public questions without any obligations on council to even address the questions being put. Councillors are forbidden to ask each other questions without notice. The opportunities for residents to address council are almost non-existent. It’s a sorry list.
However, Andrew Newton is correct in stating that the local laws have been reviewed on a regular basis – and council voted unanimously in favour each time, ignoring community submissions almost totally. Frank himself voted for the most recent review – he really should have known what he was voting for.
Regarding the most recent fiasco which has prompted this discussion, Frank has again shown his naivety as a Councillor. In terms of the issue he wanted to raise, requesting a report was the obvious path to take. Why he didn’t do this is puzzling.
The other option was to have it put on the agenda by raising it at an assembly of councillors. Now I agree that this may not have been successful as the CEO controls what goes on the agenda – but here again council agreed to this in accepting the local laws. However, there is no evidence that Frank has raised this issue in an assembly of councillors. In fact, he didn’t even attend the assembly of councillors prior to the May meeting. I note that the issue of requesting a report on an alternative mulch facility was raised at that assembly and subsequently put to the council meeting.
So what was Frank’s intention? Did he expect that council would make a decision on expenditure on what would probably be a useless footpath in Queens Avenue without any prior notice? My understanding is that many residents appreciate the fact that there is some vegetation screening the ugly fence around Caulfield Racecourse in Queens Avenue – in fact, I recall that some may have been planted by the residents themselves some years ago when they became frustrated by council’s inaction.
It will of course be interesting to see how this report is received. As the CEO has addressed the issue of Queens Avenue in his report, does this mean a motion can now be put? Will Frank actually stand up for residents and move for a review of the local laws – or is he just interested in pushing his own agenda?
And on a related matter, why aren’t the minutes (inadequate as they are) of the latest assembly of councillors included in the minutes? The briefing meeting usually happens the week before council meetings – plenty of time to include them in the agenda.
June 6, 2011 at 12:43 AM
You point to some pertinent issues Glen Huntly. Councillor naivety is one and I think that when naivety is matched against political and bureaucratic manipulations, then either you don’t stand a chance or it takes a little while to acquaint yourself with those you can and can’t trust. Then there’s the next series of tactical games that someone like Newton has surely perfected over years and years of being a senior Sir Humphrey. It works by “interpreting” the law for councillors – but of course only emphasising those things you want to emphasise and to ignore the rest that might be used to your disadvantage. Even the great lawyers we have on council such as Lipshutz, Tang and Hyams (the latter two have never practised I think) and Lipshutz is after all only a family lawyer are I suspect no match for the games that are played – especially those games where these three have no part. What all this means is that councillors depth of knowledge of what they can and can’t do is limited and then further restricted by the continued haranging and pressure of Newton and Burke. It’s no accident that at every opportunity the LAW in capitols is preached to them. It’s also no accident that every relevant ombudsman’s report and the bits that relate to councillor/officer relations is highlighted again and again. Subtle, and not so subtle pressure all the time. Then finally, when all else might fail, Newton resorts to the argument that showing any disagreement in public is showing a dysfunctional council and we can’t have that can we – not after 3 inspections, one sacking and other bits and pieces throughout the years. The facade of unity must be maintained at all costs. The cost though is a lousy meeting procedure in the local law and the handing over of all control and power to those unelected bureaucrats. Newton sits back laughing his head off at his cunning whilst some councillors run around like rabbits dealing with minutae that Newton has clobbered them with. Not big issues just heaps and heaps of rubbish to keep them busy and occupied and away from their real jobs – asking questions and getting decent answers and running the bloody place. Chooks without a head – and we know who’s done the chopping.