A brief report (with further details tomorrow) on tonight’s motion by Neil Pilling to introduce a Notice of Motion into the Local Law. It was defeated. The votes were as follows –
Magee, Penhalluriack and Pilling in support of motion. Forge abstained and Lobo was still on leave. Vote against motion – Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff.
Arguments by ‘the gang’ were astounding – ie. introducing a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’; Lipshutz was concerned about the future and safeguarding future councillors and council. There was also ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ line. Councillors need advice and information otherwise a real threat to responsible decision making, and so on.
Some other ‘highlights’ –
- the Duncan McKinnon redevelopment will go ahead. Cost is now 8.8 million!
- ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ is no longer a policy, but termed a ‘mantra’!
- Lipshutz now urges resident objectors to ‘have a go’ at VCAT – obviously forgetting his previous dictum that ‘we know best’ and that residents will come out worse if they object! The VCAT overturning of a council decision obviously meant that his long standing arguments also had to be ‘overturned’.
- McKinnon development – not seven double storeys, but 6.
- Public question on the accuracy of council responses remains unanswered.
- Importantly, Newton’s spiel on Notice of Motion and the normal process of ‘noting’ the report did not gain an unanimous vote – it was merely ‘carried’. A first in Glen Eira!
- Decision on Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed buildings now to go to a Panel.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 7, 2011 at 7:59 AM
How come Forge abtained? It could not be a conflict of interest.
June 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM
This is an excellent decision made in the interest of good governance.The CEO clearly stated the various methods available to individual Councillor’s to have matters of interest raised in Council. Basically you have to go through a process before matters are raised in Council. Why would you want to waste valuable Council time on a matter that has no support?
June 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM
How could Cr. Forge not understand that all councillors are required to vote on all items, unless they have a conflict of interest. Councillors should be should be required to under go some sort of training to learn how to behave. Their is no excuse for someone that has been on the Council for sometime not to understand their responsibilities. This Councillor needs counselling before the next Council meeting so she fully understands that she in involved in a level of Government and not the local tennis club committee.
June 7, 2011 at 4:18 PM
Glen Eira, for the operators of this blog to preach “governance” and allow Cr. Forge to abstain from a vote is amazing. Your editorials demand high standards from Councillors yet Cr. Forge breaks one of the first rules of Council and there is no comment other that she abstained. To put the record straight she didn’t abtain, that would be illegal. Cr Forge left the room to avoid voting. She is there to represent the people that live in the Camden Ward and not to serve her own needs. Glen Eira you started this blog and transmitted impression that you would be balanced. This one slipped through.
June 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM
Dear Anon,
your comments are quite amazing. First of all, we simply don’t have the power to ‘allow Cr. Forge to abstain from a vote” since we are not in council and are not the chairs of council meetings. In the second place you should have noticed that our post on last night’s meeting was nothing more than a very, very brief summary of some of the events – and as we stated more detail will follow. This is yet to happen. So your comments on our ‘preaching’ of governance are not only premature, but incorrect. If you wish to criticise us, then please do so AFTER we put up the report and express a viewpoint. Finally, it was Mayor Esakoff we believe who suggested that Forge leave the room. What is your view on that Anon?
June 7, 2011 at 7:18 PM
Point taken. I shall look forward to the detailed report of the meeting. If the mayor suggested that she leave the room it was probably all that was left to save Cr. Forge from herself. By refusing to vote she would be clearly in breach of the law that she has sworn to upheld on taking office. It would be poor leadership to have done anything else.
June 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM
So, the gang of four are at it again. What a surprise. Newton should take them all out to the most expensive restaurant he can find in order to thank them for their undying support of his fiefdom. Then again, maybe he already has!
June 7, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Everyone is concentrating on Forge here. Her performance is trivial compared to what has occurred over the Hawthorn Rd property. The agenda papers told us that outside Heritage Advisors had been consulted and then we get the decision to go to a Panel despite what the Department is supposed to have said and which is included in the Officers’ reports. To me this is an unbelievable decision. We’ve already had council own heritage person saying “no” to the removal of the listing. We’ve had the department basically saying “no”; we’ve also had external experts who said “no” and yet there is this decision. As a ratepayer I believe I am entitled to know a couple of things: how much did it cost me as a ratepayer to seek this external advice? Why would councillors go against this external advice and involve council in further expense? It seems a pretty expensive gamble with I’d say only a 50/50 chance of it being pulled off and the panel recommending removal of heritage status. From a couple of points of view this exercise allows Lipshutz and the rest of his cohorts to wriggle out of a very uncomfortable situation – namely, supporting their friend in Esakoff, whilst not having to vote for or against the application given the department’s recent ruling. The onus can now be placed on the recommendations of the panel. I suspect that there’s much more to this than meets the eye.
June 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM
I suspect you are right Anon – 6 reports in total (4 in the past few months, 1 in 2009/2010 and the original in 2000). Yet the only report to accompany any agenda item or minutes is the 2000 report.
I’d like to add “why aren’t the lastest 5 reports published” to your list of questions